Wyldecrest Parks (Management) Ltd v Susan Kram & Ors

Under the Mobile Homes Act 1983, a site owner may recover charges for utilities only to the extent authorised by the residents’ agreements. Standard terms requiring payment of utility charges ordinarily permit recovery of the amount paid to third-party suppliers, but not a profit, administration charge or charge for electricity supplied to the site free of charge.

The Maximum Retail Price Direction does not authorise a site owner to charge residents for solar-generated electricity merely because the price is calculated by reference to the Direction. A charge for such electricity requires contractual provision. Where residents have been overcharged, the tribunal may order repayment of the overpayment.

The residents of a mobile homes park applied to the First-tier Tribunal under section 4 of the Mobile Homes Act 1983. They alleged that the site owner had overcharged them for electricity between November 2022 and November 2023.

The FTT found an overcharge but could not calculate the amount. It directed the site owner to prepare a reconciliation and make repayment. The site owner appealed on three grounds: the residents’ association was not the proper applicant; the Maximum Retail Price Direction did not apply to electricity generated by solar panels; and the FTT had wrongly required certification of residents’ sub-meters.

The central issues were whether the residents had been charged for electricity supplied free of charge to the site owner, whether repayment should be ordered, and whether the FTT’s procedural directions were justified.

1. Residents’ association. An unincorporated residents’ association without assets was not an appropriate or practicable party to the litigation. The individual residents could jointly make a single application concerning their common issue, with the association acting as their representative. The first ground therefore succeeded.
2. Electricity charges and solar power. Paragraph 21 of Schedule 1, Chapter 2 to the Mobile Homes Act 1983 requires payment of sums due under the agreement, but does not itself create an obligation to pay for electricity. That obligation must be found in the agreement. Paragraph 29 confirms that utilities are excluded from the pitch fee unless the agreement expressly includes them.
3. The standard contractual wording considered in PR Hardman & Partners v Greenwood and others [2017] EWCA Civ 52 permitted recovery only of charges paid to third-party utility suppliers. The reasoning in PR Hardman & Partners v Fox and others [2019] UKUT 248 (LC) was consistent with that approach.
4. The Maximum Retail Price Direction, made under section 44 of the Electricity Act 1989, regulated resale of electricity purchased from an authorised supplier. It did not authorise charging residents for solar electricity supplied free of charge to the site owner. There was no contractual provision entitling the owner to charge for that electricity. The residents had therefore been overcharged. The second ground failed.
5. Repayment and meters. The tribunal had power under section 231A(4)(a) of the Housing Act 2004 to order repayment. The agreed overcharge was £39,194.92, reduced by amounts not paid by residents. The reconciliation direction was set aside and replaced by a repayment direction. The FTT’s direction requiring certification of sub-meters was also set aside as unnecessary, without deciding the detailed construction of Schedule 7 to the Electricity Act 1989.
6. Grounds 1 and 3 succeeded. Ground 2 failed. The finding of overcharging was upheld, the application fee was repayable, and the tribunal would determine the amount due to each resident after receiving a schedule.

• First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber): Found that the residents had been overcharged for electricity, but directed a reconciliation because it could not calculate the overpayment.
• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): Allowed grounds 1 and 3, dismissed ground 2, upheld the finding of overcharging, set aside the reconciliation and sub-meter directions, and substituted a repayment direction.