24 East Avenue, Riverview, Fambridge Road, Althorne, Chelmsford, Essex, CM3 6DD : CAM/22UK/PHC/2025/0023 CAM/22UK/PHC/2025/0023
DECISION
The Tribunal has determined the questions arising under the Mobile Homes Act 1983 or the agreement to which it applies below.[1]The presence of the Wooden Storage Receptacle on the Park Home constitutes a breach of Park Rules 8 and 9 and must be removed within 28 days.[2]The Agreement permits no more than one vehicle associated with the Park Home to be parked on the Site. The Respondents must comply with Park Rule 21 within 28 days.[3]The shed/structure breaches paragraph 3(g) of Part IV of the Written Statement and Park Rules 7 and 9. Within six months the Respondents shall either:a. Alter the shed/structure so that it complies with Park Rules 7 and 9 and the applicable Site Licence Conditions, and obtain the Applicant’s written approval, such approval not to be withheld unreasonably or delayed; orb. remove the shed/structure from the Park Home.[4]The Tribunal makes no order for reimbursement of the application fee.REASONS
[5]On 7 November 2025, the Applicant applied to the Tribunal in respect of 24 East Avenue, Riverview, Fambridge Road, Althorne, Chelmsford, Essex, CM3 6DD (“the Park Home”) under section 4 of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 (“the Act”) for a determination as to whether the Respondents are in breach of the Park Rules for:a. Installing a Wooden Storage Receptacle adjacent to the Park Home in contravention of Park Rules 8 and 9; andb. Parking an additional vehicle on the site in contravention of Park Rule 21; andc. Installing a shed/structure in breach of Park Rules 7 and 9; and Whether the Respondents are in breach of the terms of the Agreement under sections 3(g) and 3(j) of the Written Statement under the Act. Background and Directions[6]The Applicant is the site owner and operator of Riverview Park which is a protected site within the meaning of the Act (“the Site”).[7]The Respondents occupy the Park Home pursuant to an agreement which is regulated by the Act and which was assigned to Mrs Kittaya Boxer, the First Respondent, on 14 September 2022 (“the Agreement”). The Agreement is subject to the Written Statement under the Act which includes Express Terms and Park Rules.[8]Directions were made on 17 March 2026 with further Directions made on 13 May 2026. In the further Directions, Mr Colin Boxer was added as the Second Respondent, being the husband of the First Respondent and residing at the Park Home, albeit that he is not a party to the Agreement. The matter was subsequently listed for inspection and final hearing.[9]The Applicant filed a bundle consisting of 140 pages which comprised the Directions, the Applicant Form, Statement of Case, Site Licence and Fact Sheet. The Respondents filed a bundle consisting of 271 pages which comprised Further Directions, Respondents’ Statement of Case; Witness Statements of the Respondents, Witness Statement of Mr Stephen Shore and various case 2 authorities. The Applicant subsequently filed a Reply Bundle consisting of 42 pages which included the Applicant’s Reply to the Respondents. The Law[10]The relevant sections of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 read as follows:- “1 Particulars of agreements(1) This Act applies to any agreement under which a person (“the occupier”) is entitled— (a) to station a mobile home on land forming part of a protected site; and (b) to occupy the mobile home as his only or main residence.(2) Before making an agreement to which this Act applies, the owner of the protected site (“the owner”) shall give to the proposed occupier under the agreement a written statement which— (a) specifies the names and addresses of the parties; (b) includes particulars of the land on which the proposed occupier is to be entitled to station the mobile home that are sufficient to identify that land; (c) sets out the express terms to be contained in the agreement (including any site rules (see section 2C)); (d) sets out the terms to be implied by section 2(1) below; and (e) complies with such other requirements as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State. […] 4 Jurisdiction of a Tribunal or the court (1) In relation to a protected site, a Tribunal has jurisdiction— (a) to determine any question arising under this Act or any agreement to which it applies; and (b) to entertain any proceedings brought under this Act or any such agreement. [...] “ Relevant Express Terms and Park Rules of the Written Statement[11]The following are the Express Terms that are relevant to the present matter and are set out in Part IV of the Written Statement. Paragraph 3 states: “The occupier undertakes with the owner as follows:- […] (g) Not without the written consent of the owners to carry out any building works or erect any porches shed garages outbuildings fences or other structures on the pitch […] (j) To comply with the park rules from time to time in force a copy of the current park rules being annexed hereto as the Third Schedule 3 […]” The Park Rules state: […] “Storage[7]You must not have more than one storage shed on the pitch. Where you source the shed yourself the design, standard and size of the shed must be approved by us in writing (approval will not be withheld unreasonably). You must position the shed so as to comply with the park’s site licence and fire safety requirements. The footprint of the shed shall not exceed 48ft² or 4.47m².[8]You must not have any storage receptacle on the pitch other than the shed referred to in rule 7 and any receptacle for the storage of domestic waste pending collection by the Local Authority.[9]You must ensure that any structure erected in the separation space between park homes is of non-combustible construction and positioned so as to comply with the park’s site licence conditions and fire safety requirements. The separation space is the space between your park home and any neighbouring home. […]” Vehicle and Parking[21]Parking is only permitted for one vehicle per park home. Relevant Site Licence Conditions[13]The Site Licence Conditions granted by Maldon District Council provide as follows: […][2]Density, Spacing and Parking Between Caravans […] (iv) (c) Any structure including steps, ramps, etc (except a garage or car port), which exceeds more than 1 metre into the separation distance shall be of non combustible construction. There should be a 4.5 metre clear distance between any such structure and any adjacent caravan. […][13]Communal Vehicular Parking Suitably surfaced parking spaces shall be provided to meet the requirements of residents and their visitors. Inspection[14]The Tribunal carried out an inspection during the morning of 14 July 2026 when it inspected the exterior of the Respondents’ Park Home and walked around relevant parts of the Site. Mr David Blake, Operations Manager for the Applicant, attended the inspection. Mr and Mrs Boxer attended as 4 Respondents, accompanied by Mr Shore, a witness for the Respondents and a former site worker employed by the Applicant.[15]The Tribunal viewed:(i) The Wooden Storage Receptacle which was located between the Park Home and the staircase leading to the Park Home. The Tribunal noted that there were many other park homes which contained a similar wooden storage receptacle;(ii) The driveway on the Park Home and communal parking spaces located around the Site. The Tribunal noted that there was ample vacant parking at the time of their inspection;(iii) The shed/structure which was located within the south side of the Park Home boundary, adjacent to a neighbouring park home. The Tribunal measured the space between the shed/structure and the neighbouring property and took note of the materials used in its construction. It was further noted that the shed/structure wall facing the North Side and adjacent to the Respondents’ mobile home contained the electrical wiring which supported the solar panel system installed on the roof of both the shed/structure and the mobile home. Hearing[16]Immediately following the inspection, a final hearing took place before the Tribunal at Chelmsford Magistrates’ Court at 10 New Street, Chelmsford, CM1 1NT. The Applicant was represented by Mr Blake. The Respondents were unrepresented and were accompanied by Mr Shore and a Thai speaking interpreter who was assisting Mrs Boxer during the proceedings. Applicant[17]Mr Blake provided a Statement of Case dated 7 November 2025 and a Reply Statement dated 18 June 2026 and gave oral evidence to supplement his written submissions.(i) Wooden Storage Receptacle The Applicant considers the Wooden Storage Receptacle to be in contravention of Park Rules 8 and 9 and alleges that it had not received approval. During the hearing, Mr Blake informed the Tribunal that some Park Home residents had a retrospective right to retain their additional plastic or wooden box in accordance with the Park Rules prior to 2014. He advised that during an annual site inspection by Maldon District Council in December 2023, the Council took photographs of the Park Home and emailed him to enquire about “a combustible wooden unit behind the shed” which is not visible in the exhibited photograph. The Council recommended that “it be questioned with reference to its compliance with the spacing allowed”. Mr Olly Curson, then Operations Director for the Applicant, replied that he was “unsure as to the age of this and whether it has a retrospective right or not”. 5 The Applicant states that no Park Home Refurbishment Form (PHRF) was received in accordance with park regulations and no written authorisation has been given for its installation.(ii) (iii) Car Park The Applicant considers that only one vehicle per park home is permitted on the Site in accordance with Park Rule 21. The Applicant referred to a completed Schedule 2 Notice of Proposed Sale Form of the First Respondent’s intention to park only vehicle on the Site. The Applicant made enquiries with the Estate Agents who acted for the Respondent and had recorded the type of vehicle. In reply to Mr Boxer’s allegations that he had resided on Site since 2010 and therefore had a retrospective right to park an additional vehicle on Site, Mr Blake informed the Tribunal that their records showed that Mr Boxer had not resided on the Site until 2019. In the Will of June Theresa Boxer, who is Mr Boxer’s late mother, which is signed and dated 3 April 2018, Mr Boxer’s address is recorded as 32 Woodside, Southminster, Essex, CM10 7RE. On 13 March 2019, the Respondents wrote to the Applicant and their address was stated to be the same. Mr Blake informed the Tribunal that Mr Boxer had previously resided at 1 Central Avenue on the Site but once he moved into the Park Home with Mrs Boxer, the Respondents were only permitted one vehicle to be parked on the Site. During the hearing, Mr Blake informed the Tribunal that where a resident parks on their driveway, they are not entitled to an additional parking space on the Site. There are 105 homes on Site of which 66 have a private driveway. There are 70 visitor parking spaces including communal parking spaces. Therefore, there are 136 parking spaces including private driveways in total. This means that there are 31 spare communal parking spaces. He referred to Maldon District Council requiring a ratio of 1 in 4 parking spaces on the Site to be made available to guests, though this was not contained in the Site Rules. Therefore, the Site does not have sufficient parking spaces to permit each park home owner to park two vehicles on Site. There was no provision and no requirement to provide any Blue Badge / disabled parking spaces on Site. The Applicant had permitted Mr Boxer to park his taxi which he used to transport special needs children on Site during the day when there was more availability of communal parking spaces. However, he was required to park off Site overnight. Shed/Structure The Applicant considers that the shed/structure was erected by the Respondents without obtaining the necessary approval from the Applicant and is in contravention of Park Rules 7 and 9. The Applicant states that the shed/structure exceeds the permitted footprint of 48ft² or 4.47m². The footprint is recorded as having a width of 2.67 metres and a length of 2.05 metres. Additionally, there is an overhang extending from the shed/structure with a width of 1.41 metres and a length of 2.5 metres. The Applicant also considers that the shed/structure is made of combustible materials in further contravention of Park Rule 9. The Applicant notes that the Respondents completed the PHRF for the intended works on 22 September 2022 and that further information was 6 requested from the Respondents in relation to an extension to the mobile home. The PHRF contained a plan which referred to “a shed base” but it did not contain any measurements or specify the type of shed or materials to be used. The Applicant stated in their correspondence that if the Respondents wished to proceed with other parts of the PHRF, they should advise so that they could be considered for approval. The Applicant alleges that no advice was received and so no approval was granted for the shed/structure to be erected. After attempts to resolve the breaches directly, the Applicant issued a Letter before Action dated 7 July 2025 and a Notice of Breach dated 4 September 2025. Mr Blake informed the Tribunal that the shed/structure was approximately 1m² in excess of the permitted footprint. Maldon District Council had carried out an initial inspection and in an email dated 4 April 2024, it noted that it was installed at a distance of 3.95m on the south side to the neighbouring mobile home. Mr Blake stated that the Council has not issued an enforcement notice as it was aware of the negotiations between the parties and the current Tribunal proceedings. The wooden beams within the shed/structure were considered to be combustible material but there had been no fire safety officer inspection because the Council were intending to contact them. Mr Blake advised that the Respondents must address the overhang of the roof; the excess footprint of the shed; the wooden beams and the proximity to the neighbouring mobile home which must be at least 4.5 metres in distance. Mr Blake confirmed that the Applicant was satisfied with the installation of the shed base and said that the layout was not an issue. Respondents[18]Mrs Boxer provided a Statement of Case and Witness Statement dated 2 June 2026. Mr Boxer provided a Witness Statement dated 2 June 2026 and gave oral evidence to supplement the Respondents’ written submissions.(i) Wooden Storage Receptacle In the Respondents’ Statement of Case, under “Issues Agreed” they confirmed that they would “remove the wooden storage receptacle within 28 days of any Order made by the Tribunal”. During the inspection and hearing however, Mr Boxer informed the Tribunal that he had offered to remove the Wooden Storage Receptacle as part of the negotiations in relation to the other issues. Mr Boxer alleged that the Wooden Storage Receptacle had been fireproofed and that the Park Home had been purchased with the receptacle in place. It had been located on the south side of the Park Home. It was then moved to the front of the Park Home as shown in a photograph before being moved to its current position. During the inspection by Maldon District Council in December 2023, Mr Boxer alleged that it had been stored under the overhang of the shed/structure roof and was therefore hidden behind the shed/structure in the photograph taken by the Council. 7(ii) Car Park Mr Boxer has alleged that he has been living on the Site since 2010 before the 2014 Rules and the one-car Site Rule. He said he had lived at 48 East Avenue (his late mother’s park home), then 1 Central Avenue before moving to 24 East Avenue. He stated that it is only since moving to the Park Home that he has encountered issues. He alleged there were no transport links to the Site and that he would lose his job and income if he could not park on Site. Mr Boxer confirmed to the Tribunal that he had previously driven a taxi to transport special needs children. The Applicant had permitted him to park his vehicle on Site during the school day in between his morning and afternoon transportation of the children but did not give permission for Mr Boxer to park his vehicle overnight. During the hearing, Mr Boxer informed the Tribunal that he no longer drives a taxi vehicle and that he had a replacement vehicle. He said that both he and Mrs Boxer required vehicles to drive to work. Mr Boxer has previously rented parking space in close proximity to the Site. However, this parking is no longer available. The Applicant no longer has car port spaces available to rent on Site.(iii) Shed/Structure Mr Boxer referred to having installed a similar shed/structure at 1 Central Avenue before they relocated to the Park Home. He recounted that he had submitted a PHRF setting out their intentions which included reference “to construct a shed base to the southside of the property”. They had included a plan/drawing of the Park Home with the shed/structure illustrated on the plan. The Respondents relied upon a letter dated 17 November 2022 from the Applicant which stated that “we can confirm that we have no objections to the work”. Given that they had permission to install the base, he had surmised that he had permission to install the shed/structure. They believed that they had written consent to proceed. The shed/structure contains equipment connected to the solar installation and electrical system for their mobile home. The Respondents relied upon the internal footprint of 8ft x 6ft to allege that the shed/structure is within the permitted footprint. The external footprint calculations which are not disputed are 8ft7 x 6ft7. The construction work was carried out by Particon, which the Respondents allege is the Applicant’s preferred ground worker. Mr Boxer confirms that the shed is constructed with blockwork material, fully fireproofed internally with fireproof cladding externally to the soffits and roof overhang and rendered to match the mobile home. The overhang of the roof is 4ft6, with 6 solar panels mounted on to the roof tiles and 8 solar panels mounted on the mobile home roof. Mr Boxer alleges that the Applicant attended the Park Home daily throughout the works. Mr Shore gave witness evidence to confirm that he visited five times a week, Mr Ashley McGraph visited several times a week, with Mr Tony Eaves, another manager, occasionally visiting. Shaun Buckley, an area manager had visited, and all had complimented the appearance and quality of the works. Mr Boxer referred to various other structures on other sites and alleged that the Applicant was pursuing “selective and inconsistent” enforcement. The Respondents argue that the removal of the shed/structure would be disproportionate and involve significant disruption, practical difficulties 8 and expense. They provided evidence of an estimate for the removal works totalling £18,320. He referred to the “substantial stress” caused to them by these ongoing disputes and alleged that they were being victimised by the Applicant. The Respondents’ legal representative set out in the Statement of Case that “the Applicant neither communicated a refusal of consent within a reasonable time nor provided any contemporaneous reasons capable of justifying refusal”. He continued, “Even if the Tribunal concludes that some variation exists, the Applicant has failed to demonstrate how any such variation caused prejudice…” He stated that the Respondents rely upon the principle of estoppel and that “an order requiring complete removal would represent a severe remedy”. He concluded, “if the Tribunal finds that any technical breach has occurred, it is respectfully invited to consider whether a more limited and proportionate outcome is appropriate, rather than granting an order requiring removal of the structure in its entirety.” Tribunal’s Determination[21]The Tribunal has carefully considered all the evidence and submissions before determining this application pursuant to section 4 of the Act, which empowers the Tribunal to determine any question arising under the Act and to entertain proceedings brought under it. Wooden Storage Receptacle The first issue for determination is whether the Respondents are in breach of the Park Rules for installing a Wooden Storage Receptacle on the Park Home in contravention of Park Rules 8 and 9. The Tribunal determines that the presence and location of the Wooden Storage Receptacle adjacent to the mobile home constitutes a breach of Park Rule 8. Given that that the receptacle is constructed with wood, the Tribunal finds, on the balance of probabilities, that the Wooden Storage Receptacle is of combustible construction and breaches the Applicant’s fire safety requirements in contravention of Rule 9. The Tribunal determines that compliance requires the receptacle to be removed within 28 days. Car Park The second issue for determination is whether the Respondents are permitted under the Written Statement or Park Rules to park a second vehicle. The Tribunal finds that they are not. Mr Boxer has alleged that there is no alternative, suitable parking in the near vicinity and that the Respondents require their cars for work transportation. Park Rule 21 is clear that only one vehicle may be parked on Site for each park home and the practical difficulties identified by the Respondents do not alter its effect. The Applicant has previously declined to consent to exceptional circumstances permitting Mr Boxer to park a second vehicle overnight and Mr Boxer has not established by way of any documentary evidence that he has continuously resided on the Site since 2010 and/or had permission from the Applicant to retain a second vehicle on Site. In any event, residence at another park home would not, without more, establish an entitlement attached to the Agreement for the Park Home to park 9 a second vehicle. The Tribunal therefore determines that the Respondents only have permission to park one vehicle on Site and the Respondent shall comply with Park Rule 21 within 28 days. Shed/Structure[26]The third issue for determination is whether the Respondents are in breach of Park Rules 7 and 9 for installing a shed/structure. Both parties’ measurements demonstrate that the overall footprint exceeds the maximum permitted 48 ft². We find that the Respondents had not submitted measurements or details concerning its material construction or overhanging roof containing wooden timbers for the Applicant to review and approve. Maldon District Council has also noted the separation distance on the south side adjoining the neighbouring park home. Even if the letter dated 17 November 2022 were construed as granting consent to the works described in the PHRF, it did not amount to approval of a shed/structure of the dimensions and materials subsequently constructed. The structure exceeds the maximum footprint permitted by Rule 7 and fails to comply with Rule 9 and the Site Licence separation requirements. The Tribunal has also considered the Respondents’ reliance upon estoppel. The Tribunal does not find that the Applicant is estopped from relying upon paragraph 3(g) of the Written Statement or Park Rules 7 and 9. The evidence that employees of the Applicant observed the works while they were being carried out, or subsequently commented favourably upon the appearance or quality of the structure, does not establish a clear and unequivocal representation that a structure of the dimensions, materials and location ultimately constructed had received the written approval required by paragraph 3(g) and Rule 7. Nor does the letter dated 17 November 2022 amount to such a representation, as the information supplied to the Applicant did not include the dimensions and full construction details of the structure subsequently erected. The Tribunal has further considered the Respondents’ evidence concerning other shed/structures on the Site. The existence of other structures does not establish that the shed/structure at the Park Home complies with the Written Statement, Park Rules or Site Licence Conditions. The evidence before the Tribunal was insufficient to establish that the circumstances of those other structures, including their dimensions, construction, location, date of installation and approval status, were materially the same. The Tribunal therefore does not find that the Applicant’s alleged treatment of other structures prevents it from relying upon the breaches established in this case. The Tribunal has assessed the calculations as follows: Maximum permitted footprint of the shed/structure = 48ft² (4.47 m²) Applicant’s measurements of the dimensions 2.67 x 2.05m (8ft9 x 6ft9) = 58.9ft² (5.4735m²). 10 Respondents’ measurements of the dimensions 8ft 7 x 6ft 7 (2.62 x 2m) = 56.5 ft² (5.25 m².) On the Applicant’s measurements, the footprint exceeds the permitted maximum by approximately 1.00 m². On the Respondents’ measurements, it exceeds the permitted maximum by approximately 0.78 m².[31]Mr Blake confirmed that the shed base complied with the regulations during the hearing. The Tribunal noted that other sheds on the Site allow a small margin of concrete base around the outside once an 8ft by 6ft (2.4384 metres x 1.8288 metres) shed has been erected, but that this shed/structure which has been constructed of blockwork extends to the outer edges of the concrete base. Additionally, the shed base has been sited too close to the neighbouring park home, noting that the distance should be 4.5 metres and not the current 3.95 metres to comply with Site Licence 2(iv)(c) which stipulates that “there should be a 4.5 metre clear distance between any such structure and any adjacent caravan.” In addition, it refers to any structure “which extends more than 1 metre into the separation distance shall be of non-combustible construction”. The Tribunal refers to the correspondence from the Applicant to the Respondent dated 25 February 2025 in which it states, “Provided the overhang is removed and shed reduced or removed and replaced with a non-permanent, non-combustible shed with a maximum footprint of 48ft² in accordance with our Park Rules, we can find compromise on the solar panels remaining, providing that the Local Council do not raise an objection in the future, as I understand this is all on one system and made of non-combustible materials.” The Respondents’ representative has similarly invited the Tribunal “to consider whether a more limited and proportionate outcome is appropriate, rather than granting an order requiring removal of the structure in its entirety”. The Tribunal invited submissions from the parties as to what compromise could be negotiated between the parties. It is clear that the shed/structure must be reduced in size to a maximum footprint of 48ft² or 4.47m² and that the wall on the south side would need to be moved approximately 55cm away from neighbouring park home. This may be achieved by reconfiguration of the south facing wall. The Respondents conceded that there was the possibility of moving two of the walls to achieve the requirements. In addition, the roofing would need to be reduced in size which may entail the removal of two solar panels, subject to the parties’ negotiations. Finally, the wooden beams would need to be removed in their entirety and replaced with non-combustible material. The Tribunal has sympathy with the Respondents’ plight in relation to the shed/structure. However, the Respondents are in breach of Part IV of the Written Statement, paragraph 3(g) and Park Rules 7 and 9 which requires resolution. Any revised design must achieve the prescribed footprint, separation distance and non-combustible construction requirements. It will be for the Respondents to obtain appropriate professional advice and submit detailed proposals to the Applicant for written approval, such approval not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed. After hearing submissions from the parties in relation to timescales for compliance, the Tribunal determines that, 11 unless the shed/structure is brought into compliance with the Agreement, Park Rules and Site Licence Conditions, the Respondents shall remove the shed/structure within 6 months.[21]No application was made for reimbursement of the application fee pursuant to Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, rule 13(2) and the Tribunal therefore makes no such order. Name: Tribunal Judge V Lloyd Date: RIGHTS OF APPEAL[1]20 July 2026 If a party wishes to appeal the 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.[4]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. 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. 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.