Marigolds Management Limited v Karen Barnes & Ors

For the purposes of the Mobile Homes Act 1983, the holder of a site licence is not necessarily the “owner” entitled to serve a pitch fee review notice. Ownership depends on entitlement to possession under an estate or interest in the site. A pitch fee cannot be changed without the occupier’s agreement or an order of the First-tier Tribunal. The CPI presumption applies to the legally established previous pitch fee, not merely to a figure proposed in an invalid or undetermined notice. The First-tier Tribunal may consider earlier deterioration, reduction or other sufficiently weighty factors when deciding whether to displace the CPI presumption.

These were two appeals concerning pitch fee reviews at a protected park home site. The First-tier Tribunal’s decision dated 10 October 2025 held that Marigolds Management Limited was not the statutory owner when it served the 2023 notices, because its lease was then subject to separate pitch leases. It held that the 2024 notices were valid after those leases had been assigned to Marigolds.

The Tribunal nevertheless used the proposed 1 November 2023 fee as the starting point for some occupiers when applying the 2.2% CPI increase, and declined to apply that increase to pitch 62 because of a reduction in its size. The issues were whether the notices were valid, what fee formed the correct starting point, and whether the reduction in pitch size could displace the CPI presumption.

The Upper Tribunal made the following determinations:

1. 2023 notices. Marigolds’ appeal was dismissed. Under s.5 of the Mobile Homes Act 1983, the owner is the person entitled, by virtue of an estate or interest, to possession of the site, subject only to the rights of persons entitled to station mobile homes. Marigolds’ lease remained subject to separate pitch leases which it did not hold when the notices were served. It was therefore not entitled to possession. Holding the site licence did not determine ownership for the purposes of the 1983 Act.
2. Correct starting point for the 2024 increase. The occupiers’ appeal was allowed. Paragraph 16 of Schedule 1, Part 1, Chapter 2 to the 1983 Act permits a pitch fee to be changed only by agreement or by a First-tier Tribunal order under paragraph 17. The proposed 1 November 2023 figure had not been agreed or determined. It therefore had no legal foundation as the starting point for the 2.2% CPI increase.
3. Pitch 62. Permission to appeal was refused. The settlement agreement had not been produced before the First-tier Tribunal and there was no adequate evidential foundation for an estoppel or other bar. The late evidence did not satisfy the requirements for fresh evidence on appeal. A reduction in pitch size could be a sufficiently weighty factor to displace the CPI presumption. There was no one-year limit on considering such a factor.

The First-tier Tribunal’s decision was upheld as to the 2023 notices and pitch 62, but varied in relation to the starting point for the Solely Second Proceedings Respondents.

• First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber): By a decision dated 10 October 2025, held the 2023 notices invalid, the 2024 notices valid, applied a 2.2% increase from different starting points, and declined the increase for pitch 62.
• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): Dismissed Marigolds’ appeal concerning the 2023 notices, allowed the occupiers’ appeal concerning the starting point for the 2024 increase, and refused permission to appeal concerning pitch 62.