Ian Dunkley & Anor v Island Park (Medway) Limited

The First-tier Tribunal has jurisdiction under section 4 of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 to determine whether a site owner has breached an agreement by enforcing, or permitting a third party to enforce, unauthorised charges or access conditions. That jurisdiction is not excluded because the access land lies outside the protected site. A site owner cannot avoid its contractual obligations by surrendering control of access to a third party. The tribunal may give directions concerning access as an amenity connected with the protected site, including directions preventing access being restricted to extract payment.

The appellants occupied a mobile home on a protected site. After the respondent took a lease of the site from Residential Marine Limited, charges and access requirements imposed by Residential Marine were allegedly enforced, or enabled to be enforced, through residents’ key fobs and restrictions on contractors.

The First-tier Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction because the charges were imposed by a third party in relation to land outside the protected site. The appellants appealed with permission. The central issues were whether the respondent’s alleged enforcement or facilitation of the charges raised questions under the agreement to which the Mobile Homes Act 1983 applied, and whether the Tribunal could make consequential orders.

1. Appeal allowed and decision set aside. The First-tier Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine the appellants’ claims against the respondent. The matter was remitted for factual findings and consequential orders.
2. Under section 4 of the Mobile Homes Act 1983, jurisdiction extended to the respondent’s responsibility under the agreement to provide access to the protected site and quiet enjoyment of the pitch. The fact that the access road was outside the protected site did not remove jurisdiction, because the rights of access arose under the agreement.
3. The respondent could not charge for access, use key fobs to extract payment of charges imposed by a third party, or restrict contractors by rules imposed by that third party where those charges and rules were unauthorised by the agreement or site rules. The same conclusion applied whether the respondent itself enforced the charges or permitted Residential Marine to do so.
4. The Tribunal rejected the argument that the respondent’s failure to control the key fobs or its alleged delegation of access control removed responsibility. A site owner could not surrender control of access and thereby enable a third party to enforce obligations which the site owner could not itself impose.
5. Section 231 A(4) of the Housing Act 2004 supplied procedural powers without widening the underlying jurisdiction. Paragraph (d) permitted directions concerning services or amenities connected with a mobile home, pitch or protected site. Access was fundamental to the site’s amenity, so directions could require compliance with access obligations and prevent use of key fobs to extract unauthorised charges.
6. The First-tier Tribunal was directed to determine which charges and requirements were permissible, who was enforcing them, and what order should follow. Residential Marine was to be joined, since the Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine questions arising from its conduct as former site owner and to make appropriate orders.

• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): the First-tier Tribunal’s decision was set aside and the matter remitted for determination.
• First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber): held that it lacked jurisdiction concerning charges and requirements imposed by Residential Marine Limited in relation to access land outside the protected site.