Riverdale Park Bent Lane Staveley S43 3UH BIR/17UD/PHC/2024/0039-AND-41
DECISION
[1]These are applications for determination of a new level of pitch fee effective from 1 April 2024 for the park home site known as Riverdale Park Staveley Chesterfield Derbyshire. The applications were issued on 4 June 2024, By Directions of the Tribunal on 2 July 2024 the applications were consolidated to be heard together under Rule 6(3)(b) of the Tribunal Procedure (First -tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013. Further Directions were given for preparation of the hearing.[2]The Tribunal inspected Riverdale Park on 30 January 2025. A hearing was fixed for the same day. The Respondents had notified the Tribunal beforehand that they did not intend to appear, The Applicant’s directors attended the inspection. In response to the Tribunal’s enquiry regarding their desire for an oral hearing they stated they relied on their written submissions. The Tribunal decided to deal with the application on the papers after the inspection including written submission received from the Respondents. The claimed increase[3]On 1 March 2024 the Applicant by its director Mrs Catherine Stapleton wrote to the Respondents notifying them of the intention to increase the pitch fee with effect from 1 April 2024. A Pitch Fee Review form prescribed under paragraph 25A(1) of Chapter 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Mobile Homes Act 1983 accompanied the notice. The proposed increase was in the case of Mr & Mrs Hodgman from £433,85pcm to £451,20pcm. For Ms Whitehead the increase was from £427.86 to £449.97. The increases were based on the January 2024 figure in the Consumer Prices Index of 4% in accordance with the presumption that the pitch fee cannot be changed by more than the annual change in Consumer Price Index (CPI), The last review date in each case was 1April 2023. The Agreement[4]Mr and Mrs Hodgman reside at 70 Riverdale Park. Ms Whitehead lives at 110 Riverdale Park. Both Respondents occupy their respective pitches pursuant to the statutory pitch agreement which were produced to the Tribunal with their applications. Both agreements were made on 1 March 2021 although Mr &Mrs Hodgman did not take up occupation until 7 May 2021.[5]The Annex to Part 2 of the Written Statement under the Mobile Homes Act 1983 sets out implied terms of the agreement between the parties relating to occupation of their pitches. The implied terms are those prescribed by Chapter 2 Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Mobile Homes Act 1983 as amended by the Mobile Homes Act 2913. Paragraphs 16-20 of Part 1 are relevant to this case as they set out the procedure for increasing the pitch fee and the right of the licensees to challenge the proposed increase. The Mobile Homes (Pitch Fees) Act 2023, which came into force on 2 July 2023, changed the method of calculating any increase from the Retail Price index to the Consumer Price Index.[6]The CPI figure is calculated by using the last figure that was published, 28 days before the review date. In this case the review date is 1st April 2014, the latest CPI figure prior to 4th March 2014 was published in January 2024 as the Applicant’s notice of increase was prepared and given on 1 March 2024. The CPI Index was 131.5, a 4% change over twelve months.[7]The Pitch Fee Review Form records the proposed increase based on the change of CPI at 4% and the method of calculating the increase in pitch fee.[8]The Respondents objected to the proposed increase as appears below. Consequently, the Applicant issued this application pursuant to the jurisdiction of this Tribunal under s4 Mobile Homes Act 1983 to determine the new level of pitch fee.[9]Paragraph 18(1) of the implied terms which relate to the pitch fee provides (1)When determining the amount of the new pitch fee particular regard shall be had to— (a)any sums expended by the owner since the last review date on improvements— (i)which are for the benefit of the occupiers of mobile homes on the protected site; (ii)which were the subject of consultation in accordance with paragraph 22(e) and (f) below; and (iii)to which a majority of the occupiers have not disagreed in writing or which, in the case of such disagreement, the appropriate judicial body, on the application of the owner, has ordered should be taken into account when determining the amount of the new pitch fee; (aa)any deterioration in the condition, and any decrease in the amenity, of the site or any adjoining land which is occupied or controlled by the owner since the date on which this paragraph came into force (in so far as regard has not previously been had to that deterioration or decrease for the purposes of this sub-paragraph); (ab)any reduction in the services that the owner supplies to the site, pitch or mobile home, and any deterioration in the quality of those services, since the date on which this paragraph came into force (in so far as regard has not previously been had to that reduction or deterioration for the purposes of this sub-paragraph); (ba) any direct effect on the costs payable by the owner in relation to the maintenance or management of the site of an enactment which has come into force since the last review date The Inspection of Riverdale Park[10]Riverdale Park is situated at the end of Bent Lane, there is a bowling green and cricket ground bordering the south side of the Park. A local council run nature reserve borders the northern side. A River Doe Lea forms the eastern boundary with open ground beyond the river.[11]The Tribunal noted some road resurfacing had taken place since the last pitch review. There had been drainage works carried out to reduce the risk of flooding. Some pitches were vacant and in the process of preparation for new owners. Some consequential works had been carried out to prepare for installation of services to the vacant pitches. The Tribunal noticed that some of the trenches created in the course of these works were back filled to road level but had not been covered with tarmac leaving an unfinished appearance.[12]The wooden fence along the border with the nature reserve is in poor condition with some broken staves. According to the Applicant the fence is the responsibility of the local council. The condition has been reported but no action has been taken to repair or replace the fence.[13]There is a small laundry room adjacent to the site office. A public notice board is in the laundry room displaying the site licence and insurance certificate.[14]Three fire alarms were observed around the site located in positions which ensured any alarm was audible across the site.[15]Street lighting is being upgraded. As each lamp fails it is replaced with new more powerful LED lighting. So far only a small number of lights have been upgraded. The Parties Submissions.[16]Mr & Mrs Hodgman made a written statement which referred to some matters falling outside the relevant year and had been considered by the Tribunal at the previous pitch review in 2022.[17]Matters raised by them relevant to the current review were the condition of the fence, the state of the vacant pitches, alleged failure to display site licence and insurance certificates, unsightly accumulations of rubbish, and want of maintenance to the roadways including failing to make good the trenches cut for services. Resurfacing of the road had resulted in the removal of speed bumps.[18]Karen Whitehead raised substantially similar complaints. Her statement included an observation that site maintenance has deteriorated, the site looks old, worn and broken. She considered the site was not value for money and its condition would make it hard to sell their properties.[19]Both Respondents complained of a lack of clarity over the apportionment of the electricity and water accounts, saying +that the Applicant’s directors had not replied to their questions in a timely manner or at all. They also complained about alleged failing by the Applicant to enforce Park Rules against some owners who are careless about their property by allowing engine oil to drip from cars, leaving rubbish on their pitches or parking in visitor spaces.[20]The Applicant in its application asserted there had been alterations to the Park for the benefit of the owners although particulars were not given. The inspection revealed the changes were connected with improvement to the drainage to avoid site flooding which had been a problem, enhanced street lighting and road improvements. Discussion and Decision[21]It appears that the Respondents are rehearsing some issues which were raised at a previous hearing. The Tribunal is aware from its inspection that works done for the additional drainage and in connection with making vacant pitches ready for occupation has not been fully made good. Also the wooden fence is in need of repair but that is the responsibility of the neighbouring land owner.[22]The Applicant complied with the formalities required to increase the pitch fee. The increase may be implemented unless the Tribunal it finds there has been deterioration in the condition or amenity of the site or there has been a reduction in the service that the Applicant supplies to the site.[23]The Tribunal finds that there has been no such reduction in the amenity or services sufficient to refuse or reduce the proposed new pitch fee which is payable from 1 April 2024. Appeal[24]If either party is dissatisfied with this decision they may apply to this Tribunal for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber). Any such application must be received within 28 days after these written reasons have been sent to the parties (rule 52 of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013). Judge P.J Ellis[25](1)In relation to a protected site F3..., a tribunal has jurisdiction— (a)to determine any question arising under this Act or any agreement to which it applies; Mobile Homes Act 2013 n the case of a protected site in England, any deterioration in the condition, and any decrease in the amenity, of the site or any adjoining land which is occupied or controlled by the owner since the date on which this paragraph came into force (in so far as regard has not previously been had to that deterioration or decrease for the purposes of this sub-paragraph); (ab)in the case of a protected site in England, any reduction in the services that the owner supplies to the site, pitch or mobile home, and any deterioration in the quality of those services, since the date on which this paragraph came into force (in so far as regard has not previously been had to that reduction or deterioration for the purposes of this sub-paragraph);”, But, in the case of a pitch in England, no regard shall be had, when determining the amount of the new pitch fee, to any costs incurred by the owner since the last review date for the purpose of compliance with the amendments made to this Act by the Mobile Homes Act 2013.”