Shotley Country Park, Gate farm Road, Ipswich IP9 1QS : CAM/42UB/PHI/2025/0795, 0801, 0802, 0814 CAM/42UB/PHI/2025/0795-0801-0802-0814
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
Case No CAM/42UB/PHI/2025/0795-0801-0802-0814
Between
Shotley Country Park LimitedApplicant
Before
Judge JR Morris
Members
Dr J Wilcox FRICSDate 16 April 2026Hearing 2026-03-18Property: Shotley Country Park, Gate farm Road, Ipswich IP9 1QSType of application: Application under Mobile Homes Act 1983 to determine a pitch fee
DECISION
[1]The Tribunal determines that the new pitch fees should be as follows:[2]• Mr Kimble of 8 Harbour Place of £202.00 from the review date of 1 April 2025 to replace the existing pitch fee of £200.00 per month from the last review date of 1 April 2024 giving an increase of £2.00 calculated from a percentage increase of 1%;[3]• Mr & Mrs Phillips of 11 Harbour Place of £202.00 from the review date of 1 April 2025 to replace the existing pitch fee of £200.00 per month from the last review date of 1 April 2024 giving an increase of ££2.00 calculated from a percentage increase of 1%;[4]• Mr & Mrs Eaton 12 Harbour Place of £202.00 from the review date of 1 April 2025 to replace the existing pitch fee of £200.00 per month from the last review date of 1 April 2024 giving an increase of £2.00 calculated from a percentage increase of 1%.• Mr & Mrs Thompson of 14 Harbour Place of £277.64 from the review date of 1 April 2025 to replace the existing pitch fee of £274.89 per month from the last review date of 1 April 2024 giving an increase of £2.75 calculated from a percentage increase of 1%;
REASONS
[4]The Applicant applied on 24 June 2025 for a determination of the pitch fee payable by the Respondents for: Mr J Kimble 8 Harbour Place Mr J & Mrs K Phillips 11 Harbour Place Mr & Mrs Eaton 12 Harbour Place Mr A & Mrs D Thompson 14 Harbour Place On 21 February 2025 the Applicant Site Owner proposed a new monthly pitch fee as follows for: Mr J Kimble of 8 Harbour Place of £206.00 from the review date of 1 April 2025 to replace the existing pitch fee of £200.00 per month from the last review date of 1 April 2024; Mr & Mrs Phillips of 11 Harbour Place of £206.00 from the review date of 1 April 2025 to replace the existing pitch fee of £200.00 per month from the last review date of 1 April 2024; Mr & Mrs Eaton 12 Harbour Place of £206.00 from the review date of 1 April 2025 to replace the existing pitch fee of £200.00 per month from the last review date of 1 April 2024; Mr & Mrs Thompson of 14 Harbour Place of £283.14 from the review date of 1 April 2025 to replace the existing pitch fee of £274.89 per month from the last review date of 1 April 2024. The Applications were made separately however the Tribunal determined that all Applications might be heard together. The Law[5]The relevant law is: a) b) c) 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. 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. Section 231A of the Housing Act 2004 as set out in Appendix 2. 2[6]The Law is as set out in Appendix 2 to this Decision and Reasons. In summary this is that a site owner may review the pitch fee in accordance with the statutory amended implied terms of the written statement of agreement between a site owner and a mobile home owner. Paragraphs 16 and 17 of the implied terms provide that if on reviewing the pitch fee the mobile home owners do not agree the amount then the site owner must apply to a tribunal to determine a fee.[9]Paragraph 20 states that when a tribunal is determining the amount of a new pitch fee it should apply a rebuttable presumption (“the 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 (CPI). Paragraph 18 states that in applying the presumption regard must be had to several matters. Those relevant to these proceedings are under paragraph 18(1) (aa) any deterioration in the condition, and any decrease in the amenity, of the site or any adjoining land which is occupied or controlled by the owner and under 18(1) (ab) any reduction in the services that the owner supplies to the site, pitch or mobile home, and any deterioration in the quality of those services since 26th May 2013. Paragraph 20 goes on to make general proviso that the presumption should apply unless this would be unreasonable. In Vyse v Wyldecrest Limited [2017] UKUT 24 (LC) Judge Robinson said at paragraph 45: “the factors which may displace the presumption are not limited to those set out in paragraph 18(1) but may include other factors …” which it was said at paragraph 50: “must have sufficient weight to outweigh the presumption in the context of the statutory scheme as a whole.” These are often referred to as “weighty factors.” Directions[11]Directions were issued on 27 October 2025. In compliance with which the Applicant provided to the Tribunal and the Respondent copies of:• The Application Forms dated 30 June 2025;• The Directions dated 27 October 2025 with Reply Form annexed;• The Applicant’s Statement of Case;• The Notices of Proposed Pitch Fee dated 21 February 2025;• The Pitch Fee Review Forms dated 21 February 2025;• The Written Statements of Agreement. The Directions required the Respondents who opposed the proposed pitch fee increase, by 8 December 2025, to send to the Applicant and the Tribunal the completed Reply Form annexed to the Directions. In addition, the Respondents, were to provide, 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, the Respondents were to say why it would be unreasonable to increase the pitch fee e.g. if the condition of the Site had deteriorated or there had been a decrease in amenities or reduction in services or some “weighty factor”. 3[12]The Respondents each provided a completed Reply Form requesting an oral hearing and Mr & Mrs Phillips of 11 Harbour Place, Mr & Mrs Eaton of 12 Harbour Place, and Mr & Mrs Thompson of 14 Harbour Place provided statements of case. Written Statement of Agreement[14]A copy of the Written Statement of Agreement was provided for each Respondent which was between the Applicant and Shotley Country Park Ltd. The Agreements began as follows: Mr Kimble of 8 Harbour Place on 21 December 2019 and pitch fee payable from January 2021; Mr & Mrs Phillips of 11 Harbour Place on 6 January 2020, although not signed until 12 September 2020 and pitch fee payable from January 2021; Mr & Mrs Eaton 12 Harbour Place on 28 September 2019 and pitch fee payable from 2January 2021; Mr & Mrs Thompson of 14 Harbour Place on 31 May 2021 and pitch fee payable from the same date. The Terms were the same for each Agreement with the Implied Terms of Part 2 being in accordance with the legislation and the Express Terms of Part 3 being of a standard form common to many Written Statements of Agreement. The Applicant is the owner and operator of the residential mobile home site known as Shotley Country Park, Gatefarm Road, Ipswich IP9 1QS which it acquired following the financial collapse and administration of Countrywide Park Homes Limited, the previous owner of the Site. Each of the Respondents is an owner and occupier of a mobile home stationed on a pitch on the Site. Notice of Increase and Pitch Fee Review Form[16]The Applicant issued a Notice of Increase in the form of a letter dated 21 February 2025 to each Respondent stating that as from 1 April 2025 it was proposed to increase the pitch fees to take into account the percentage change in CPI (Consumer Price Index) which was 3% in January 2025 being the last published figure before sending the service of the Notice. In addition the Applicant issued a Pitch Fee Review Form in the 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 21 February 2025, which proposed a new pitch fee for each pitch occupied by the Respondents as follows:• Mr Kimble of 8 Harbour Place of £206.00 from the review date of 1 April 2025 to replace the existing pitch fee of £200.00 per month from the last review date of 1 April 2024 giving an increase of £6.00 calculated from a percentage increase of 3%;• Mr & Mrs Phillips of 11 Harbour Place of £206.00 from the review date of 1 April 2025 to replace the existing pitch fee of £200.00 per month from the last review date of 1 April 2024 giving an increase of ££6.00 calculated from a percentage increase of 3%; 4• Mr & Mrs Eaton 12 Harbour Place of £206.00 from the review date of 1 April 2025 to replace the existing pitch fee of £200.00 per month from the last review date of 1 April 2024 giving an increase of £6.00 calculated from a percentage increase of 3%.• Mr & Mrs Thompson of 14 Harbour Place of £283.14 from the review date of 1 April 2025 to replace the existing pitch fee of £274.89 per month from the last review date of 1 April 2024 giving an increase of £8.25 calculated from a percentage increase of 3%;[17]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 2025 which was 3%. Inspection[24]The Tribunal inspected the Site in the presence of Mr Grant Wicks, Operations Manager for the Applicant and Mr Kimble of 8 Harbour Place, Mr and Mrs Phillips of 11 Harbour Place and Mr and Mrs Eaton of 12 Harbour Place and Mr and Mrs Thompson of 14 Harbour Place. The Tribunal started its inspection at the gate where it was demonstrated how the gate was to be opened if the electronic mechanism failed to operate. A key had to be inserted and turned at the base of the gate post to disengage the electronic mechanism to allow the gates to move freely. A key was held by the current Site Warden although some occupiers had purchased their own. At the entrance, just inside the gate, there are beds either side planted with shrubs. To the side are the domestic waste bins. These are set back from the road and did not cause an obstruction for vehicles or pedestrians. The vegetation next to the bins was cut back. The Site is a long rectangle from the entrance at the western end to the mobile homes at the far eastern end. From the gate there is a long access road, off which there are no mobile homes, through the site to the mobile homes which overlook the river. The site is laid to grass with trees and bushes around the boundaries. Beyond the boundaries on each side there are fields. About a third of the way along the road is a pond and sitting area. The pond is overgrown with weed and the area around the pond is equally unkempt. To the side of the pond there is a water feature which no longer operates. There is a timber bridge across the pond and a ‘dovecot’ nesting box both of which appeared neglected. Next to the pond is an ornate lamp that no longer works. Halfway along the road to one side is a compound surrounded by conifers within which are stored building materials etc. to the side of the compound was a large pile of branches. To the other side of the road is a garage in which the mower is stored. At the far end of the road are the mobile homes which are accessed from the road. Each home has hardstanding for car parking. 5[25]The road is tarmac along its length and was in good condition. The grass was cut and the hedges and trees within the site and along the boundary appeared in a satisfactory state. The hedge to the southern boundary appeared thin for a part of its length. Overall apart from the pond area the Site appeared to be in good to fair condition. Evidence and Submissions[28]A hearing was held following the inspection on 17 March 2026 which was attended by Mr Grant Wicks, Operations Manager for the Applicant and Mr Kimble of 8 Harbour Place, Mr and Mrs Phillips of 11 Harbour Place and Mr and Mrs Eaton of 12 Harbour Place and Mr and Mrs Thompson of 14 Harbour Place. Mr and Mrs Phillips and Mr and Mrs Eaton provided a joint statement of case and Mr and Mrs Thompson provided their own statement of case. At the hearing each of the Respondents confirmed what had been said in their statements of case. Mr Kimble, who had not sent a written statement of case, orally confirmed his agreement with the points made by the other Respondents as the reasons for his objection to the proposed increase. Although the Respondents emphasised different issues in their statements nevertheless they identified the same issues. The following is a summary of the Respondents’ written statements, followed by the Applicant’s Replies, any additional points made at the hearing and the Tribunal’s findings. Gates at the Entrance to the Site Respondents[31]The Respondents said that the gates at the entrance to the Site do not work whenever there is rain or wind. To release the mechanism of the gates to allow exit and entry the occupiers had been told to get down on hands and knees to use a mechanical key. As a retirement park this is not practical when it is raining and windy, as this is when the gates do not operate, especially in the dark. Mr and Mrs Thompson said that they had bought their own Allen key to open the gates manually. It was added that they had complained about the gates for years, the last time was in October 2025. Sometimes the gates are left open due to this problem, compromising the safety and security of the site. Intruders have been seen on the Site. Applicant The Applicant said that the gates for the Site are a mechanical system, and have from time to time required repair. During this time, they have needed to be pinned back to allow home owners to enter and leave the site, as well as making any emergency access possible. Due to the location of the Site, it experiences high winds, during these periods, as a safety precaution, the gates are pinned back to prevent damage which could lead to them not being fit for purpose for an extended period. When this has happened, it has only been a temporary measure, and are put back into use as soon as possible. 6 The Hearing[35]At the hearing it was clear the gates were a major bone of contention. The Respondents referred to the inspection stating that they believed the wind resistance posed by the solid wooden gates caused them not to operate. They expressed the view that the gates should be changed for ones constructed of wrought iron which the wind could pass through but which would still offer security. Mr Wicks did not dispute that the wind resistance posed by the gates could be a reason for their failure to operate on occasion and left open to avoid damage and to enable occupiers to have access. Mr Wicks did acknowledge that other options regarding the gates have been suggested by occupiers. The Tribunal informed the Respondents that this was the Site Owner’s Application for a determination of pitch fee and that if it was considered the issue of the gates was a deterioration in condition, loss of amenity or a weighty matter it could only make a reduction in the pitch fee it could not order the Site Owner to change the gates. Tribunal Findings The Tribunal found that the inconvenience resulting from the gates failing to operate had amounted to a loss of amenity or was a weighty matter. Security and CCTV Respondents[39]At the time of sale the Respondents said they were told via a document headed “Park Features” that said the Site had 24 hour CCTV but this has never been installed. They said there is a lack of general security around the Site. The security of the Site has been breached by the decimation of the boundary trees leaving occupiers wide open to prying eyes and the weather. There are also sections of the Site where lighting is insufficient. Applicant The Applicant said that the gates provide a clear and secure deterrent to those from outside the Site. There is no provision for CCTV on the Site, which would be impractical. The crime rates in the local area are very low (confirmed by the Site Warden). While this may have been discussed when purchasing the lodge, it is not something that has been installed on the site since its formation. The boundaries to the Site have been deemed secure by the Site Warden. There is a section on the entrance driveway whereby a neighbouring property has removed the fence from their side and planted trees. While these trees mature it will leave slight gaps that will close, however, it is only to a private garden and does not compromise the safety and security to the Site. 7 The Hearing[47]At the hearing the Tribunal said that if the Respondents had felt misled by a statement at the time of purchase which was not in the written statement of agreement then their remedy was for an action of misrepresentation. A misrepresentation was not within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction unless it was a weighty factor that affected the pitch fee. The Tribunal said that in its knowledge and experience CCTV was of limited effect. It was only a deterrent unless it was constantly watched. Otherwise it could only serve as a possible means of identification of an intruder after the event. The Respondents referred to the inspection saying that the farmer who owned land adjacent the southern boundary had removed a hedge leaving that area very exposed. The Respondents expressed concern at the farmer’s future intentions. In addition they said the Site Owner had cut back trees on the northern boundary leaving it very open. Mr Wicks said that the Applicant could not prevent the farmer cutting the trees. He added that there were trees growing on the Site along that boundary which gave some seclusion although at the present time there were no homes on that part of the Site. It was agreed that the Site lighting had always been limited. Tribunal Findings The Tribunal found that there had never been any CCTV on the Site and that none had been referred to in the written statement of agreement. There was no evidence to suggest that that it had had an effect on the setting of the pitch fee. Therefore the Tribunal did not consider the lack of CCTV was a deterioration in the condition of the Site, a loss of amenity or a weighty factor. The Tribunal found that the removal of the trees on the southern boundary was not a matter the Site Owner could prevent. There was no evidence that the cutting back of the trees on the northern boundary was unnecessary. Overall the Tribunal found that the boundaries of the Site were satisfactorily maintained. Therefore the Tribunal did not consider there had been a deterioration in the condition of the Site, a loss of amenity or a weighty factor in respect of the boundaries. The Tribunal found that parties agreed the Site lighting had always been limited therefore the Tribunal did not consider there had been a deterioration in the condition of the Site or loss of amenity nor was the lack of lighting a weighty factor. Site Warden Respondents[48]The Respondents said that the previous Site Warden left in February 2023 and has never been replaced. An occupier has been appointed to be Site Warden to cut the grass, oversee deliveries, read the meters and be the primary point of contact if 8 occupiers had any issues or needed advice etc. His appointment was without any consultation or communication with the other occupiers. The Respondents said they did not consider the occupier’s role to amount to a Site Warden. Applicant[52]The Applicant said that one of the occupiers on the Site has assumed the role of Site Contact and Warden. He is readily available to assist with day-to-day matters, and has completed several tasks outside of “cutting the grass and taking in deliveries” to improve the Site. He is also not paid for this role. He is readily available for any queries that the Respondents may have, acting as the point of contact between the mobile home owners and Shotley Country Park Ltd on a 24/7 basis. The Hearing At the hearing the Respondents said that the previous Site Warden had undertaken a much greater role in maintaining the Site, enforcing the rules assisting with problems that might arise in respect of a mobile home. The only thing the present Site Warden does is cut the grass but his is not done regularly as the mower is often out of action. The pond is not maintained and the trees and shrubs are not cut back. The plants at the entrance are maintained by the occupiers. He begrudgingly provides a key to open the gate when there is a problem with it. When asked to deal with an issue he says he is only paid to cut the grass, any other job is extra. He is not available to enforce the Site Rules. The Respondents doubted his title of Site Warden was justified. Mr Wicks said that the occupier referred to was the Site Warden and had all the contact details for the Site Owner if there was a problem. He was in a position to act for the Site Owner and engage contractors on the Site Owner’s instructions. In response to the Tribunal’s questions Mr Wicks said the Site Warden was paid in that he received a reduced pitch fee to carry out the day to day maintenance of the Site. He had on occasion acted as a contractor for additional work and was paid accordingly. Tribunal Findings The Tribunal found that there was a Site Warden although paid on the basis of a reduced pitch fee notwithstanding that the Applicant’s written statement of case said he was not paid. The Tribunal found that the current Site Warden had kept the grass cut but had allowed the pond to be overgrown. Although the plants near the entrance were in reasonable condition for the time year, the Respondents said this was the work of another occupier. The Tribunal found there was a lack of availability and communication via the present Site Warden between the occupiers and the Site Owner as the Respondents did not appear to know who to contact in an emergency or in relation to any other issue that may raise. The Tribunal considered this to be of particular concern. The Tribunal found that the present work of the Site Warden fell short of the job description given by Mr Wicks. Therefore the Tribunal found there had been a deterioration in the condition of the Site and loss of amenity following the previous Site Warden leaving and that the lack of communication and contact arrangements in an emergency was a weighty factor. 9 Refuse Areas Respondents[56]The Respondents said the bins should be enclosed in a bin store but have been open to the elements. There is no proper bin enclosure only one made from pallets which is not fit for purpose because in its present location as it has become overgrown with vegetation making it difficult to lift the bin lids. It is also a breeding haven for rats with the garden waste. Applicant The Applicant replied that the refuse bins have been discussed between the Operations Director and the Local Authority during a scheduled visit to the site. They said they were informed that this is not an urgent requirement and the Local Authority were quite happy with the current refuse arrangement. The Hearing At the hearing the parties affirmed what they had said in their written statements of case. Tribunal’s Findings The Tribunal found that notwithstanding the terms of the Site Licence the local authority had been satisfied with the current arrangements regarding the waste bins which had been in existence since the Site was established. Therefore the Tribunal did not consider there had been a deterioration in the condition of the Site or loss of amenity nor was the lack of lighting a weighty factor. Pond Area Respondents[59]The Respondents stated that the pond water feature had been in a dangerous condition with live wires exposed. One of the occupiers emailed his concerns and explained it was a risk to life, whereupon the Applicant Site owner sent an electrician who disconnected the water feature but did not repair it. Therefore there has not been a fountain in the pond for approximately two years and the pond is a complete mess. (photographs provided). Applicant The Applicant stated that the electricity supply to the pond feature was removed by a qualified company electrician a couple of years ago due to safety and that this had been done securely and signed off by their electrician. The Hearing At the hearing the respondents referred to the inspection and expressed their disappointment at what they felt was a deterioration in the pond area. They said it 10 was no longer a pleasant place to sit and meet with other occupiers. They added that there had been fish in the pond but they had now disappeared. The dovecot nesting box and bridge were rotten. They said the area was neglected. Tribunal’s Findings[60]The Tribunal found that the pond area must have been an attractive place to sit and meet irrespective of whether the water feature was operative or not. It was now in a sorry state as noted at the inspection. Therefore the Tribunal did consider that its present condition amounted to a deterioration in the condition of the Site and a loss of amenity. Gardening and Green Waste Respondents[65]The Respondents said there is no landscaping as promised, only the grass is cut with the cuttings left in place and not cleared away. Mr and Mrs Thompson said the environment does not meet the description of in the marketing material as “An outdoor space based on the specifications, needs, interests and lifestyles of the clients. It helps create a unique environment you will love.” It was said that the Site is not looked after, there are beautiful bushes and plants but they have not been attended to and are overgrown and in poor condition. One of the occupiers trims the ‘football’ trees to try and keep them in order and the grass is cut when the lawn mower works. More often than not it is being repaired and the grass is not cut. There are no personnel for the general upkeep and maintenance. The boundaries need trimming and the dead trees need cutting down. Applicant The Applicant said that the garden waste for the Site is something for which the Site Warden is trying to get an agreeable solution. The Local Authority do not offer the provision for a communal large green waste bin as they do with general waste and recycling. For them to provide garden waste refuse collection, each mobile home would be required to have its own personal refuse bin, however the occupiers have declined this on several occasions. The garden waste is currently collected in areas away from the mobile homes, until an agreeable solution can be reached with both the Local Authority and the occupiers for the collection and disposal of green waste. The Hearing At the hearing the Respondents referred to the inspection and said the green waste is just piled up between wooden pallets. At the inspection the Tribunal had noted a large pile of tree branches. In answer to the Tribunal’s question Mr Wicks said that the Site Owner had the permission of the local authority to burn these. He added that the occupiers will be informed when this is to happen. 11 Tribunal’s Findings[67]The Tribunal found that the grass had been cut. In the knowledge and experience of the Tribunal it is common not to gather the grass clippings where a large area of grass is cut and the clippings are left as mulch. As noted above, the plants near the entrance were in reasonable condition for the time year, although it was understood an occupier did at least some of this work. The Tribunal found that the structures of wooden pallets used to keep garden waste appeared to be appropriate for composting. The Tribunal found that the trees on the Site were cut back in an acceptable manner. The Tribunal found that, apart from the pond area there did not appear to be any deterioration in the condition of the Site in respect of the gardening and green waste. Access Roads and Footpaths Respondents[73]The Respondents said the rear footpath is incomplete and dangerous. There is also an unfinished path by unit 4, which is a trip hazard. Mr and Mrs Thompson said that they were promised a path down the East side of the mobile home which would be the same as on all other pitches but this has never been constructed. The Respondents said the road has always been a great issue and we have had to wait close on to five years to see its emergence which is still incomplete but have been told it has been signed off. The kerb stones are incomplete and when it rains we get mud slides, plus we were told there would be a 1200mm wide footpath which has never appeared. Applicant The Applicant said the road has previously had works carried out, which were completed and signed off by both their Operations Director and the local authority. Anything that is deemed to be incomplete by the Respondents has not been reported to be investigated before now. The Applicant said it was aware that some edging requires seeding, but this would be scheduled to be completed during the springtime. The path referred to next to pitch 4 is not linked to any particular pitch, and would not directly impact the use of a pitch. The Applicant said the path is safe and useable. The Hearing At the hearing the Respondents referred to the inspection and commented that there was no footpath and the road was not wide enough for two vehicles and a pedestrian to pass. Also it was said that the 5 miles per hour speed limit was not observed by some occupiers and visitors. It was added that there were weeds growing up through the tarmac. The Respondents said the path by the side of pitch 4 leads to a gate onto the neighbouring fields. It was laid by the previous Site Warden but never finished after 12 he left. It was acknowledged that the gate to the adjacent fields may not be a right of way. Tribunal’s Findings[75]The Tribunal found that the roads and paths were complete in that access could be obtained to all the pitches and were in good condition. It was noted there were a few places where plants had broken the surface of the tarmac but this was not significant. The road did not appear to be particularly narrow and it seemed that cars could pass one another. The surface of the road was appropriate for pedestrians. The path to the side of pitch 4 was overlaid with gravel through which grass was growing but was not a thoroughfare. It did not appear to be dangerous. The surrounding area was laid to grass. The Tribunal did not consider there had been a deterioration in the condition of the Site or loss of amenity regarding the roads and paths. Resident’s Association Respondents[78]One of the most important issues the Respondents said they had was that they had formed a Residents’ Association with everyone agreeing a chairman, a secretary. and a constitution. The Site Owner then sent out letters to certain residents stating that it would be advantageous to deal with issues on a one to one basis rather than through an association. Applicant There has been no form of blocking the formation of a Residents’ Association, the letter that was sent out was to explain the situation and gauge the owners’ views on the formation taking place. Tribunal’s Findings At the hearing the tribunal said that the Respondents’ concerns over the letter sent by the Site Owner were not a matter that was relevant to the pitch fee. Lack of Communication and Resolution of Issues[80]The Respondents said that there is a lack of communication between the Site Warden, the Applicant and the occupiers. The occupiers never know what is going on at the Site except through a third party. There is also a great reluctance from the Site Owner to visit the Site and resolve issues face to face. Tribunal’s Findings At the hearing the Tribunal said that the issue of communication and resolution of issues was not generally a matter that related to the pitch fee. However in so far as it was an issue that related to the role of the Site Warden it is dealt with above. 13 Breaches of Site Rules[82]The Respondents said there were several breaches of Site Rules which go unchallenged, involving dogs (the size), fences, and planting of plants etc. Tribunal’s Findings At the hearing the Tribunal said that the issue of failing to enforce the Site Rules may lead to a deterioration in the condition of the Site and loss of amenity. In the present case the Tribunal found that it related to the role of the Site Warden which is dealt with above. Tribunal’s Determination[84]The Tribunal considered all the issues raised and determined that there had been a deterioration in the condition and decrease in amenity of the Site 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 as follows: a) b) c) The Tribunal found that the inconvenience resulting from the gates regularly failing to operate had amounted to a loss of amenity or was a weighty factor. The Tribunal found that the pond area had previously been well maintained as an attractive and pleasant place for occupiers to sit and meet. The Tribunal found that the lack of maintenance was a deterioration in the condition of the Site and a loss of amenity. The Tribunal found that the previous Site Warden fulfilled the role to a higher standard than the present Site Warden which amounted to a loss of amenity or a weighty factor following the previous Site Warden leaving. The Tribunal determined that an increase in line with inflation was not reasonable and that the proposed increase should be limited to 1%. Therefore, the Tribunal determines that the proposed new pitch fees should be as follows:• Mr Kimble of 8 Harbour Place of £202.00 from the review date of 1 April 2025 to replace the existing pitch fee of £200.00 per month from the last review date of 1 April 2024 giving an increase of £2.00 calculated from a percentage increase of 1%;• Mr & Mrs Phillips of 11 Harbour Place of £202.00 from the review date of 1 April 2025 to replace the existing pitch fee of £200.00 per month from the last review date of 1 April 2024 giving an increase of £2.00 calculated from a percentage increase of 1%;• Mr & Mrs Eaton 12 Harbour Place of £202.00 from the review date of 1 April 2025 to replace the existing pitch fee of £200.00 per month from the last review date of 1 April 2024 giving an increase of £2.00 calculated from a percentage increase of 1%;• Mr & Mrs Thompson of 14 Harbour Place of £277.64 from the review date of 1 April 2025 to replace the existing pitch fee of £274.89 per month from the last 14 review date of 1 April 2024 giving an increase of £2.75 calculated from a percentage increase of 1%. 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[3]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: 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. Paragraph 17 provides: (1) (2) The pitch fee shall be reviewed annually as at the review date. 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. 15 (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) (4) (5) If the occupier agrees to the proposed new pitch fee, it shall be payable as from the review date. 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)(c) 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 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, as the case may be, the 28th day after the date of the court order determining the amount of the new pitch fee. 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) (b) a notice under sub-paragraph (2) or (6)(b) was of no effect as a result of sub-paragraph (2A) or (6A), but 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) (b)[4]the amount which the occupier was required to pay the owner for the period in question, and the amount which the occupier has paid the owner for that period. 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) (ii) which are for the benefit of the occupiers of mobile homes on the protected site; which were the subject of consultation in accordance with paragraphs 22(f) and (g); and 16 (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 retail prices index calculated by reference only to—(a)(b) the latest index, and 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) 17