12 Poplars Mobile Home Park Stubby Lane Draycott-in-the-Clay Ashbourne Derbyshire DE6 5BU BIR/17UF/PHC/2024/0004
[2]Subject property : 12 Poplars Mobile Home Park Stubby Lane Draycott-in-the-Clay Ashbourne Derbyshire DE6 5BU[3]Applicants :(1) Christopher Hollingworth(2) Jean Moses[5]Type of application : Application under section 4(1)(a) of the Mobile Homes Act 1983[6]Tribunal members : Deputy Regional Judge N Gravells Mr N Wint FRICS[9]DECISION ____________________________________[10]© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2024 Introduction 1 This is the decision of the First-tier Tribunal on an application under section 4(1)(a) of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 (‘the 1983 Act’). 2 Section 4(1)(a) of the 1983 Act provides (so far as relevant) – In relation to a protected site in England, a tribunal has jurisdiction - (a) to determine any question arising under this Act or any agreement to which it applies …. 3 The Applicants, the occupiers of the subject property, have requested the Tribunal to determine the liability of the Respondent to take appropriate measures in respect of the site boundary fence on the subject property. Factual background 4 The Poplars Mobile Home Park (‘the site’) is a protected site within the meaning of the 1983 Act. It is located on the edge of Draycott in the Clay in Derbyshire. It currently comprises 17 pitches. It has been owned and operated by Development Park Homes Ltd since December 2023. At all material times prior to that date the site was owned by Morgan Peto. 5 Christopher Hollingworth and Jean Moses (‘the Applicants’) are the occupiers of pitch 12 on the site (‘the subject property’). The subject property is located in the south-west corner of the site and abuts the boundaries of the site at the southern end of the western boundary and the western end of the southern boundary. The land beyond the boundaries is farmland owned by a Mr Cawser. 6 In fact, Ms Moses originally occupied the subject property alone but in April 2022 Mr Hollingworth moved in and he and Ms Moses became joint occupiers. They signed a new Written Statement in their joint names dated 1 April 2022. Inspection 7 Although the parties indicated that they would be content with a paper determination, the Tribunal arranged to inspect the subject property on 8 October 2024. Present at the inspection were the Applicants and Dean Vellam, representing the Respondent. 8 The Tribunal carried out an inspection of the boundaries of the subject property identified above (paragraph 5). 9 There is an original timber post and wire fence but this is in a poor state of repair. Mr Hollingworth has, as a result, patch-repaired certain sections of the fence where there were gaps - to secure the boundary and prevent the Applicants’ dog from escaping on to the adjoining farmland. Finally, there is a haphazard and incomplete line of bushes on the farmland side of the timber post and wire fence. In the view of the Tribunal, it is impossible to agree with Mr Vellam’s description of the bushes as a ‘mature hedgerow’. 10 The Tribunal finds that the original timber post and wire fence is ‘the site boundary fence’ for the purposes of the present decision.[11]Relevant law 11 It is not disputed that the 1983 Act applies to the agreement between the parties and that section 2 of, and Chapter 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to, the 1983 Act implies various terms. 12 Section 2(1) of the 1983 Act provides – In any agreement to which this Act applies there shall be implied the applicable terms set out in Part I of Schedule 1 to this Act; and this subsection shall have effect notwithstanding any express term of the agreement. 13 For the purposes of the present decision, the relevant terms are paragraphs 21 and 22 of Chapter 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the 1983 Act. 14 Paragraph 21 provides (so far as relevant) – The occupier shall— (d) maintain — (ii) the pitch, including all fences and outbuildings belonging to, or enjoyed with, it and the mobile home, in a clean and tidy condition … 15 Paragraph 22 provides (so far as relevant) – The owner shall— (d) maintain in a clean and tidy condition those parts of the protected site, including access ways, site boundary fences and trees, which are not the responsibility of any occupier of a mobile home stationed on the protected site … Representations of the parties 16 Mr Vellam, on behalf of the Respondent, argues that paragraph 21 takes precedence over paragraph 22 because the site boundary fence forms part of the pitch comprising the subject property and therefore falls within the occupier’s responsibility to maintain the pitch and fences that belong to or are enjoyed with the pitch. Conversely, paragraph 22 only places an obligation on the site owner to maintain the site boundaries which are not the responsibility of any occupier of a mobile home. 17 In the alternative, and without prejudice to the above argument, Mr Vellam submits that the current boundary fence/hedge is entirely fit for purpose. He relies on the conclusions of a survey carried out by George Finney of Midland Paving. 18 Mr Vellam also states –(a) that the fencing/hedging on the subject property had not been maintained by the previous owner of the site;(b) that the Respondent has not done anything that would cause or would be likely to cause the boundary fencing/hedging to fall into disrepair;(c) that the Respondent has not maintained, repaired or replaced boundary fences on the pitches of other occupiers;(d) that he knows of no other complaints about boundary fencing on the site. 19 Mr Hollingworth, on behalf of the Applicants, states that paragraph 5 of Part 2 of the Written Statement dated 1 April 2022 includes an aerial photograph of the subject property, annotated by the then owner of the site and showing that the site owner has responsibility for the boundary fences of the subject property. 20 Mr Hollingworth makes no submissions in relation to paragraphs 21 and 22 of Chapter 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the 1983 Act. 21 Mr Hollingworth questions the relevance of the matters set out in paragraph 18 above. Discussion 22 The Tribunal determines that the principal issue is the relationship betw[12]14 October 2024 Professor Nigel Gravells Deputy Regional Judge