Wyldecrest Parks (Management) Limited v Yeomans & Ors

For a pitch-fee review taking effect before 2 July 2023, the statutory presumption requires the Retail Prices Index to be used as the measure of inflation. The First-tier Tribunal may consider other matters identified in the statutory scheme, but it cannot treat the level of change in the index itself as a reason to depart from that measure. Nor may it replace RPI with CPI because inflation is unusually high or because park-home occupiers may have limited incomes. The presumption remains subject to the statutory qualification concerning reasonableness and the matters to which particular regard must be had.

The site owner appealed against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal determining pitch fees for seven protected-site pitches under the Mobile Homes Act 1983. The FTT reduced the increase by applying CPI rather than RPI and then limited the increase to 80 per cent of the relevant inflationary measure. The limitation and the site-condition findings were not challenged. The sole issue was whether the FTT had erred in law by using CPI for a review taking effect on 1 April 2023. After permission to appeal had been granted, the parties agreed the new pitch fee at 80 per cent of the RPI-based increase. The Upper Tribunal therefore addressed the legal issue but had to decide whether an appeal determination could still be made.

1. The appeal failed procedurally. The parties had agreed the new pitch fee and there was no remaining dispute or basis on which an appellate determination could be made. Had agreement not been reached, the appeal would have succeeded.
2. Under paragraphs 16 to 20 of Schedule 1 to the Mobile Homes Act 1983, a pitch fee review taking effect before 2 July 2023 was to use RPI as the statutory measure of inflation. The FTT retained a discretion under the statutory scheme, including the power to consider matters under paragraph 18 and to decide whether an increase in line with the presumption was unreasonable. That discretion did not permit it to go behind Parliament’s choice of RPI.
3. The FTT had misunderstood Teignbridge District Council v Clark [2024] UKUT 279 (LC). That decision established that the unusually high level of the RPI increase was not itself a relevant factor capable of displacing the presumption. The same reasoning applied whether the concern was expressed by reference to individual occupiers or to park-home residents generally.
4. The change from RPI to CPI made by section 1(2)(a) of the Mobile Homes (Pitch Fees) Act 2023 took effect only from 2 July 2023 and did not govern this review.

• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): dismissed the appeal because the parties had agreed the pitch fee, while holding that the FTT had erred in law by substituting CPI for RPI.
• First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber): on 11 April 2024, determined the pitch fees and applied CPI, with an additional reduction to 80 per cent because of site condition. Permission to appeal was granted.