6 Pine Grove Park, Boxworth End, Swavesey, Cambridge, CB24 4RG : CAM/12UG/PHI/2025/0787 CAM/12UG/PHI/2025/0787
DECISION
[1]The Tribunal determines that the new pitch fee for the pitch known as6 Pine Grove Park, as from 1 April 2025, is £249.35 per month.REASONS
[2]The Respondent is the occupier of the park home at the Park home address. They have not agreed to an increase in pitch fees for 2025. The site owner must therefore apply to this Tribunal if it is to obtain an increase in pitch fee. There does not appear to be any dispute that the annual review date for pitch fees is on 1 April as set out in the occupation agreement. The previous pitch fee was £242.09 per month[3]On 1 March 2025 notice of the proposed new pitch fee, in the prescribed form, was served on the Respondent, explaining that as from the 1 April 2025 the pitch fee would be increased by 3% in line with CPI for January 2025, in accordance with the Office for National Statistics CPI table. The new pitch fee proposed was £249.35 per month.- © CROWN COPYRIGHT[4]The Tribunal issued a directions Order on 9 January 2026 saying that the Tribunal proposed to deal with this application by considering the papers only, without a hearing unless any party requested an oral hearing which would then be arranged. No such request was received. However, on reviewing the bundles submitted, the tribunal decided to inspect and did so on 27 April 2026. The Occupation Agreement[5]A copy of such agreement has been produced which seems to comply in all material respects with those terms imposed by the Mobile Homes Act 1983 (“the 1983 Act”) as it was. The only material amendments since have been to give this Tribunal, rather than the court, jurisdiction to deal with the approval of pitch fees if agreement cannot be reached. The Law[6]The site owner can only increase the pitch fee annually with the agreement of the occupier or, in the absence of agreement, by a determination of the new pitch fee by this Tribunal.[7]The site owner must give the occupier written notice accompanied by a prescribed Pitch Fee Review Form. The Tribunal notes that the prescribed form has been used and the relevant time limits have been complied with in this case.[8]Paragraph 18(1) of Schedule 1 to the Act provides that when determining the amount of the new pitch fee, regard shall be had to - sums expended by the site owner since the last review date on certain improvements, any deterioration in the condition and any decrease in the amenity of the site or adjoining land occupied or controlled by the site owner since 26 May 2013 (in so far as it has not previously been taken into account), any reduction in services supplied by the site owner or deterioration in the quality of such services since 26 May 2013 (in so far as it has not previously been taken into account), any direct effect on the costs payable by the site owner in relation to the maintenance or management of the site of an enactment which has come into force since the last review date, but no regard shall be had to any costs incurred by the site owner since the last review date for the purpose of complying with the amendment to the Act made by the Mobile Homes Act 2013.[9]Paragraph 19 also excludes from consideration any costs incurred by the site owner in connection with expansion of the site, or in relation to the conduct of proceedings under the Act or the agreement, or fees paid by the site owner under sections 8(1B), 9A to 9I or 9B of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960.[10]As to the amount of any increase or decrease in the pitch fee, the starting point is that regard shall be had to the CPI. Schedule 1, paragraph 20 of the 1983 Act, which overrides the express provisions, goes further than this by saying that there is a presumption that the pitch fee will change with the CPI, unless this would be unreasonable having regard to paragraph 18(1). 2[11]Upon application, the Tribunal has to determine 2 things. Firstly, that a change in the pitch fee is reasonable and, if so, it must determine the new pitch fee. There is no requirement to find that the level of the pitch fee is reasonable.[12]When determining the new pitch fee, Section 18(1)(aa) of the Act, requires that regard shall be had to "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)”. Regard must also be had to other matters, depending on the circumstances, such as specified sums spent on the site by the site owner, any direct effect on the costs payable by the owner in relation to maintenance or improvement of the site of an enactment that has come into force since the last review date. The Inspection[13]The tribunal inspected the site on 27 April 2026. The chair was accompanied by Laura Lawless, Legal Officer. The Applicant site owner was present, although for the inspection of the park the maintenance manager for the site owner, Mr Palfreyman and Mr and Mrs Laker, park home owners accompanied the tribunal.[14]The tribunal found the site to be relatively compact but well laid out with 39 pitches. Most of the homes are well established.[15]Roads were generally in reasonable condition with some small areas of cracking to the surface which had been recently repaired.[16]Some pitches have on-pitch car parking and there are car parking spaces for others available on site.[17]The entrance to the site has a number of trees and a grassed area. Submissions[18]There were a range of submissions and arguments made by both parties, and the tribunal has not attempted to capture all of these – but focus on the main, and relevant, points raised. For the avoidance of doubt, where the Tribunal does not refer to submissions, it should not be assumed that the Tribunal has ignored them or left them out of account. CPI increase[19]The Applicant relied on pitch fee review forms served on the Respondent dated 1 March 2025. Sections 2 and 3 of these forms stated that the previous review date had been 1 April 2024 and that the new reviewed pitch fee would take effect on 1 April 2025. The Applicant 3 indicates that there have been no changes in the site since the last review. The increase was on the basis of an adjustment of +3% in line with the movement in the Consumer Prices Index over the 12 months to January 2025.[20]The Respondent had made a number of submissions, and the Applicant had provided a response to these. Sewerage[21]The Respondent felt that the sewerage system was inadequate for the mobile park. Contractors (Dalrod) had been called out to the park on numerous occasions. The site owner had been told previously that the sewerage pipe at the entrance to the site was too small and it needed replacing.[22]The Applicant denied that the sewerage system was inadequate. The Respondents had provided no evidence that this was the case, nor had they explained what their assertions were based on, nor provided any expert evidence to support their claims.[23]The Applicant had asked their contractor to visit the park on several occasions to investigate. This had resulted in a report to Anglian Water who are responsible for pipes outside the park. They understood that works to the mains may be required but that these were the responsibility of the water company.[24]They employed the contractor to flush the system several times a year and provided receipts for 2024 and 2025[25]The contractor had investigated following a complaint by the Respondents in February 2026 and found no issues.[26]In addition, the complaints had only occurred in 2026 and, if there was any substance to them, which was denied, they would not be relevant to the current pitch fee review. Electricity boxes[27]The Respondents said that the green fuse boxes in the gardens of the mobile homes were old and outdated and that electricians had refused to do repairs in the home as the fuse box was ‘borderline illegal’[28]The system was only adequate for sockets and not for sockets and other appliances. The doors to the fuse box were broken and would not stay shut allowing rain to enter – which was dangerous. The site owner had been informed of this and had done nothing.[29]The Applicant said they had previously sent contractors to put new hinges on the meter boxes where required and had obtained a quotation for new boxes last year. They planned to replace these in 4 stages and the maintenance manager confirmed that this was due to start imminently. Boundary Fences and Trees[30]The Respondents said they had lived there since 2006 and the boundary fences had never received any attention, nor been inspected or repaired if necessary. The trees and bushes needed cutting back. In particular the conifer trees at the site entrance were overgrown, obscuring the signage which made it difficult for delivery drivers and visitors.[31]The site owner denied that boundaries were not attended to as the Respondents claimed. There was a high hedge at the entrance to the park which was cut once year. However nesting birds meant works were sometimes delayed, Recent works to the hedge were part complete and he was in contact with the contractor to agree a date for second part to be completed . He also employed the same firm to cut the grass at the park once a month. Pathways and gardens[32]The Respondents said the road through the park was badly cracked. Pathways were very uneven which was very dangerous. The site signage was a disgrace with the speed limit sign very dirty and on the verge of falling over.[33]The salt/grit boxes were all but useless with new sand tipped on top of the old mouldy compacted mess that was already there.[34]Some gardens were very unkempt, and some residents had erected wooden fencing and sheds which was a fire hazard.[35]Overall, the park was in need of repair and attention, and the Applicant was lacking in his duties to do so.[36]The Applicant denied that the roadways and pathways were in a dangerous condition and said that the Respondents had provided no evidence of this. They accepted that there was one crack near the kerb and this was being investigated but otherwise they were in good condition.[37]They had installed the salt and grit boxes on acquiring the site and they were restocked when required. Cleaning out first was unnecessary.[38]In terms of other pitches, the Applicant would contact park home owners when there was a breach.[39]There was no requirement that sheds or fences be made of metal.[40]The Applicant site owner denied the whole park needed repair and attention. It was regularly maintained and investigations and works carried out where required. 5[41]The Applicant averred that the Respondents had not made out any grounds to displace the presumption of an increase in line with CPI. Determination The Tribunal has had regard to all the matters raised in the submissions by both parties.[42]There does not seem to be any dispute that the formalities imposed by the 1983 Act as to the undertaking of a pitch fee review, the service of notice of increase plus statutory information and the time limits for the application to this Tribunal have been complied with. Thus, the Tribunal accepts that they have all been complied with.[43]The Tribunal must then consider any deterioration in the condition, any decrease in the amenity and reduction in services, either since the since that paragraph came into force (2013) “in so far as regard has not previously been had to that deterioration or decrease for the purposes of this subparagraph.[44]The Tribunal considered all items raised by the Respondents and the response of the Applicant. The tribunal does not dismiss those issues raised by the Respondents nor fail to appreciate that they are matters which are important to them, particularly as long term residents. It was also pleased by the reassurance of the site owner in respect of the replacement of the electrical boxes, repair to the crack at the entrance and the hedge trimming.[45]However, it finds that, overall, there is not sufficient evidence to persuade them that there has been a deterioration in condition since May 2013 or, if so, not sufficient deterioration to displace the assumption of an increase in the pitch fee in line with CPI.[46]There is no basis for finding that it is unreasonable for the pitch fee to be changed, and the Tribunal concludes that the proposed pitch fee increase is reasonable.[47]The tribunal orders that the amounts of the new monthly pitch fees payable by the Respondents from 1 April 2025 is £249.35 Mary E Hardman FRICS IRRV(Hons) 6 ANNEX - RIGHTS OF APPEAL[1]If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) then a written application for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional office which has been dealing with the case.[2]The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the Regional office within 28 days after the Tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the person making the application.[3]If the application is not made within the 28 day time limit, such application must include a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28 day time limit; the Tribunal will then look at such reason(s) and decide whether to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed despite not being within the time limit.[4]The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates (i.e. give the date, the property and the case number), state the grounds of appeal, and state the result the party making the application is seeking. 7