91 Duvall Park Homes, Heyford Leys, Upper Heyford OX25 5LX: CAM/38UB/PHI/2024/0607 CAM/38UB/PHI/2024/0607

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
Case No CAM/38UB/PHI/2024/0607
Between
Mr Liberty DurantApplicantMs Kim Bernardette LeonardRespondent
Before
Judge JR MorrisMrs S Redmond BSc (Econ) MRICSTozers LLP for the ApplicantDate 18 July 2025Hearing 2025-05-20Property: Duvall Park Homes, Heyford leys, Upper Heyford OX25 5LXType of application: Application under Mobile Homes Act 1983 to determine a pitch fee

DECISION

[1]The Tribunal determines the new pitch fee for 91 Duvall Park Homes as £254.93 per month to take effect on the Review Date on 1 April 2024.[2]The Tribunal directs that the overpayment of the pitch fee for the period from 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2023 and from 1 April 2023 and 31 March 2024 of £772.80 by the Respondent shall be paid by the Applicant to the Respondent within 48 days after the Tribunal sends this Decision pursuant to section 231A(e) of Housing Act 2004. 2

REASONS

[3]The Applicant, who is the Site Owner applied on 27 June 2024 for a determination of the pitch fee payable by the Respondent who is the owner of a Home that is sited on pitch 91 Duvall Park which they Occupy. The Law[4]The relevant law is: a) Paragraph 25A (1) of Chapter 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Mobile Homes Act 1983, The Mobile Homes (Pitch Fees) (Prescribed Form) (England) Regulations 2013, and The Mobile Homes (Pitch Fees) (Prescribed Form) (England) Regulations SI 2023/620. b) Paragraphs 16 to 20 of the Implied Terms of the Written Statement of in Chapter 2 of Part 1, of Schedule 1 of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 as set out in Appendix 2. c) Section 231A of the Housing Act 2004 as set out in Appendix 2. Directions[5]Directions were issued on 7 January 2025. In compliance with which the Applicant provided to the Tribunal and the Respondent copies of:  The Application Form;  The Directions with Reply Form annexed;  The Notice of Proposed Pitch Fee and Pitch Fee Review Form dated 29 February 2024 sent to the Respondent;  Written Statement under the Mobile Homes Act 1983 (as amended);  A statement of case supported by a Witness Statement and Invoices;  CPI data; and  Correspondence.[6]The Directions required the Respondent to send to the Applicant and the Tribunal by 25 February 2025 a statement of case explaining why agreement cannot be reached on the proposed increase of the pitch fee. If reliance is placed on any of the matters in paragraph 18(1) of Chapter 2 of Part 1, to say why it would be unreasonable to increase the pitch fee e.g. if the condition of the Site has deteriorated or there has been a decrease in amenities or reduction in services.[7]The Tribunal generally uses the terminology of the legislation and Written Agreement and so refers to the residents or park home owners as “Occupiers,” as they own their mobile home but occupy the pitch, and the park as the “Site.”[8]The Respondent provided a Statement of Case, which was responded to by the Applicant. 3 Notice of Increase and Pitch Fee Review Form[9]The Applicant issued a Notice of Increase in the form of a letter dated 29 February 2024 setting out the current fee and the new proposed fee. In addition the Applicant issued a Pitch Fee Review Form in prescribed form under paragraph 25A (1) of Chapter 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Mobile Homes Act 1983 and The Mobile Homes (Pitch Fees) (Prescribed Form) (England) Regulations SI 2023/620, dated 29 February 2024, which proposed a new pitch fee for pitch 91 occupied by the Respondent of £306.63 per month to take effect on the Review Date on 1 April 2024 to replace the current pitch fee of £294.84 per month which was reviewed on 1 April 2023, giving an increase of £11.79 calculated from an CPI increase of 4%.[10]The Notice stated that in accordance with paragraph 20(A1) of Chapter 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 the calculation was based upon the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) over 12 months by reference to the CPI published for January 2024 which was 4%. (a copy of the CPI table was provided). Site Inspection[11]The Tribunal inspected the Site accompanied by the Respondent. The Duvall Park development currently comprises two Sites, the Old and the New. The entrance to the Old Site is off Heyford Leys at the north end of the development. This has two large car parks at the entrance one of which has 40 spaces and can be used by Occupiers from the New Site for their additional vehicles, this car park is referred to as the “top car park”. There are two site roads. The upper site road traverses the upper part of the Old Site nearest Camp Road. There are about 30 park home pitches in this upper part of the Old Site. The lower site road traverses the upper part and passes over a stream to the east and then turns south extending for some distance. There are three large car parks off the lower road. There are about 37 park home pitches in this lower eastern part of the Old Site.[12]The New Site is off a farm road which is a continuation of Heyford Leys which leads to a sewage treatment works. This is a private road owned by the farmer over which the Applicant and the sewage works have an easement. The Applicant has obtained permission from the farmer to tarmacadam the road as far as the entrance to the New Site. The New Site has two access roads one that leads from the entrance to the other road which extends north and south. The New Site is parallel and to the west of the lower part of the Old Side but separated from it by a stream which runs north to south. The New Site has about 24 park pitches.[13]The subject of this Application is the New Site which is referred hereafter just as “the Site.”[14]The entrance to the Site has three lights to the farm road and a mirror opposite the entrance to give a view along the farm track. The tarmacadam only extends to the entrance of the Site just before which there is a speed bump. The Site has a natural fall from the farm road and entrance towards the stream and there is a natural fall from the north end of the Site to the south end. At the southern end of the Site Road there is a large area of grass beyond which, at the most southern end of the Site is a gated area referred to as the “recreation area” which has a hedge boundary. Within 4 the recreation area there is a pond next to the stream although not directly fed by it. Also within the recreation area is an enclosure for the septic tanks to which the Site sewage flows. The tanks have vents and at the inspection the Tribunal was aware that they emitted a faint odour.[15]The Site pitches all have car parking some with space for one car others for two. There is a visitor car park, referred to as the visitors’ car park,” at the entrance although one Occupier has erected a notice claiming a space. This car park was full. There were a further 5 parking spaces at the southern end of the Site Road towards the recreation area. The visitors to the Site are permitted to use the large car park of the Old Site.[16]Apart from the grassed area at the southern end of the Site Road and the recreation area there were no common grassed areas. The pitches included all the land along the Site Road, the maintenance of which are the responsibility of the Occupiers under the Written Agreement.[17]The Tribunal inspected the Respondent’s pitch which backs onto the stream which was flowing gently on the day of the inspection. The stream banks are steep and quite deep. The Respondent’s pitch has a block paved drive to the front with some garden to the sides but the rear is timber decking which extends just beyond the bank protruding over the stream. The Respondent identified an area of the bank of the stream where a tree had grown and which she had removed, the cost being shared with her neighbour, because it had lent against the fence and she felt undermined the bank of the stream.[18]On the day of the inspection the Tribunal found the Site to be in good condition and well maintained. Hearing[19]Following the Inspection a hearing was held which was attended by the Applicant and the Respondent. Other Respondents were present who also had objected to the increase in pitch fee. Each case was dealt with separately. Both parties had provided a written statement of case which was confirmed and developed in the course of the hearing. Issue 1 – Non-service of the Pitch Fee Review Form for the Previous Year[20]The Respondent raised a preliminary issue in orally at the hearing saying that she had not received the Pitch Fee Review Form for previous years, only the Notice of Proposed Pitch Fee. Other Respondents who were present who had objected to the increase in pitch fee raised the same point.[21]At the hearing the Tribunal was under the impression that the Respondent was questioning the current Pitch Fee Review Form and its service but, having reviewed the written and oral statements made, this was not correct. The Tribunal found that the Respondent was in fact submitting that, since 26 July 2013 when the Mobile Homes (Pitch Fees) (Prescribed Form) (England) Regulations 2013 made the prescribed form mandatory, they had not received the prescribed form in respect of previous reviews, and therefore those reviews were invalid. She submitted that, 5 therefore the review in issue was also invalid as the “current pitch fee” upon which the “proposed pitch fee” was based was incorrect.[22]Neither the Applicant nor the Respondent was legally represented and could not provide evidence or make submissions regarding the validity of the previous reviews at the hearing. The Tribunal considered that it was a legal issue that having been raised should be argued by the Respondent and to which the Applicant should have the opportunity to respond with the opportunity of taking advice, as it effects the review which is the subject of the Application.[23]The Tribunal considered that the issue could be dealt with by written representations alone and made Directions accordingly. The parties responded to the Directions as follows. Respondent’s Case[24]The Respondent said that despite moving into 91 Duvall Park in November 2021, she was only made aware that she should have received a Written Statement of Agreement from another Occupier in early 2023. It was at this point that she requested a Written Statement of Agreement and was provided with one retrospectively. That Written Statement was dated 1 April 2023 but she said she had commenced paying the pitch fee of £249.93 from 1 December 2021 when she moved into her Home. Please note then that the commencement date of 1 April 2023 as stated in the directions is incorrect; a copy of the of the Written Statement of Agreement dated 1 April 2023 was provided.[25]The Respondent provided copies of the Pitch Fee Review Notices, which were in the form of letters, for 1 April 2022 and 2023 as follows: RPI Increase 1st April 2022 The Ground Rent increase comes into effect on 1st April 2022. This is a Retail Price Index increase and has been calculated on figures provided to us by the Office for National Statistics in London. ' The latest available RPI figure (taking into account the 28 day notice period that we are required by Law to give) is 7.8% and this is the figure we have used in calculating your new Ground Rent payment for 2022. We have under noted your new monthly payment and would, with respect, ask you to notify your Bank of this in time for payment due on 1st April. Could you please ensure that your Plot number is added as a reference. Yours Sincerely DUVALL PARK HOMES Undernote: Ground Rent 2021 £249.93 RPI Increase @ 7.8% £19.49 Ground Rent 2022 £269.42 6 RPI Increase 1st April 2023 The Ground Rent increase comes into effect on 1st April 2023. This is a Retail Price Index increase and has been calculated on figures provided to us by the Office for National Statistics in London. The latest available RPI figure (taking into account the 28 day notice period that we are required by Law to give) is 13.4% and this is the figure we have used in calculating your new Ground Rent payment for 2023. We have under noted your new monthly payment and would, with respect, ask you to notify your Bank of this in time for payment due on 1st April. Could you please ensure that your Plot number is added as a reference. Yours Sincerely DUVALL PARK HOMES Undernote: Ground Rent 2022 £260.00 RPI Increase @ 13.4% £34.84 Ground Rent 2023 £294.84 It was noted that this Notice stated a current pitch fee of £260.00 per month rather than the £269.42 that had been charged. However, the increase calculation for 2023 was based on £260.00 per month.[26]The Respondent said that no Pitch Fee Review Form was either referred to in either letter nor was one enclosed with the Notice. In contrast the Notice of Increase letter dated 29 February 2024 stated: This letter is notice to you that we propose to review your pitch fee from £294.84 per month. The new pitch fee we are proposing is £306.63 per month as detailed in the enclosed form. Following the introduction of the Mobile Homes (Pitch Fees) Act 2023, the proposed pitch fee review for 2024 has considered the consumer price index, rather than the retail price index which has been used previously. This was the only review letter that referred to the Pitch Fee Review Form and the only year a Pitch Fee Review Form was received.[27]The Respondent said that, had she received the mandatory Pitch Review Form she would have been aware of the appropriate process to appeal the increase for that year. She referred to the following paragraphs which she noted from the Pitch Fee Review Form sent with the 1 April 2024 Review: This form, or a form substantially to the like effect, must be sent with the pitch fee notice where the site owner proposed to increase the pitch fee otherwise the pitch fee review will not be valid. 7 If you do not agree to the proposed pitch fee you do not have to pay the proposed new amount from the effective date, but you must continue to pay the current pitch fee. If on the application of the occupier, a tribunal is satisfied that a notice of pitch fee review is of no effect due to the failure to serve this form with the notice of pitch fee review, but the occupier has nevertheless paid the pitch fee proposed in the notice, the tribunal may order the site owner to pay back the difference between the amount which the occupier was required to pay for the period in question and the amount which they have actually paid.[28]The Respondent submitted that the Pitch Fee Reviews of 1 April 2022 and 1 April 2023 were invalid and therefore her current pitch fee should be £249.93.[29]At the hearing the Respondent confirmed that she had received the Notice of Increase in the form of a letter and the Pitch Fee Review Form dated 29 February 2024 in respect of the Pitch Fee review of 1 April 2024. However, she submitted that because the current pitch fee is incorrect in the documentation her pitch fee should continue to be £249.93.[30]Even if the current pitch fee were corrected the Respondent still dispute the amount of the increase for the 1 April 2024 Pitch Fee Review and her case is set out below. Applicant’s Case[31]The Applicant said he had owned Duvall Park Homes for over 20 years and on 1 April every year he had implemented a pitch fee increase. Over this time, he said he had never had any problems reported to him in relation to the rent increases and there are now 98 Homes on the Site in total.[32]He said that he understood that four Occupiers are refusing to pay the pitch fee increase, but he was not clear as to the reasons why, which is the reason for this Application. He said he noted from the Respondent’s comments that they say the grass is not cut enough and the pond area is not clean and tidy. This is disappointing, as he had never had problems with other Occupiers before now.[33]Several new people moved onto the Site a couple of years ago and seem to have issues with many aspects of living on the Site.[34]At the Hearing the Applicant confirmed his written statement of case which stated that on 29 February 2024 a Notice of a proposed new pitch fee upon the Respondent, accompanied by an appropriate form for the review due on 1 April 2024 (copy provided) was hand-delivered served by Dave Taylor, the Site manager, upon each of the occupiers.[35]The service of these documents for the 1 April 2024 Pitch Fee Review Proposal is not disputed. Tribunal’s Findings and Decision re Issue 1[36]The Tribunal accepts the oral and written statements and evidence of the Respondent and finds that the Applicant omitted to service Pitch Fee Review Forms 8 on the Respondent for the 1 April 2022 and 1 April 2023 Reviews. The form is mandatory and states: Important Note: This form or a form substantially to the like effect, must be sent with the pitch fee review notice where the site owner proposes to increase the pitch fee. Otherwise, the pitch fee will not be valid…. Both the site owner and the occupier(s) should read the notes at the end of this form as they contain important information about pitch fee reviews.[37]Section 5 of the Form sets out what to do it the Occupier disagrees with the proposed pitch fee and Section 7 of the Form sets out the guidance notes. The Tribunal finds that the omission of this information causes the pitch review to be invalid.[38]Therefore, the Tribunal decides the pitch fee review for 1 April 2023 is invalid and the current pitch fee, which should have been used to calculate the proposed increase is £249.93.[39]The Tribunal finds that the 1 April 2024 pitch fee review is valid in that it complies with the legislation in the documents provided. The fact that the correct documents have been provided is the reason for the Respondent realising they can object to the increase. The percentage calculation based on the CPI is also correct. Following the Tribunal’s decision regarding the previous reviews the current pitch fee is incorrect. The Tribunal finds that this does not invalidate the review. The Tribunal decides that what is stated as the current pitch fee on the form should be replaced by the current pitch fee determined by the Tribunal which is £249.93.[40]The Tribunal determined that this has resulted in an overpayment by the Respondent of: a) the difference between £249.93 per month and £269.42 of £19.49 per month between 1 April 2022 and 31 March 2023. The overpayment for the 12-month period being £233.88; b) the difference between £249.93 per month and £294.84 of £44.91 per month between 1 April 2023 and 31 March 2024. The overpayment for the 12-month period being £538.92. The total overpayment over the two-year period is £772.80 Pursuant to section 231A(e) of Housing Act 2004 the Tribunal directs that the sum of £772.80 be paid by the Applicant to the Respondent within 48 days after the Tribunal sends this Decision.[41]The Tribunal therefore determines that the pitch fee that the Site Owner should have proposed for the Review of 1 April 2024 in line with the presumption in paragraph 20 is 4% of £249.93 which is an increase of £9.92 giving a new pitch fee of £259.93. Issue 2 – Reasons, Responses & Tribunal Findings re Objections to Increase[42]The Tribunal then considered the Respondent’s submissions and the Applicant’s responses to determine whether it would be unreasonable to increase the pitch fee 9 because there had been a deterioration in the condition or decrease in amenity of the Site or a reduction in services supplied to the pitch or mobile home, or any deterioration in the quality of those services under paragraph 18(1) or a weighty factor which rebutted the presumption in paragraph 20 (A1) of the Implied Terms of the Written Statement of Agreement set out in Chapter 2 of Part 1, of Schedule 1 of the Mobile Homes Act 1983.[43]Both parties provided a Statement of Case. Below are the issues raised by the Respondent for refusing to agree the proposed pitch fee increase to take effect on the Review Date on 1 April 2023 followed by the Applicant’s reply and the Tribunal’s findings. Increase not justified Respondent[44]The Respondent said that the increase for the previous year was 13.4% was not justified. There was very little maintenance carried out which the Respondent said was due to the Applicant seeking to develop Heathfield Park, another Site owned and operated by the Applicant and therefore transferring staff and resources to that Site instead of maintaining this Site. In general, the Respondent said that the pitch fees at this Site are high. Applicant[45]The Applicant acknowledged that it is correct the reviewed pitch fee for 2023 was a percentage increase of 13.4% resulting in an overall increase of £33.49 per month for the Respondent. The Applicant relied upon the presumption under Chapter 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Act, specifically Implied Term 20(A1), having regard to the retail prices index (RPI), the relevant inflationary index at the time. Implied Term 20(A1) does not require that the Respondent must derive a benefit from a percentage increase in the relevant inflationary index. While this was a significant percentage increase, it is not a ground under Implied Term 18(1) not does it rebut the presumption in Implied Term 20(A1) as it is not a deterioration in the condition or decrease in amenity of the Site or a reduction in services supplied to the pitch or mobile home, or any deterioration in the quality of those services. It is also not a weighty factor to rebut the presumption in Implied Term 20(A1).[46]The Applicant said that tribunals have previously confirmed the amount of pitch fees on other parks has no relevance to the review of the pitch fee on another park. He said that Heathfield Park does not take priority. Maintenance works on both parks are carried out in a timely manner and additional professionals were instructed to carry out maintenance, where required. The Applicant added that he had continued to maintain and invest in the Duvall Park which benefits from a secure gated entrance with CCTV fitted and focused on the only road in/out of the Site for Occupiers’ safety and peace of mind plus a constantly rotating camera on the back of the office. There are 2 or 3 events per year including a summer and Christmas party, as well as a fish and chips van which visits the Site weekly. He said he had won best Park of the Year in 2016, 2019 and 2020 demonstrating the Site to be well run. Tribunal’s Findings[47]The Tribunal followed the case of Teignbridge District Council v Francis Clark [2024] UKUT 0029 (LC), in which the Upper Tribunal found that “in giving weight 10 to the “exceptional” level of increase in the RPI the First -tier Tribunal considered an irrelevant consideration.” The Tribunal therefore found that it could not take account of the increase for the previous year of 13.4% which meant the Respondent’s pitch fee increased by £33.49 per month.[48]The Tribunal found the Applicant was correct in stating that Implied Term 20(A1) does not require that the Respondent derive a benefit from a percentage increase in the relevant inflationary index. The Tribunal therefore went on to consider the specific issues raised by the Respondent which she said were a deterioration in the condition or decrease in amenity of the Site or a reduction in services supplied or a weighty factor which rebutted the presumption. Grass Cutting Respondent[49]The Respondent stated that before she bought her home she was told that any grass on the outside of her fenced garden would be cut regularly by the maintenance team. This did happen for the first few months then any regular grass cutting stopped. One grass cutting season the grass was only cut three times. In order to keep the property looking tidy the Respondent employed a contractor to take up the turf and replace it with gravel. The lack of grass cutting left the whole Site looking very untidy. Applicant[50]Where the weather permits, the Applicant cuts the grass on the Site every week. Since May 2024, the Applicant has also instructed another person to cut the grass weekly, alongside the current arrangement, so the grass is cut more often, weather permitting. A copy of the invoice demonstrating the Applicant’s monthly expenditure for additional maintenance and gardening was provided. Tribunal’s Findings[51]The Tribunal found that there were few common areas of grass, the main one being the recreation area. The area of grass referred to in this instance is part of the Respondent’s pitch. The Respondent said she was told when she entered the Written Agreement that the grass on the pitch would be cut by the Applicant’s workers. However, this was not part of the Written Agreement and was a separate arrangement. The Respondent is claiming that the Applicant has failed to comply with an oral agreement or that she was induced into entering the Written Agreement by a misrepresentation, neither of which can be dealt with through a pitch fee review.[52]Therefore the Tribunal determined that there had not been a deterioration in the condition or decrease in amenity of the Site or a reduction in services supplied to the pitch or mobile home, or any deterioration in the quality of those services under paragraph 18(1) or a weighty factor which rebutted the presumption in paragraph 20 (A1) of the Implied Terms of the Written Statement of Agreement set out in Chapter 2 of Part 1, of Schedule 1 of the Mobile Homes Act 1983. Sewage Smell in Home Respondent[53]The Respondent said she had a sewage smell in the dining room since she moved into her Home, which the Applicant said his maintenance team were aware of but have 11 been unable to identify what it is or where it is coming from. The park plumber has tried to deal with it several times to no avail, even stating "I couldn't live here with that smell” In addition, one of the maintenance men. has pulled up the floor in the kitchen saying he could smell “cooked cabbage" but again nothing was found. She said she had lived with this smell for over three years with no hope that it will ever be rectified. She said there is something wrong and it is not right that she should have to put up with it saying that she believed it was a result of 'dodgy' plumbing when the Home was installed. Applicant[54]The Respondent confirmed that he had attempted to discover the cause of the reported sewage smell in the Respondent’s kitchen and that he had instructed a plumber to investigate several times but he did not find anything wrong. While a sewage smell would doubtless be distressing for the Respondent, he said he could not agree that this was a ground under Implied 18(1) to rebut the presumption in Implied Term 20(A1) as it is not a deterioration in the condition or decrease in amenity of the Site or a reduction in services supplied to the pitch or mobile home or any deterioration in the quality of those services. He also said it was not a weighty factor either because the first complaint the Applicant received was after the Respondent had occupied the mobile home for some three years. The Applicant submitted that is an issue for the Respondent to address with contractors to be instructed by her. Tribunal’s Findings[55]The Tribunal found from the parties’ statements that the sewage smell is because of a defect limited to the Respondent’s pitch either due to plumbing within the home or the connection of the home to the Site services. In either event it is not something that can be dealt with through the pitch fee review.[56]Therefore the Tribunal determined that there had not been a deterioration in the condition or decrease in amenity of the Site or a reduction in services supplied to the pitch or mobile home, or any deterioration in the quality of those services under paragraph 18(1) or a weighty factor which rebutted the presumption in paragraph 20 (A1) of the Implied Terms of the Written Statement of Agreement set out in Chapter 2 of Part 1, of Schedule 1 of the Mobile Homes Act 1983. Flooding on Driveway Respondent[57]The Respondent said the driveway on her pitch slopes downwards and in heavy rain water collects (photograph provided). She said she was unable to get out of her car without wading through a puddle of water and any visitors to her home cannot reach the front steps without getting wet feet. This was reported to the Applicant via email soon after she moved in (copy provided) but his response was always "there is nothing that can be done". The Respondent added that, however, on one occasion many months ago. when the Applicant was speaking to the Respondent’s mother who lives at No 52) he said to her "tell your daughter that I haven't forgotten about her driveway”. The Respondent said that this suggested that he was going to do something about the flooding but this has not happened. There is little to no surface drainage around the whole Site this is something that needs remedying as during heavy rain the roads and gardens flood. 12 Applicant[58]The Applicant acknowledged that the Respondent’s driveway flooded when it rained and that the complaint was referred to the Lead Licensing Enforcement Officer for Cherwell District Council on 13 November 2023 and an investigation was undertaken in response to which works were carried out. These included improvements to drainage and lighting. The Licensing authorities confirmed compliance on 27 September 2024. It was specifically stated that there was no evidence of flooding on the Site and that while there were some areas of water saturation and some puddles visible these were deemed to be at an acceptable level following periods of rain, and/or heavy rain. The Lead Enforcement Officer’s letter goes on to say that there is no evidence the Site has inadequate drainage while there is evidence of surface water during and shortly after long or heavy periods of rain, that water is dispersed adequately (a copy of the letter was provided).[59]The Applicant said that recently the Site had been subject to unprecedented rainfall which would probably have resulted in water pooling on the Respondent’s pitch albeit temporarily. On 24 September 2024 the Site experienced a month’s rainfall in a 24-hour period, causing flooding in most parts of Oxfordshire. During this period, the small stream that runs through the Site burst its bank because of this extreme rainfall which is the only time during his ownership. This caused some flooding to homeowners’ pitches and roads. The surface water had dissipated by the next afternoon and the roads were clear of water.[60]At the hearing the Applicant gave evidence that the Site Road which goes the length of the Site (from north to south) has 18-inch soakaways and has a porous construction and drainage. Tribunal’s Findings[61]The Tribunal found apart from the car parks, driveways and Site Road, the Site has, as Chris Pegler, the Lead Licensing Enforcement Officer for Cherwell District Council found, drainage provision with use of gravel and soft surfaces. The Tribunal found that as well as the Site having a natural fall towards the southern boundary there is also a natural fall to the Site towards the pitches along the stream. The Tribunal noted the Applicant’s evidence of the porous road construction and drainage. From the Tribunal’s knowledge and experience it appeared that the Site Road which goes the length of the Site (from north to south) has 18-inch soakaways to take the water crossing the Site (from west to east) to the stream. If these become inundated then water pools on the driveways of the pitches bordering the stream. From the Respondent’s evidence this happens with some degree of regularity, notwithstanding that the water does eventually disperse, it causes the Respondent inconvenience.[62]The Tribunal found from its inspection that the rear fence to the Respondent’s pitch is a pitch boundary in the same way as the pitch boundary to the Site Road. The Site Owner is responsible for the Site Road beyond the front pitch boundary and in this case for the stream beyond the rear pitch boundary.[63]The Tribunal found the stream has a natural fall towards the southern boundary of the Site. On the day of the inspection the stream was flowing gently and although narrow appeared deep sided. Nevertheless, the Tribunal was aware from its knowledge and experience that water courses can fill rapidly and overflow. The 13 Tribunal was sceptical of the Applicant’s claim that the stream had only overflowed once in the past 20 years. The Tribunal also doubted that the stream was checked every day noting some branches on the bed of the stream, but saw no evidence of blockage.[64]The Tribunal found that the driveway and pitch were susceptible to flooding from inundation in heavy rainfall, irrespective of the drainage provisions and stream maintenance. The Tribunal referred to Teignbridge District Council v Clark [2024] UKUT 00279 (LC) in which it was said: “Why I disagree with Mr. Ward's submission, is that the statute says nothing about causation. That means, I accept, that the statute places the financial consequences of externalities - whether weather conditions or anti-social behaviour or any other cause of a deterioration in the site, on the site owner rather than the occupiers. This is hardly surprising and certainly not irrational.” [26][65]The Tribunal found that the susceptibility of the driveway and pitch to flooding was a deterioration in the condition or decrease in amenity of the Site under paragraph 18(1) or a weighty factor which rebutted the presumption in paragraph 20 (A1) of the Implied Terms of the Written Statement of Agreement set out in Chapter 2 of Part 1, of Schedule 1 of the Mobile Homes Act 1983. Flooding under Home Respondent[66]The Respondent said that when she first purchased the Home there was already badly installed decking at the back of the pitch which extended over the stream. She said she had the decking replaced and found the base of the Home much closer to the bank of the stream than it was possible to see prior to her purchase. She said the contractor carrying out the decking replacement was concerned at just how close the banks of the stream are to the base of the Home and how much damage that could be caused by flooding and suggested that the banks need to be shored up as they were cracking (photographs provided). The Respondent said that she reported this to the Applicant but was told there was nothing that would be done. She said that in July 2024 she was made aware that work had been carried out on the banks of the stream further down the road and on 1 July 2024 she emailed asking if the banks at the back or her pitch could also be shored up but she received an email the same day stating that work would not be done on that part of the stream and suggested that she instruct her own contractor to carry out work. The Respondent said the stream is not her responsibility and should be maintained by the landowner. She added that the underneath of the Home is constantly wet and the chassis and struts are in danger of rusting and corrosion. The Respondent also mentioned that sandbags had been placed in the stream further down the road which slowed down the flow during heavy rain which causes a backup and flooding at her end of the road. Applicant[67]The Applicant claimed that he did not own the stream although he did maintain it. The Applicant said that there is an area of the stream where it is eroding and a contractor was instructed to install concrete blocks but only where it was eroding because it is not eroding everywhere. The Applicant added that an Occupier who lives 14 about six homes further down has placed 16 sandbags in the stream which is not something that should be done. Tribunal’s Findings[68]The Tribunal understood the Applicant owns the land either side of the stream and therefore the stream bed and so is the riparian owner. As a riparian owner the Applicant has the right to receive the watercourse flow in its natural quantity and quality and to protect his property from flooding and erosion caused by the watercourse. The riparian owner also has the responsibility to maintain the bed and banks of the watercourse clearing litter debris and animal carcases and must allow the water to flow naturally, without obstruction, pollution, or diversion. The Applicant is therefore responsible for the stream.[69]The Tribunal found that the base to the Respondent’s Home was close to the bank of the steam and that by reason of the decking the extent of the pitch was partially over the stream. Whereas this could be an issue in the future and the Applicant as the Site Owner has a responsibility for the base and services, it is not something that can be dealt with through the pitch fee review.[70]Therefore the Tribunal determined that there had not been a deterioration in the condition or decrease in amenity of the Site or a reduction in services supplied to the pitch or mobile home, or any deterioration in the quality of those services under paragraph 18(1) or a weighty factor which rebutted the presumption in paragraph 20 (A1) of the Implied Terms of the Written Statement of Agreement set out in Chapter 2 of Part 1, of Schedule 1 of the Mobile Homes Act 1983. Parking Respondent[71]The Respondent said that since she moved to the Site there has been a problem with parking for visitors. The visitors’ car park by the entrance gate is full of occupiers’ additional vehicles. This means that visitors must park in the car park right at the top entrance to the Site. The Respondent submitted that it was not reasonable to expect elderly visitors to walk from that car park when there should be alternative parking available. When this issue was raised with the Applicant a letter was sent to all occupiers informing them that the entrance gate car park is specifically for visitors and occupiers should park additional vehicles in the top car park. The Respondent said that the letter was ignored and said all the vehicles currently parked in the visitors’ car park belong to Occupiers (photograph provided). Alternative parking has been created near the pond but at least one space is being used by the Occupiers of the Park Home nearby.[72]The Respondent complained that there is a lack of consistency in enforcing the rules. Despite letters being sent to all Occupiers asking them not to park on the road or in the visitors’ car parks these are often ignored by Occupiers. Applicant[73]The Applicant said that there are approximately seventy visitor parking spaces on the Site. These are broken down as follows: the top car park can accommodate forty vehicles, the office can accommodate six vehicles, the middle car park can accommodate twenty vehicles and the new visitor parking spaces by the pond can 15 currently accommodate five to six vehicles. On or around September 2024, since the last pitch fee review, five to six additional visitor parking spaces had been created at the bottom of the Site by the pond. This area was an eyesore whilst the ground works were being undertaken but this is an unavoidable step. The parking spaces were completed within approximately two weeks. The Applicant said that he was in the process of extending this to accommodate ten to fourteen parking spaces. Again, these works will be an eyesore whilst the ground works are being undertaken but it is hoped to complete these within the next couple of weeks. These spaces are of great benefit to homeowners in allowing their visitors to park on a paved area. He added that he is not seeking to recover the expenditure incurred in creating these parking spaces, notwithstanding that this is an improvement. Photographs provided.[74]The Applicant acknowledged that two more new pitches in close to the visitor parking spaces had been created. However, he said Occupiers benefit from enough space to park one or two vehicles alongside and should not be parking within the visitor parking spaces. The Applicant said that he had written to homeowners confirming that the car park nearest the entrance is for visitors’ vehicles and the top car park is for Occupiers’ additional vehicles. No commercial vehicles are to be parked on the Site.[75]The Applicant said that there is a limit to how much he can influence car parking by Occupiers and their visitors unless it is in breach of the terms of their Agreements or the Park Rules. He said he is also dependent on Occupiers letting him know at the time when there may be a breach so he can then investigate and act. There is very little he can do if told after the event. Tribunal’s Findings[76]The Tribunal found from its inspection that most if not all pitches had a parking space but the Respondent said that there were still too few as many occupiers had two vehicles. The Tribunal finds from its knowledge and experience that it appears no matter how many spaces there are, and here there are 70 apart from those on the pitches, there never seem enough. It was appreciated that the top car park is some distance from the Site nevertheless its 40 spaces is a valuable amenity. Signage and the marking of spaces in the visitor car park near the main gate may clarify its use. The Tribunal accepted that in forming the new spaces there had been some disruption. However, this was relatively transient and ultimately the work was to the benefit of the Occupiers including the Respondent. Notwithstanding the parking problems the Tribunal found that there had been an increase in the number of parking spaces and therefore this was not a deterioration or decrease in amenity of the Site or a weighty factor.[77]Therefore the Tribunal determined that there had not been a deterioration in the condition or decrease in amenity of the Site or a reduction in services supplied to the pitch or mobile home, or any deterioration in the quality of those services under paragraph 18(1) or a weighty factor which rebutted the presumption in paragraph 20 (A1) of the Implied Terms of the Written Statement of Agreement set out in Chapter 2 of Part 1, of Schedule 1 of the Mobile Homes Act 1983. 16 Lighting on Entering the Site Respondent[78]The Respondent said that there was inadequate lighting on entering the Site until the office. The lights that are installed by the gates were only installed after an Occupier had a bad fall. Applicant[79]The Applicant stated that there are adequate electric lighting units on the roadside to meet the conditions of the licence. On or around 11 May 2024, 3 LED bulkhead fittings were installed on the wall of the Site by the entrance which shine on to the road. One light is controlled by an existing dusk till dawn sensor, and the remaining two are controlled by a new separate dusk till dawn sensor. A photograph of the lights was provided.[80]The Applicant said that he had decided to install the lights before the Occupier tripped over a speed bump and sustained an injury on 27 January 2024 but it had taken some time to get permission from the owner of the wall to have them installed. He said he did not own the road and only had an easement over it. He had to get permission from the landowner to re-surface the road with tarmac, to install the traffic mirror, and to maintain the luminous paint on the bump. The landowner has not given permission to carry out any further works. Tribunal’s Findings[81]The lights are an addition and therefore not a deterioration to the Site. Therefore the Tribunal determined that there had not been a deterioration in the condition or decrease in amenity of the Site or a reduction in services supplied to the pitch or mobile home, or any deterioration in the quality of those services under paragraph 18(1) or a weighty factor which rebutted the presumption in paragraph 20 (A1) of the Implied Terms of the Written Statement of Agreement set out in Chapter 2 of Part 1, of Schedule 1 of the Mobile Homes Act 1983. Pest Control Respondent[82]The Respondent said that an Occupier resident puts out food for the birds in her garden which has attracted rats. The Respondent said that she should be required to stop this practice on health and safety grounds. Applicant[83]The Applicant replied saying that when notified of any vermin he said he took steps such as the careful use of poison. The Applicant said he understood the Occupier had stopped feeding the birds but if this was not the case, he would take action but relies on other Occupiers to keep him informed. Tribunal’s Findings[84]The Tribunal found that this is a specific issue with an Occupier and not a deterioration in the condition of the Site or loss of amenity.[85]Therefore the Tribunal determined that there had not been a deterioration in the condition or decrease in amenity of the Site or a reduction in services supplied to the 17 pitch or mobile home, or any deterioration in the quality of those services under paragraph 18(1) or a weighty factor which rebutted the presumption in paragraph 20 (A1) of the Implied Terms of the Written Statement of Agreement set out in Chapter 2 of Part 1, of Schedule 1 of the Mobile Homes Act 1983. Maintenance of Site Respondent[86]The Respondent said that a tree that was growing on the bank of the stream started leaning onto her pitch boundary fence pushing it over. She said that although she was aware that the fence was her responsibility the trees are not as they are outside of her property. She understood from the Applicant that the tree would be cut down but this did not happen and she had to employ someone at her own expense to remove the tree. Applicant[87]The Applicant said that he had inspected the tree complained of by the Respondent but took the view that it was not an issue as although it was about 12 feet tall it was just a glorified big branch and while touching the Respondent’s fence it did not appear to be damaging it. As the Respondent had complained about the tree he said he did offer to have it cut down, albeit not urgently, but the Respondent said she did not want this done at that time but later went on to have the tree cut down by contractors she had instructed herself. Tribunal’s Findings[88]The Applicant’s failure to remove a tree as promptly as the Respondent would have wished is not a deterioration in the condition of the Site or a loss of amenity.[89]Therefore the Tribunal determined that there had not been a deterioration in the condition or decrease in amenity of the Site or a reduction in services supplied to the pitch or mobile home, or any deterioration in the quality of those services under paragraph 18(1) or a weighty factor which rebutted the presumption in paragraph 20 (A1) of the Implied Terms of the Written Statement of Agreement set out in Chapter 2 of Part 1, of Schedule 1 of the Mobile Homes Act 1983. Tribunal Decision re Issue 2[90]The Tribunal determined that except for Item 4. Flooding on the Driveway there had not been a deterioration in the condition or decrease in amenity of the Site or a reduction in services supplied to the pitch or mobile home, or any deterioration in the quality of those services under paragraph 18(1) or a weighty factor which rebutted the presumption in paragraph 20 (A1) of the Implied Terms of the Written Statement of Agreement set out in Chapter 2 of Part 1, of Schedule 1 of the Mobile Homes Act 1983.[91]Pitch 91 including its driveway was susceptible to flooding from water inundation in heavy rainfall, although as the Home is raised above the ground level, to date the water has subsided before affecting the Home itself. This inundation is due to the contours of the Site falling towards the stream and the related factor of the stream overflowing. This may be a relatively recent phenomenon which was not apparent when the Site was developed and therefore is a deterioration. Alternatively, it is a 18 weighty factor because, whenever it became apparent or whatever its cause, it creates significant inconvenience for the Respondent.[92]The Tribunal determined that an increase in line with inflation was warranted but that this should be limited to 2% rather than 4%. Therefore, the corrected current pitch fee of £249.93 is increased by 2% being an increase of £5.00 which gives a new pitch fee for 89 Duval Park of £254.93 per month to take effect on the Review Date on 1 April 2024. Summary of Decisions[93]The Tribunal determines the new pitch fee for 91 Duvall Park Homes as £254.93 per month to take effect on the Review Date on 1 April 2024.[94]The Tribunal directs that the overpayment of the pitch fee for the period from 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2023 and from 1 April 2023 and 31 March 2024 of £772.80 by the Respondent shall be paid by the Applicant to the Respondent within 48 days after the Tribunal sends this Decision pursuant to section 231A(e) of Housing Act 2004. Judge JR Morris Appendix 1 – Right 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. Appendix 2 – The Law[1]Section 2 of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 (“the Act”) provides that the terms of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Act shall be implied and shall have effect notwithstanding the express terms of the Agreement. Paragraphs 16 to 20 of Chapter 2 of Schedule 1 to the Act were introduced by the Mobile Homes Act 1983 (Amendment of Schedule 1) (England) Order 2006. The relevant provisions of the legislation that apply to this decision given the issues raised are as follows: 19[2]Paragraph 16 provides: The pitch fee can only be changed in accordance with paragraph 17, either—(a) with the agreement of the occupier, or(b) if the court, on the application of the owner or the occupier, considers it reasonable for the pitch fee to be changed and makes an order determining the amount of the new pitch fee.[3]Paragraph 17 provides:(1) The pitch fee shall be reviewed annually as at the review date.(2) At least 28 clear days before the review date the owner shall serve on the occupier a written notice setting out his proposals in respect of the new pitch fee. (2A) In the case of a protected site in England, a notice under subparagraph (2) which proposes an increase in the pitch fee is of no effect unless it is accompanied by a document which complies with paragraph 25A.(3) If the occupier agrees to the proposed new pitch fee, it shall be payable as from the review date.(4) If the occupier does not agree to the proposed new pitch fee— (a) the owner or (in the case of a protected site in England) the occupier may apply to the court for an order under paragraph 16(b) determining the amount of the new pitch fee; (b) the occupier shall continue to pay the current pitch fee to the owner until such time as the new pitch fee is agreed by the occupier or an order determining the amount of the new pitch fee is made by the court under paragraph 16(b); and (c) the new pitch fee shall be payable as from the review date but the occupier shall not be treated as being in arrears until the 28th day after the date on which the new pitch fee is agreed or the 28th day after the date of the court order determining the amount of the new pitch fee.(5) An application under sub-paragraph (4)(a) may be made at any time after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the review date. Sub- Paragraphs (6) to 10 are not applicable to this case (11) Sub-paragraph (12) applies if a tribunal, on the application of the occupier of a pitch in England, is satisfied that— (a) a notice under sub-paragraph (2) or (6)(b) was of no effect because of sub-paragraph (2A) or (6A), but (b) the occupier nonetheless paid the owner the pitch fee proposed in the notice. (12) The tribunal may order the owner to pay the occupier, within the period of 21 days beginning with the date of the order, the difference between— 20 (a) the amount which the occupier was required to pay the owner for the period in question, and (b) the amount which the occupier has paid the owner for that period.[4]Paragraph 18 provides: (1) When determining the amount of the new pitch fee particular regard must 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 paragraphs 22(f) and (g); and (iii) to which a majority of the occupiers have not disagreed in writing or which, in the case of such disagreement, the court [tribunal] on the application of the owner, has ordered should be taken into account when determining the amount of the new pitch fee; (aa) in 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 [26th May 2013] (in so far as regard has not previously been had to that deterioration or decrease for the purposes of this subparagraph); (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 subparagraph); (b) … (ba) in the case of a protected site in England, 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; (1A) 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[5]Paragraph 20 provides that: (A1) In the case of a protected site in England, unless this would be unreasonable having regard to paragraph 18(1), there is a presumption that the pitch fee shall increase or decrease by a percentage which is no more than any percentage increase or decrease in the consumer prices index calculated by reference only to—(a) the latest index, and 21(b) the index published for the month which was 12 months before that to which the latest index relates. (A2) In sub-paragraph (A1), “the latest index”— (a) in a case where the owner serves a notice under paragraph 17(2), means the last index published before the day on which that notice is served; (b) in a case where the owner serves a notice under paragraph 17(6), means the last index published before the day by which the owner was required to serve a notice under paragraph 17(2)[6]Section 231A of the Housing Act 2004 provides: Additional Powers of First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal(1) The First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal exercising any jurisdiction conferred by or under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, the Mobile Homes Act 1983, the Housing Act 1985 or this Act has, in addition to any specific powers exercisable by them in exercising that jurisdiction, the general power mentioned in subsection (2).(2) The tribunal’s general power is a power to give such directions as the tribunal considers necessary or desirable for securing the just, expeditious and economical disposal of the proceedings or any issue in or in connection with them.(3) When exercising jurisdiction under this Act, the directions which may be given by the tribunal under its general power include (where appropriate)— (a) directions requiring a licence to be granted under Part 2 or 3 of this Act; (b) directions requiring any licence so granted to contain such terms as are specified in the directions; (c) directions requiring any order made under Part 4 of this Act to contain such terms as are so specified; (d) directions that any building or part of a building so specified is to be treated as if an HMO declaration had been served in respect of it on such date as is so specified (and such a direction is to be an excluded decision for the purposes of section 11(1) and 13(1) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007); (e) directions requiring the payment of money by one party to the proceedings to another by way of compensation, damages or otherwise. (3A) …(4) When exercising jurisdiction under the Mobile Homes Act 1983, the directions which may be given by the tribunal under its general power include (where appropriate)— (a) directions requiring the payment of money by one party to the proceedings to another by way of compensation, damages or otherwise; (b) directions requiring the arrears of pitch fees or the recovery of overpayments of pitch fees to be paid in such manner and by such date as may be specified in the directions; 22 (c) directions requiring cleaning, repairs, restoration, re-positioning or other works to be carried out in connection with a mobile home, pitch or protected site in such manner as may be specified in the directions; (d) directions requiring the establishment, provision or maintenance of any service or amenity in connection with a mobile home, pitch or protected site in such manner as may be specified in the directions.[7]In the case of Away Resorts Ltd v Morgan [2018] UKUT 123 (LC) the Upper Tribunal confirmed that the powers granted by s231A(4)(a) of the Housing Act 2004, are broad and designed to allow proceedings to be disposed of. They are not merely limited to procedural directions and can include orders akin to injunctive relief. --- decision_2.pdf --- 1 FIRST TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : CAM/38UB/PHI/2024/0607 HMCTS : Inspection & Hearing Site : Duvall Park Homes, Heyford leys, Upper Heyford OX25 5LX Park Home Address : 91 Duvall Park Homes, Heyford Leys, Upper Heyford OX25 5LX Applicant : Mr Liberty Durant Representative : Tozers LLP Respondent : Ms Kim Bernardette Leonard Type of application : Application under Mobile Homes Act 1983 to determine a pitch fee Tribunal : Judge JR Morris Mrs S Redmond BSc (Econ) MRICS Date of Application : 27 June 2024 Date of Directions : 7 January 2025 Date of Hearing : 20 May 2025 Date of Further Directions : 29 May 2025 Date of Decision : 18 July 2025 ____________________________________________ AMENDED DECISION _________________________________ Crown Copyright © 2025 CORRECTION CERTIFICATE The Tribunal exercises its powers under Rule 50 to correct a clerical mistake or other accidental slip or omission in its Decision dated 18 July 2025. The correction is shown in bold to paragraph 92 in this Decision and Reasons are made on 31 July 2025. Judge JR Morris 2 Decision[1]The Tribunal determines the new pitch fee for 91 Duvall Park Homes as £254.93 per month to take effect on the Review Date on 1 April 2024.[2]The Tribunal directs that the overpayment of the pitch fee for the period from 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2023 and from 1 April 2023 and 31 March 2024 of £772.80 by the Respondent shall be paid by the Applicant to the Respondent within 48 days after the Tribunal sends this Decision pursuant to section 231A(e) of Housing Act 2004. Reasons Introduction[3]The Applicant, who is the Site Owner applied on 27 June 2024 for a determination of the pitch fee payable by the Respondent who is the owner of a Home that is sited on pitch 91 Duvall Park which they Occupy. The Law[4]The relevant law is: a) Paragraph 25A (1) of Chapter 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Mobile Homes Act 1983, The Mobile Homes (Pitch Fees) (Prescribed Form) (England) Regulations 2013, and The Mobile Homes (Pitch Fees) (Prescribed Form) (England) Regulations SI 2023/620. b) Paragraphs 16 to 20 of the Implied Terms of the Written Statement of in Chapter 2 of Part 1, of Schedule 1 of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 as set out in Appendix 2. c) Section 231A of the Housing Act 2004 as set out in Appendix 2. Directions[5]Directions were issued on 7 January 2025. In compliance with which the Applicant provided to the Tribunal and the Respondent copies of:  The Application Form;  The Directions with Reply Form annexed;  The Notice of Proposed Pitch Fee and Pitch Fee Review Form dated 29 February 2024 sent to the Respondent;  Written Statement under the Mobile Homes Act 1983 (as amended);  A statement of case supported by a Witness Statement and Invoices;  CPI data; and  Correspondence.[6]The Directions required the Respondent to send to the Applicant and the Tribunal by 25 February 2025 a statement of case explaining why agreement cannot be reached on the proposed increase of the pitch fee. If reliance is placed on any of the matters in paragraph 18(1) of Chapter 2 of Part 1, to say why it would be unreasonable to increase the pitch fee e.g. if the condition of the Site has deteriorated or there has been a decrease in amenities or reduction in services. 3[7]The Tribunal generally uses the terminology of the legislation and Written Agreement and so refers to the residents or park home owners as “Occupiers,” as they own their mobile home but occupy the pitch, and the park as the “Site.”[8]The Respondent provided a Statement of Case, which was responded to by the Applicant. Notice of Increase and Pitch Fee Review Form[9]The Applicant issued a Notice of Increase in the form of a letter dated 29 February 2024 setting out the current fee and the new proposed fee. In addition the Applicant issued a Pitch Fee Review Form in prescribed form under paragraph 25A (1) of Chapter 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Mobile Homes Act 1983 and The Mobile Homes (Pitch Fees) (Prescribed Form) (England) Regulations SI 2023/620, dated 29 February 2024, which proposed a new pitch fee for pitch 91 occupied by the Respondent of £306.63 per month to take effect on the Review Date on 1 April 2024 to replace the current pitch fee of £294.84 per month which was reviewed on 1 April 2023, giving an increase of £11.79 calculated from an CPI increase of 4%.[10]The Notice stated that in accordance with paragraph 20(A1) of Chapter 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 the calculation was based upon the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) over 12 months by reference to the CPI published for January 2024 which was 4%. (a copy of the CPI table was provided). Site Inspection[11]The Tribunal inspected the Site accompanied by the Respondent. The Duvall Park development currently comprises two Sites, the Old and the New. The entrance to the Old Site is off Heyford Leys at the north end of the development. This has two large car parks at the entrance one of which has 40 spaces and can be used by Occupiers from the New Site for their additional vehicles, this car park is referred to as the “top car park”. There are two site roads. The upper site road traverses the upper part of the Old Site nearest Camp Road. There are about 30 park home pitches in this upper part of the Old Site. The lower site road traverses the upper part and passes over a stream to the east and then turns south extending for some distance. There are three large car parks off the lower road. There are about 37 park home pitches in this lower eastern part of the Old Site.[12]The New Site is off a farm road which is a continuation of Heyford Leys which leads to a sewage treatment works. This is a private road owned by the farmer over which the Applicant and the sewage works have an easement. The Applicant has obtained permission from the farmer to tarmacadam the road as far as the entrance to the New Site. The New Site has two access roads one that leads from the entrance to the other road which extends north and south. The New Site is parallel and to the west of the lower part of the Old Side but separated from it by a stream which runs north to south. The New Site has about 24 park pitches.[13]The subject of this Application is the New Site which is referred hereafter just as “the Site.” 4[14]The entrance to the Site has three lights to the farm road and a mirror opposite the entrance to give a view along the farm track. The tarmacadam only extends to the entrance of the Site just before which there is a speed bump. The Site has a natural fall from the farm road and entrance towards the stream and there is a natural fall from the north end of the Site to the south end. At the southern end of the Site Road there is a large area of grass beyond which, at the most southern end of the Site is a gated area referred to as the “recreation area” which has a hedge boundary. Within the recreation area there is a pond next to the stream although not directly fed by it. Also within the recreation area is an enclosure for the septic tanks to which the Site sewage flows. The tanks have vents and at the inspection the Tribunal was aware that they emitted a faint odour.[15]The Site pitches all have car parking some with space for one car others for two. There is a visitor car park, referred to as the visitors’ car park,” at the entrance although one Occupier has erected a notice claiming a space. This car park was full. There were a further 5 parking spaces at the southern end of the Site Road towards the recreation area. The visitors to the Site are permitted to use the large car park of the Old Site.[16]Apart from the grassed area at the southern end of the Site Road and the recreation area there were no common grassed areas. The pitches included all the land along the Site Road, the maintenance of which are the responsibility of the Occupiers under the Written Agreement.[17]The Tribunal inspected the Respondent’s pitch which backs onto the stream which was flowing gently on the day of the inspection. The stream banks are steep and quite deep. The Respondent’s pitch has a block paved drive to the front with some garden to the sides but the rear is timber decking which extends just beyond the bank protruding over the stream. The Respondent identified an area of the bank of the stream where a tree had grown and which she had removed, the cost being shared with her neighbour, because it had lent against the fence and she felt undermined the bank of the stream.[18]On the day of the inspection the Tribunal found the Site to be in good condition and well maintained. Hearing[19]Following the Inspection a hearing was held which was attended by the Applicant and the Respondent. Other Respondents were present who also had objected to the increase in pitch fee. Each case was dealt with separately. Both parties had provided a written statement of case which was confirmed and developed in the course of the hearing. Issue 1 – Non-service of the Pitch Fee Review Form for the Previous Year[20]The Respondent raised a preliminary issue in orally at the hearing saying that she had not received the Pitch Fee Review Form for previous years, only the Notice of Proposed Pitch Fee. Other Respondents who were present who had objected to the increase in pitch fee raised the same point. 5[21]At the hearing the Tribunal was under the impression that the Respondent was questioning the current Pitch Fee Review Form and its service but, having reviewed the written and oral statements made, this was not correct. The Tribunal found that the Respondent was in fact submitting that, since 26 July 2013 when the Mobile Homes (Pitch Fees) (Prescribed Form) (England) Regulations 2013 made the prescribed form mandatory, they had not received the prescribed form in respect of previous reviews, and therefore those reviews were invalid. She submitted that, therefore the review in issue was also invalid as the “current pitch fee” upon which the “proposed pitch fee” was based was incorrect.[22]Neither the Applicant nor the Respondent was legally represented and could not provide evidence or make submissions regarding the validity of the previous reviews at the hearing. The Tribunal considered that it was a legal issue that having been raised should be argued by the Respondent and to which the Applicant should have the opportunity to respond with the opportunity of taking advice, as it effects the review which is the subject of the Application.[23]The Tribunal considered that the issue could be dealt with by written representations alone and made Directions accordingly. The parties responded to the Directions as follows. Respondent’s Case[24]The Respondent said that despite moving into 91 Duvall Park in November 2021, she was only made aware that she should have received a Written Statement of Agreement from another Occupier in early 2023. It was at this point that she requested a Written Statement of Agreement and was provided with one retrospectively. That Written Statement was dated 1 April 2023 but she said she had commenced paying the pitch fee of £249.93 from 1 December 2021 when she moved into her Home. Please note then that the commencement date of 1 April 2023 as stated in the directions is incorrect; a copy of the of the Written Statement of Agreement dated 1 April 2023 was provided.[25]The Respondent provided copies of the Pitch Fee Review Notices, which were in the form of letters, for 1 April 2022 and 2023 as follows: RPI Increase 1st April 2022 The Ground Rent increase comes into effect on 1st April 2022. This is a Retail Price Index increase and has been calculated on figures provided to us by the Office for National Statistics in London. ' The latest available RPI figure (taking into account the 28 day notice period that we are required by Law to give) is 7.8% and this is the figure we have used in calculating your new Ground Rent payment for 2022. We have under noted your new monthly payment and would, with respect, ask you to notify your Bank of this in time for payment due on 1st April. Could you please ensure that your Plot number is added as a reference. Yours Sincerely DUVALL PARK HOMES 6 Undernote: Ground Rent 2021 £249.93 RPI Increase @ 7.8% £19.49 Ground Rent 2022 £269.42 RPI Increase 1st April 2023 The Ground Rent increase comes into effect on 1st April 2023. This is a Retail Price Index increase and has been calculated on figures provided to us by the Office for National Statistics in London. The latest available RPI figure (taking into account the 28 day notice period that we are required by Law to give) is 13.4% and this is the figure we have used in calculating your new Ground Rent payment for 2023. We have under noted your new monthly payment and would, with respect, ask you to notify your Bank of this in time for payment due on 1st April. Could you please ensure that your Plot number is added as a reference. Yours Sincerely DUVALL PARK HOMES Undernote: Ground Rent 2022 £260.00 RPI Increase @ 13.4% £34.84 Ground Rent 2023 £294.84 It was noted that this Notice stated a current pitch fee of £260.00 per month rather than the £269.42 that had been charged. However, the increase calculation for 2023 was based on £260.00 per month.[26]The Respondent said that no Pitch Fee Review Form was either referred to in either letter nor was one enclosed with the Notice. In contrast the Notice of Increase letter dated 29 February 2024 stated: This letter is notice to you that we propose to review your pitch fee from £294.84 per month. The new pitch fee we are proposing is £306.63 per month as detailed in the enclosed form. Following the introduction of the Mobile Homes (Pitch Fees) Act 2023, the proposed pitch fee review for 2024 has considered the consumer price index, rather than the retail price index which has been used previously. This was the only review letter that referred to the Pitch Fee Review Form and the only year a Pitch Fee Review Form was received.[27]The Respondent said that, had she received the mandatory Pitch Review Form she would have been aware of the appropriate process to appeal the increase for that year. She referred to the following paragraphs which she noted from the Pitch Fee Review Form sent with the 1 April 2024 Review: 7 This form, or a form substantially to the like effect, must be sent with the pitch fee notice where the site owner proposed to increase the pitch fee otherwise the pitch fee review will not be valid. If you do not agree to the proposed pitch fee you do not have to pay the proposed new amount from the effective date, but you must continue to pay the current pitch fee. If on the application of the occupier, a tribunal is satisfied that a notice of pitch fee review is of no effect due to the failure to serve this form with the notice of pitch fee review, but the occupier has nevertheless paid the pitch fee proposed in the notice, the tribunal may order the site owner to pay back the difference between the amount which the occupier was required to pay for the period in question and the amount which they have actually paid.[28]The Respondent submitted that the Pitch Fee Reviews of 1 April 2022 and 1 April 2023 were invalid and therefore her current pitch fee should be £249.93.[29]At the hearing the Respondent confirmed that she had received the Notice of Increase in the form of a letter and the Pitch Fee Review Form dated 29 February 2024 in respect of the Pitch Fee review of 1 April 2024. However, she submitted that because the current pitch fee is incorrect in the documentation her pitch fee should continue to be £249.93.[30]Even if the current pitch fee were corrected the Respondent still dispute the amount of the increase for the 1 April 2024 Pitch Fee Review and her case is set out below. Applicant’s Case[31]The Applicant said he had owned Duvall Park Homes for over 20 years and on 1 April every year he had implemented a pitch fee increase. Over this time, he said he had never had any problems reported to him in relation to the rent increases and there are now 98 Homes on the Site in total.[32]He said that he understood that four Occupiers are refusing to pay the pitch fee increase, but he was not clear as to the reasons why, which is the reason for this Application. He said he noted from the Respondent’s comments that they say the grass is not cut enough and the pond area is not clean and tidy. This is disappointing, as he had never had problems with other Occupiers before now.[33]Several new people moved onto the Site a couple of years ago and seem to have issues with many aspects of living on the Site.[34]At the Hearing the Applicant confirmed his written statement of case which stated that on 29 February 2024 a Notice of a proposed new pitch fee upon the Respondent, accompanied by an appropriate form for the review due on 1 April 2024 (copy provided) was hand-delivered served by Dave Taylor, the Site manager, upon each of the occupiers.[35]The service of these documents for the 1 April 2024 Pitch Fee Review Proposal is not disputed. 8 Tribunal’s Findings and Decision re Issue 1[36]The Tribunal accepts the oral and written statements and evidence of the Respondent and finds that the Applicant omitted to service Pitch Fee Review Forms on the Respondent for the 1 April 2022 and 1 April 2023 Reviews. The form is mandatory and states: Important Note: This form or a form substantially to the like effect, must be sent with the pitch fee review notice where the site owner proposes to increase the pitch fee. Otherwise, the pitch fee will not be valid…. Both the site owner and the occupier(s) should read the notes at the end of this form as they contain important information about pitch fee reviews.[37]Section 5 of the Form sets out what to do it the Occupier disagrees with the proposed pitch fee and Section 7 of the Form sets out the guidance notes. The Tribunal finds that the omission of this information causes the pitch review to be invalid.[38]Therefore, the Tribunal decides the pitch fee review for 1 April 2023 is invalid and the current pitch fee, which should have been used to calculate the proposed increase is £249.93.[39]The Tribunal finds that the 1 April 2024 pitch fee review is valid in that it complies with the legislation in the documents provided. The fact that the correct documents have been provided is the reason for the Respondent realising they can object to the increase. The percentage calculation based on the CPI is also correct. Following the Tribunal’s decision regarding the previous reviews the current pitch fee is incorrect. The Tribunal finds that this does not invalidate the review. The Tribunal decides that what is stated as the current pitch fee on the form should be replaced by the current pitch fee determined by the Tribunal which is £249.93.[40]The Tribunal determined that this has resulted in an overpayment by the Respondent of: a) the difference between £249.93 per month and £269.42 of £19.49 per month between 1 April 2022 and 31 March 2023. The overpayment for the 12-month period being £233.88; b) the difference between £249.93 per month and £294.84 of £44.91 per month between 1 April 2023 and 31 March 2024. The overpayment for the 12-month period being £538.92. The total overpayment over the two-year period is £772.80 Pursuant to section 231A(e) of Housing Act 2004 the Tribunal directs that the sum of £772.80 be paid by the Applicant to the Respondent within 48 days after the Tribunal sends this Decision.[41]The Tribunal therefore determines that the pitch fee that the Site Owner should have proposed for the Review of 1 April 2024 in line with the presumption in paragraph 20 is 4% of £249.93 which is an increase of £9.92 giving a new pitch fee of £259.93. 9 Issue 2 – Reasons, Responses & Tribunal Findings re Objections to Increase[42]The Tribunal then considered the Respondent’s submissions and the Applicant’s responses to determine whether it would be unreasonable to increase the pitch fee because there had been a deterioration in the condition or decrease in amenity of the Site or a reduction in services supplied to the pitch or mobile home, or any deterioration in the quality of those services under paragraph 18(1) or a weighty factor which rebutted the presumption in paragraph 20 (A1) of the Implied Terms of the Written Statement of Agreement set out in Chapter 2 of Part 1, of Schedule 1 of the Mobile Homes Act 1983.[43]Both parties provided a Statement of Case. Below are the issues raised by the Respondent for refusing to agree the proposed pitch fee increase to take effect on the Review Date on 1 April 2023 followed by the Applicant’s reply and the Tribunal’s findings. Increase not justified Respondent[44]The Respondent said that the increase for the previous year was 13.4% was not justified. There was very little maintenance carried out which the Respondent said was due to the Applicant seeking to develop Heathfield Park, another Site owned and operated by the Applicant and therefore transferring staff and resources to that Site instead of maintaining this Site. In general, the Respondent said that the pitch fees at this Site are high. Applicant[45]The Applicant acknowledged that it is correct the reviewed pitch fee for 2023 was a percentage increase of 13.4% resulting in an overall increase of £33.49 per month for the Respondent. The Applicant relied upon the presumption under Chapter 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Act, specifically Implied Term 20(A1), having regard to the retail prices index (RPI), the relevant inflationary index at the time. Implied Term 20(A1) does not require that the Respondent must derive a benefit from a percentage increase in the relevant inflationary index. While this was a significant percentage increase, it is not a ground under Implied Term 18(1) not does it rebut the presumption in Implied Term 20(A1) as it is not a deterioration in the condition or decrease in amenity of the Site or a reduction in services supplied to the pitch or mobile home, or any deterioration in the quality of those services. It is also not a weighty factor to rebut the presumption in Implied Term 20(A1).[46]The Applicant said that tribunals have previously confirmed the amount of pitch fees on other parks has no relevance to the review of the pitch fee on another park. He said that Heathfield Park does not take priority. Maintenance works on both parks are carried out in a timely manner and additional professionals were instructed to carry out maintenance, where required. The Applicant added that he had continued to maintain and invest in the Duvall Park which benefits from a secure gated entrance with CCTV fitted and focused on the only road in/out of the Site for Occupiers’ safety and peace of mind plus a constantly rotating camera on the back of the office. There are 2 or 3 events per year including a summer and Christmas party, 10 as well as a fish and chips van which visits the Site weekly. He said he had won best Park of the Year in 2016, 2019 and 2020 demonstrating the Site to be well run. Tribunal’s Findings[47]The Tribunal followed the case of Teignbridge District Council v Francis Clark [2024] UKUT 0029 (LC), in which the Upper Tribunal found that “in giving weight to the “exceptional” level of increase in the RPI the First -tier Tribunal considered an irrelevant consideration.” The Tribunal therefore found that it could not take account of the increase for the previous year of 13.4% which meant the Respondent’s pitch fee increased by £33.49 per month.[48]The Tribunal found the Applicant was correct in stating that Implied Term 20(A1) does not require that the Respondent derive a benefit from a percentage increase in the relevant inflationary index. The Tribunal therefore went on to consider the specific issues raised by the Respondent which she said were a deterioration in the condition or decrease in amenity of the Site or a reduction in services supplied or a weighty factor which rebutted the presumption. Grass Cutting Respondent[49]The Respondent stated that before she bought her home she was told that any grass on the outside of her fenced garden would be cut regularly by the maintenance team. This did happen for the first few months then any regular grass cutting stopped. One grass cutting season the grass was only cut three times. In order to keep the property looking tidy the Respondent employed a contractor to take up the turf and replace it with gravel. The lack of grass cutting left the whole Site looking very untidy. Applicant[50]Where the weather permits, the Applicant cuts the grass on the Site every week. Since May 2024, the Applicant has also instructed another person to cut the grass weekly, alongside the current arrangement, so the grass is cut more often, weather permitting. A copy of the invoice demonstrating the Applicant’s monthly expenditure for additional maintenance and gardening was provided. Tribunal’s Findings[51]The Tribunal found that there were few common areas of grass, the main one being the recreation area. The area of grass referred to in this instance is part of the Respondent’s pitch. The Respondent said she was told when she entered the Written Agreement that the grass on the pitch would be cut by the Applicant’s workers. However, this was not part of the Written Agreement and was a separate arrangement. The Respondent is claiming that the Applicant has failed to comply with an oral agreement or that she was induced into entering the Written Agreement by a misrepresentation, neither of which can be dealt with through a pitch fee review.[52]Therefore the Tribunal determined that there had not been a deterioration in the condition or decrease in amenity of the Site or a reduction in services supplied to the pitch or mobile home, or any deterioration in the quality of those services under paragraph 18(1) or a weighty factor which rebutted the presumption in paragraph 20 (A1) of the Implied Terms of the Written Statement of Agreement set out in Chapter 2 of Part 1, of Schedule 1 of the Mobile Homes Act 1983. 11 Sewage Smell in Home Respondent[53]The Respondent said she had a sewage smell in the dining room since she moved into her Home, which the Applicant said his maintenance team were aware of but have been unable to identify what it is or where it is coming from. The park plumber has tried to deal with it several times to no avail, even stating "I couldn't live here with that smell” In addition, one of the maintenance men. has pulled up the floor in the kitchen saying he could smell “cooked cabbage" but again nothing was found. She said she had lived with this smell for over three years with no hope that it will ever be rectified. She said there is something wrong and it is not right that she should have to put up with it saying that she believed it was a result of 'dodgy' plumbing when the Home was installed. Applicant[54]The Respondent confirmed that he had attempted to discover the cause of the reported sewage smell in the Respondent’s kitchen and that he had instructed a plumber to investigate several times but he did not find anything wrong. While a sewage smell would doubtless be distressing for the Respondent, he said he could not agree that this was a ground under Implied 18(1) to rebut the presumption in Implied Term 20(A1) as it is not a deterioration in the condition or decrease in amenity of the Site or a reduction in services supplied to the pitch or mobile home or any deterioration in the quality of those services. He also said it was not a weighty factor either because the first complaint the Applicant received was after the Respondent had occupied the mobile home for some three years. The Applicant submitted that is an issue for the Respondent to address with contractors to be instructed by her. Tribunal’s Findings[55]The Tribunal found from the parties’ statements that the sewage smell is because of a defect limited to the Respondent’s pitch either due to plumbing within the home or the connection of the home to the Site services. In either event it is not something that can be dealt with through the pitch fee review.[56]Therefore the Tribunal determined that there had not been a deterioration in the condition or decrease in amenity of the Site or a reduction in services supplied to the pitch or mobile home, or any deterioration in the quality of those services under paragraph 18(1) or a weighty factor which rebutted the presumption in paragraph 20 (A1) of the Implied Terms of the Written Statement of Agreement set out in Chapter 2 of Part 1, of Schedule 1 of the Mobile Homes Act 1983. Flooding on Driveway Respondent[57]The Respondent said the driveway on her pitch slopes downwards and in heavy rain water collects (photograph provided). She said she was unable to get out of her car without wading through a puddle of water and any visitors to her home cannot reach the front steps without getting wet feet. This was reported to the Applicant via email soon after she moved in (copy provided) but his response was always "there is nothing that can be done". The Respondent added that, however, on one occasion 12 many months ago. when the Applicant was speaking to the Respondent’s mother who lives at No 52) he said to her "tell your daughter that I haven't forgotten about her driveway”. The Respondent said that this suggested that he was going to do something about the flooding but this has not happened. There is little to no surface drainage around the whole Site this is something that needs remedying as during heavy rain the roads and gardens flood. Applicant[58]The Applicant acknowledged that the Respondent’s driveway flooded when it rained and that the complaint was referred to the Lead Licensing Enforcement Officer for Cherwell District Council on 13 November 2023 and an investigation was undertaken in response to which works were carried out. These included improvements to drainage and lighting. The Licensing authorities confirmed compliance on 27 September 2024. It was specifically stated that there was no evidence of flooding on the Site and that while there were some areas of water saturation and some puddles visible these were deemed to be at an acceptable level following periods of rain, and/or heavy rain. The Lead Enforcement Officer’s letter goes on to say that there is no evidence the Site has inadequate drainage while there is evidence of surface water during and shortly after long or heavy periods of rain, that water is dispersed adequately (a copy of the letter was provided).[59]The Applicant said that recently the Site had been subject to unprecedented rainfall which would probably have resulted in water pooling on the Respondent’s pitch albeit temporarily. On 24 September 2024 the Site experienced a month’s rainfall in a 24-hour period, causing flooding in most parts of Oxfordshire. During this period, the small stream that runs through the Site burst its bank because of this extreme rainfall which is the only time during his ownership. This caused some flooding to homeowners’ pitches and roads. The surface water had dissipated by the next afternoon and the roads were clear of water.[60]At the hearing the Applicant gave evidence that the Site Road which goes the length of the Site (from north to south) has 18-inch soakaways and has a porous construction and drainage. Tribunal’s Findings[61]The Tribunal found apart from the car parks, driveways and Site Road, the Site has, as Chris Pegler, the Lead Licensing Enforcement Officer for Cherwell District Council found, drainage provision with use of gravel and soft surfaces. The Tribunal found that as well as the Site having a natural fall towards the southern boundary there is also a natural fall to the Site towards the pitches along the stream. The Tribunal noted the Applicant’s evidence of the porous road construction and drainage. From the Tribunal’s knowledge and experience it appeared that the Site Road which goes the length of the Site (from north to south) has 18-inch soakaways to take the water crossing the Site (from west to east) to the stream. If these become inundated then water pools on the driveways of the pitches bordering the stream. From the Respondent’s evidence this happens with some degree of regularity, notwithstanding that the water does eventually disperse, it causes the Respondent inconvenience.[62]The Tribunal found from its inspection that the rear fence to the Respondent’s pitch is a pitch boundary in the same way as the pitch boundary to the Site Road. The Site 13 Owner is responsible for the Site Road beyond the front pitch boundary and in this case for the stream beyond the rear pitch boundary.[63]The Tribunal found the stream has a natural fall towards the southern boundary of the Site. On the day of the inspection the stream was flowing gently and although narrow appeared deep sided. Nevertheless, the Tribunal was aware from its knowledge and experience that water courses can fill rapidly and overflow. The Tribunal was sceptical of the Applicant’s claim that the stream had only overflowed once in the past 20 years. The Tribunal also doubted that the stream was checked every day noting some branches on the bed of the stream, but saw no evidence of blockage.[64]The Tribunal found that the driveway and pitch were susceptible to flooding from inundation in heavy rainfall, irrespective of the drainage provisions and stream maintenance. The Tribunal referred to Teignbridge District Council v Clark [2024] UKUT 00279 (LC) in which it was said: “Why I disagree with Mr. Ward's submission, is that the statute says nothing about causation. That means, I accept, that the statute places the financial consequences of externalities - whether weather conditions or anti-social behaviour or any other cause of a deterioration in the site, on the site owner rather than the occupiers. This is hardly surprising and certainly not irrational.” [26][65]The Tribunal found that the susceptibility of the driveway and pitch to flooding was a deterioration in the condition or decrease in amenity of the Site under paragraph 18(1) or a weighty factor which rebutted the presumption in paragraph 20 (A1) of the Implied Terms of the Written Statement of Agreement set out in Chapter 2 of Part 1, of Schedule 1 of the Mobile Homes Act 1983. Flooding under Home Respondent[66]The Respondent said that when she first purchased the Home there was already badly installed decking at the back of the pitch which extended over the stream. She said she had the decking replaced and found the base of the Home much closer to the bank of the stream than it was possible to see prior to her purchase. She said the contractor carrying out the decking replacement was concerned at just how close the banks of the stream are to the base of the Home and how much damage that could be caused by flooding and suggested that the banks need to be shored up as they were cracking (photographs provided). The Respondent said that she reported this to the Applicant but was told there was nothing that would be done. She said that in July 2024 she was made aware that work had been carried out on the banks of the stream further down the road and on 1 July 2024 she emailed asking if the banks at the back or her pitch could also be shored up but she received an email the same day stating that work would not be done on that part of the stream and suggested that she instruct her own contractor to carry out work. The Respondent said the stream is not her responsibility and should be maintained by the landowner. She added that the underneath of the Home is constantly wet and the chassis and struts are in danger of rusting and corrosion. The Respondent also mentioned that sandbags had been 14 placed in the stream further down the road which slowed down the flow during heavy rain which causes a backup and flooding at her end of the road. Applicant[67]The Applicant claimed that he did not own the stream although he did maintain it. The Applicant said that there is an area of the stream where it is eroding and a contractor was instructed to install concrete blocks but only where it was eroding because it is not eroding everywhere. The Applicant added that an Occupier who lives about six homes further down has placed 16 sandbags in the stream which is not something that should be done. Tribunal’s Findings[68]The Tribunal understood the Applicant owns the land either side of the stream and therefore the stream bed and so is the riparian owner. As a riparian owner the Applicant has the right to receive the watercourse flow in its natural quantity and quality and to protect his property from flooding and erosion caused by the watercourse. The riparian owner also has the responsibility to maintain the bed and banks of the watercourse clearing litter debris and animal carcases and must allow the water to flow naturally, without obstruction, pollution, or diversion. The Applicant is therefore responsible for the stream.[69]The Tribunal found that the base to the Respondent’s Home was close to the bank of the steam and that by reason of the decking the extent of the pitch was partially over the stream. Whereas this could be an issue in the future and the Applicant as the Site Owner has a responsibility for the base and services, it is not something that can be dealt with through the pitch fee review.[70]Therefore the Tribunal determined that there had not been a deterioration in the condition or decrease in amenity of the Site or a reduction in services supplied to the pitch or mobile home, or any deterioration in the quality of those services under paragraph 18(1) or a weighty factor which rebutted the presumption in paragraph 20 (A1) of the Implied Terms of the Written Statement of Agreement set out in Chapter 2 of Part 1, of Schedule 1 of the Mobile Homes Act 1983. Parking Respondent[71]The Respondent said that since she moved to the Site there has been a problem with parking for visitors. The visitors’ car park by the entrance gate is full of occupiers’ additional vehicles. This means that visitors must park in the car park right at the top entrance to the Site. The Respondent submitted that it was not reasonable to expect elderly visitors to walk from that car park when there should be alternative parking available. When this issue was raised with the Applicant a letter was sent to all occupiers informing them that the entrance gate car park is specifically for visitors and occupiers should park additional vehicles in the top car park. The Respondent said that the letter was ignored and said all the vehicles currently parked in the visitors’ car park belong to Occupiers (photograph provided). Alternative parking has been created near the pond but at least one space is being used by the Occupiers of the Park Home nearby. 15[72]The Respondent complained that there is a lack of consistency in enforcing the rules. Despite letters being sent to all Occupiers asking them not to park on the road or in the visitors’ car parks these are often ignored by Occupiers. Applicant[73]The Applicant said that there are approximately seventy visitor parking spaces on the Site. These are broken down as follows: the top car park can accommodate forty vehicles, the office can accommodate six vehicles, the middle car park can accommodate twenty vehicles and the new visitor parking spaces by the pond can currently accommodate five to six vehicles. On or around September 2024, since the last pitch fee review, five to six additional visitor parking spaces had been created at the bottom of the Site by the pond. This area was an eyesore whilst the ground works were being undertaken but this is an unavoidable step. The parking spaces were completed within approximately two weeks. The Applicant said that he was in the process of extending this to accommodate ten to fourteen parking spaces. Again, these works will be an eyesore whilst the ground works are being undertaken but it is hoped to complete these within the next couple of weeks. These spaces are of great benefit to homeowners in allowing their visitors to park on a paved area. He added that he is not seeking to recover the expenditure incurred in creating these parking spaces, notwithstanding that this is an improvement. Photographs provided.[74]The Applicant acknowledged that two more new pitches in close to the visitor parking spaces had been created. However, he said Occupiers benefit from enough space to park one or two vehicles alongside and should not be parking within the visitor parking spaces. The Applicant said that he had written to homeowners confirming that the car park nearest the entrance is for visitors’ vehicles and the top car park is for Occupiers’ additional vehicles. No commercial vehicles are to be parked on the Site.[75]The Applicant said that there is a limit to how much he can influence car parking by Occupiers and their visitors unless it is in breach of the terms of their Agreements or the Park Rules. He said he is also dependent on Occupiers letting him know at the time when there may be a breach so he can then investigate and act. There is very little he can do if told after the event. Tribunal’s Findings[76]The Tribunal found from its inspection that most if not all pitches had a parking space but the Respondent said that there were still too few as many occupiers had two vehicles. The Tribunal finds from its knowledge and experience that it appears no matter how many spaces there are, and here there are 70 apart from those on the pitches, there never seem enough. It was appreciated that the top car park is some distance from the Site nevertheless its 40 spaces is a valuable amenity. Signage and the marking of spaces in the visitor car park near the main gate may clarify its use. The Tribunal accepted that in forming the new spaces there had been some disruption. However, this was relatively transient and ultimately the work was to the benefit of the Occupiers including the Respondent. Notwithstanding the parking problems the Tribunal found that there had been an increase in the number of parking spaces and therefore this was not a deterioration or decrease in amenity of the Site or a weighty factor. 16[77]Therefore the Tribunal determined that there had not been a deterioration in the condition or decrease in amenity of the Site or a reduction in services supplied to the pitch or mobile home, or any deterioration in the quality of those services under paragraph 18(1) or a weighty factor which rebutted the presumption in paragraph 20 (A1) of the Implied Terms of the Written Statement of Agreement set out in Chapter 2 of Part 1, of Schedule 1 of the Mobile Homes Act 1983. Lighting on Entering the Site Respondent[78]The Respondent said that there was inadequate lighting on entering the Site until the office. The lights that are installed by the gates were only installed after an Occupier had a bad fall. Applicant[79]The Applicant stated that there are adequate electric lighting units on the roadside to meet the conditions of the licence. On or around 11 May 2024, 3 LED bulkhead fittings were installed on the wall of the Site by the entrance which shine on to the road. One light is controlled by an existing dusk till dawn sensor, and the remaining two are controlled by a new separate dusk till dawn sensor. A photograph of the lights was provided.[80]The Applicant said that he had decided to install the lights before the Occupier tripped over a speed bump and sustained an injury on 27 January 2024 but it had taken some time to get permission from the owner of the wall to have them installed. He said he did not own the road and only had an easement over it. He had to get permission from the landowner to re-surface the road with tarmac, to install the traffic mirror, and to maintain the luminous paint on the bump. The landowner has not given permission to carry out any further works. Tribunal’s Findings[81]The lights are an addition and therefore not a deterioration to the Site. Therefore the Tribunal determined that there had not been a deterioration in the condition or decrease in amenity of the Site or a reduction in services supplied to the pitch or mobile home, or any deterioration in the quality of those services under paragraph 18(1) or a weighty factor which rebutted the presumption in paragraph 20 (A1) of the Implied Terms of the Written Statement of Agreement set out in Chapter 2 of Part 1, of Schedule 1 of the Mobile Homes Act 1983. Pest Control Respondent[82]The Respondent said that an Occupier resident puts out food for the birds in her garden which has attracted rats. The Respondent said that she should be required to stop this practice on health and safety grounds. Applicant[83]The Applicant replied saying that when notified of any vermin he said he took steps such as the careful use of poison. The Applicant said he understood the Occupier had stopped feeding the birds but if this was not the case, he would take action but relies on other Occupiers to keep him informed. 17 Tribunal’s Findings[84]The Tribunal found that this is a specific issue with an Occupier and not a deterioration in the condition of the Site or loss of amenity.[85]Therefore the Tribunal determined that there had not been a deterioration in the condition or decrease in amenity of the Site or a reduction in services supplied to the pitch or mobile home, or any deterioration in the quality of those services under paragraph 18(1) or a weighty factor which rebutted the presumption in paragraph 20 (A1) of the Implied Terms of the Written Statement of Agreement set out in Chapter 2 of Part 1, of Schedule 1 of the Mobile Homes Act 1983. Maintenance of Site Respondent[86]The Respondent said that a tree that was growing on the bank of the stream started leaning onto her pitch boundary fence pushing it over. She said that although she was aware that the fence was her responsibility the trees are not as they are outside of her property. She understood from the Applicant that the tree would be cut down but this did not happen and she had to employ someone at her own expense to remove the tree. Applicant[87]The Applicant said that he had inspected the tree complained of by the Respondent but took the view that it was not an issue as although it was about 12 feet tall it was just a glorified big branch and while touching the Respondent’s fence it did not appear to be damaging it. As the Respondent had complained about the tree he said he did offer to have it cut down, albeit not urgently, but the Respondent said she did not want this done at that time but later went on to have the tree cut down by contractors she had instructed herself. Tribunal’s Findings[88]The Applicant’s failure to remove a tree as promptly as the Respondent would have wished is not a deterioration in the condition of the Site or a loss of amenity.[89]Therefore the Tribunal determined that there had not been a deterioration in the condition or decrease in amenity of the Site or a reduction in services supplied to the pitch or mobile home, or any deterioration in the quality of those services under paragraph 18(1) or a weighty factor which rebutted the presumption in paragraph 20 (A1) of the Implied Terms of the Written Statement of Agreement set out in Chapter 2 of Part 1, of Schedule 1 of the Mobile Homes Act 1983. Tribunal Decision re Issue 2[90]The Tribunal determined that except for Item 4. Flooding on the Driveway there had not been a deterioration in the condition or decrease in amenity of the Site or a reduction in services supplied to the pitch or mobile home, or any deterioration in the quality of those services under paragraph 18(1) or a weighty factor which rebutted the presumption in paragraph 20 (A1) of the Implied Terms of the Written Statement of Agreement set out in Chapter 2 of Part 1, of Schedule 1 of the Mobile Homes Act 1983. 18[91]Pitch 91 including its driveway was susceptible to flooding from water inundation in heavy rainfall, although as the Home is raised above the ground level, to date the water has subsided before affecting the Home itself. This inundation is due to the contours of the Site falling towards the stream and the related factor of the stream overflowing. This may be a relatively recent phenomenon which was not apparent when the Site was developed and therefore is a deterioration. Alternatively, it is a weighty factor because, whenever it became apparent or whatever its cause, it creates significant inconvenience for the Respondent.[92]The Tribunal determined that an increase in line with inflation was warranted but that this should be limited to 2% rather than 4%. Therefore, the corrected current pitch fee of £249.93 is increased by 2% being an increase of £5.00 which gives a new pitch fee for 91 Duval Park of £254.93 per month to take effect on the Review Date on 1 April 2024. Summary of Decisions[93]The Tribunal determines the new pitch fee for 91 Duvall Park Homes as £254.93 per month to take effect on the Review Date on 1 April 2024.[94]The Tribunal directs that the overpayment of the pitch fee for the period from 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2023 and from 1 April 2023 and 31 March 2024 of £772.80 by the Respondent shall be paid by the Applicant to the Respondent within 48 days after the Tribunal sends this Decision pursuant to section 231A(e) of Housing Act 2004. Judge JR Morris Appendix 1 – Right 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. Appendix 2 – The Law 19[1]Section 2 of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 (“the Act”) provides that the terms of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Act shall be implied and shall have effect notwithstanding the express terms of the Agreement. Paragraphs 16 to 20 of Chapter 2 of Schedule 1 to the Act were introduced by the Mobile Homes Act 1983 (Amendment of Schedule 1) (England) Order 2006. The relevant provisions of the legislation that apply to this decision given the issues raised are as follows:[2]Paragraph 16 provides: The pitch fee can only be changed in accordance with paragraph 17, either—(a) with the agreement of the occupier, or(b) if the court, on the application of the owner or the occupier, considers it reasonable for the pitch fee to be changed and makes an order determining the amount of the new pitch fee.[3]Paragraph 17 provides:(1) The pitch fee shall be reviewed annually as at the review date.(2) At least 28 clear days before the review date the owner shall serve on the occupier a written notice setting out his proposals in respect of the new pitch fee. (2A) In the case of a protected site in England, a notice under subparagraph (2) which proposes an increase in the pitch fee is of no effect unless it is accompanied by a document which complies with paragraph 25A.(3) If the occupier agrees to the proposed new pitch fee, it shall be payable as from the review date.(4) If the occupier does not agree to the proposed new pitch fee— (a) the owner or (in the case of a protected site in England) the occupier may apply to the court for an order under paragraph 16(b) determining the amount of the new pitch fee; (b) the occupier shall continue to pay the current pitch fee to the owner until such time as the new pitch fee is agreed by the occupier or an order determining the amount of the new pitch fee is made by the court under paragraph 16(b); and (c) the new pitch fee shall be payable as from the review date but the occupier shall not be treated as being in arrears until the 28th day after the date on which the new pitch fee is agreed or the 28th day after the date of the court order determining the amount of the new pitch fee.(5) An application under sub-paragraph (4)(a) may be made at any time after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the review date. Sub- Paragraphs (6) to 10 are not applicable to this case (11) Sub-paragraph (12) applies if a tribunal, on the application of the occupier of a pitch in England, is satisfied that— 20 (a) a notice under sub-paragraph (2) or (6)(b) was of no effect because of sub-paragraph (2A) or (6A), but (b) the occupier nonetheless paid the owner the pitch fee proposed in the notice. (12) The tribunal may order the owner to pay the occupier, within the period of 21 days beginning with the date of the order, the difference between— (a) the amount which the occupier was required to pay the owner for the period in question, and (b) the amount which the occupier has paid the owner for that period.[4]Paragraph 18 provides: (1) When determining the amount of the new pitch fee particular regard must 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 paragraphs 22(f) and (g); and (iii) to which a majority of the occupiers have not disagreed in writing or which, in the case of such disagreement, the court [tribunal] on the application of the owner, has ordered should be taken into account when determining the amount of the new pitch fee; (aa) in 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 [26th May 2013] (in so far as regard has not previously been had to that deterioration or decrease for the purposes of this subparagraph); (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 subparagraph); (b) … (ba) in the case of a protected site in England, 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; (1A) 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[5]Paragraph 20 provides that: 21 (A1) In the case of a protected site in England, unless this would be unreasonable having regard to paragraph 18(1), there is a presumption that the pitch fee shall increase or decrease by a percentage which is no more than any percentage increase or decrease in the consumer prices index calculated by reference only to—(a) the latest index, and(b) the index published for the month which was 12 months before that to which the latest index relates. (A2) In sub-paragraph (A1), “the latest index”— (a) in a case where the owner serves a notice under paragraph 17(2), means the last index published before the day on which that notice is served; (b) in a case where the owner serves a notice under paragraph 17(6), means the last index published before the day by which the owner was required to serve a notice under paragraph 17(2)[6]Section 231A of the Housing Act 2004 provides: Additional Powers of First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal(1) The First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal exercising any jurisdiction conferred by or under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, the Mobile Homes Act 1983, the Housing Act 1985 or this Act has, in addition to any specific powers exercisable by them in exercising that jurisdiction, the general power mentioned in subsection (2).(2) The tribunal’s general power is a power to give such directions as the tribunal considers necessary or desirable for securing the just, expeditious and economical disposal of the proceedings or any issue in or in connection with them.(3) When exercising jurisdiction under this Act, the directions which may be given by the tribunal under its general power include (where appropriate)— (a) directions requiring a licence to be granted under Part 2 or 3 of this Act; (b) directions requiring any licence so granted to contain such terms as are specified in the directions; (c) directions requiring any order made under Part 4 of this Act to contain such terms as are so specified; (d) directions that any building or part of a building so specified is to be treated as if an HMO declaration had been served in respect of it on such date as is so specified (and such a direction is to be an excluded decision for the purposes of section 11(1) and 13(1) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007); (e) directions requiring the payment of money by one party to the proceedings to another by way of compensation, damages or otherwise. (3A) …(4) When exercising jurisdiction under the Mobile Homes Act 1983, the directions which may be given by the tribunal under its general power include (where appropriate)— 22 (a) directions requiring the payment of money by one party to the proceedings to another by way of compensation, damages or otherwise; (b) directions requiring the arrears of pitch fees or the recovery of overpayments of pitch fees to be paid in such manner and by such date as may be specified in the directions; (c) directions requiring cleaning, repairs, restoration, re-positioning or other works to be carried out in connection with a mobile home, pitch or protected site in such manner as may be specified in the directions; (d) directions requiring the establishment, provision or maintenance of any service or amenity in connection with a mobile home, pitch or protected site in such manner as may be specified in the directions.[7]In the case of Away Resorts Ltd v Morgan [2018] UKUT 123 (LC) the Upper Tribunal confirmed that the powers granted by s231A(4)(a) of the Housing Act 2004, are broad and designed to allow proceedings to be disposed of. They are not merely limited to procedural directions and can include orders akin to injunctive relief. --- decision_3.pdf --- 1 FIRST TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : CAM/38UB/PHI/2024/0607 HMCTS : Inspection & Hearing Site : Duvall Park Homes, Heyford leys, Upper Heyford OX25 5LX Park Home Address : 91 Duvall Park Homes, Heyford leys, Upper Heyford OX25 5LX Applicant : Mr Liberty Durant Representative : Tozers LLP Respondent : Ms Kim Bernadette Leonard Type of application : Application under Mobile Homes Act 1983 to determine a pitch fee Tribunal : Judge JR Morris Mrs S Redmond BSc (Econ), MRICS Date of Application : 27 June 2024 Date of Directions : 7 January 2025 Date of Hearing : 20 May 2025 Date of Further Directions : 29 May 2025 Date of Decision : 18 July 2025 Date of Supplementary Decision : 31 July 2025 ____________________________________________ SUPPLEMENTARY DECISION _________________________________ Crown Copyright © 2025 Decision[1]In line with its Decision of 18 July 2025 and pursuant to section 231A(e) of Housing Act 2004, the Tribunal directs that the overpayment of the pitch fee for the period 1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025 of £478.92 by the Respondent shall be reimbursed by the Applicant to the Respondent within 48 days after the Tribunal sends this Decision. 2 Reasons Introduction[2]The Applicant, who is the Site Owner applied on 27 June 2024 for a determination of the pitch fee payable by the Respondents who are the owners of a Home that is sited on pitch 91 Duvall Park which they Occupy.[3]The Tribunal accepted the oral and written statements and evidence of the Respondents and found that the Applicant omitted to serve a Pitch Fee Review Form on the Respondent for the Pitch Fee Reviews of 1 April 2022 and 1 April 2023 which therefore were invalid. As a result, the Respondent’s current pitch fee should be £249.93 per month to calculate the proposed increase for 1 April 2024.[4]The Tribunal determined that this resulted in an overpayment by the Respondent over the two-year period of £772.80 and pursuant to section 231A(e) of Housing Act 2004 the Tribunal directs that the sum be paid by the Applicant to the Respondent within 48 days after the Tribunal sends this Decision.[5]The Tribunal found that the 1 April 2024 pitch fee review was valid in that it complied with the legislation in the documents provided. The percentage calculation based on the CPI was also correct. Following the Tribunal’s decision regarding the previous reviews the current pitch fee was incorrect. The Tribunal found that this did not invalidate the review. The Tribunal decided that what is stated as the current pitch fee on the form should be replaced by the current pitch fee determined by the Tribunal which is £249.93 per month.[6]The Tribunal therefore determined that the pitch fee that the Site Owner should have proposed in line with the presumption in paragraph 20 is 4% of £249.93 per month which is an increase of £9.92 per month giving a new pitch fee of £259.93 per month.[7]Having heard the evidence and submissions from both parties the Tribunal found that Pitch 91 was susceptible to flooding from water inundation in heavy rainfall, and this was either a deterioration in the condition of the Site under paragraph 18(1) or a weighty factor which rebutted the presumption in paragraph 20 (A1) of the Implied Terms of the Written Statement of Agreement set out in Chapter 2 of Part 1, of Schedule 1 of the Mobile Homes Act 1983.[8]The Tribunal determined that an increase in line with inflation was warranted but that this should be limited to 2% rather than 4%. Therefore, the corrected current pitch fee of £249.93 per month is increased by 2% being an increase of £5.00 per month which gives a new pitch fee for 91 Duval Park of £254.93 per month to take effect on the Review Date of 1 April 2024.[9]Notwithstanding the Respondent’s refusal to pay the new pitch fee, due to previous overpayments and the Tribunal’s determination being on 18 July 2025 the Respondent had already paid a pitch fee of £294.84 per month for that year, which is £39.91 per month more than the £254.93 per month determined. Therefore, the Respondent had over paid £478.92 up to 31 March 2025. 3[10]The Respondent has submitted that the Tribunal should make a Direction pursuant to section 231A(e) of Housing Act 2004 that the overpayment of the pitch fee for the period 1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025 of £478.92 by the Respondent should be reimbursed by the Applicant to the Respondent.[11]A tribunal’s determination in respect of a pitch fee review on a site owner’s application made within the year of review does not normally require a direction for reimbursement as an adjustment is made during that year. However, in the present circumstances this is not practicable.[12]Therefore, in line with its Decision of 18 July 2025 and pursuant to section 231A(e) of Housing Act 2004, the Tribunal directs that the overpayment of the pitch fee for the period 1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025 of £478.92 by the Respondent shall be reimbursed by the Applicant to the Respondent within 48 days after the Tribunal sends this Decision.[13]The Respondent also referred to the review of 1 April 2025. The Decision of the Tribunal related to the Application of the Site Owner for a determination of the pitch fee of the Review of 1 April 2024. The Tribunal cannot consider future reviews. Judge JR Morris Appendix – Right 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.