Various properties at Planet Park and Roughtor View, Westdown Road, Delabole, Cornwall, PL33 9BQ CHI/00HE/PHI/2023/0641-0664
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
Case No CHI/00HE/PHI/2023/0641-0664
Between
Mr Michael M.A. White and Mr Michael T. WhiteApplicantThe occupiers of the pitches listed on page 2Respondent
Before
Regional Surveyor J Coupe FRICSRegional Judge D WhitneyDavid Sunderland for the ApplicantDate 20 November 2024
DECISION
[2]Case reference Property: Respondent CHI/00HE/PHI/2023/0641 15 Planet Park Mrs Harris CHI/00HE/PHI/2023/0642 2 Planet Park Mr Mitchell CHI/00HE/PHI/2023/0643 3 Planet Park Miss Carry CHI/00HE/PHI/2023/0644 4 Planet Park Mr & Mrs Provis CHI/00HE/PHI/2023/0645 6 Planet Park Mr & Mrs Johns CHI/00HE/PHI/2023/0646 7 Planet Park Mr & Mrs Sharpe CHI/00HE/PHI/2023/0647 14 Planet Park Mr & Mrs Valentine CHI/00HE/PHI/2023/0648 18 Planet Park Mr Pattenden CHI/00HE/PHI/2023/0650 22 Planet Park J. Carrigan CHI/00HE/PHI/2023/0652 24 Planet Park A. Gould CHI/00HE/PHI/2023/0653 26 Planet Park Mrs Ash CHI/00HE/PHI/2023/0654 28 Planet Park Mr Holland CHI/00HE/PHI/2023/0655 32 Planet Park Mrs Hobbs CHI/00HE/PHI/2023/0657 36 Planet Park Mrs Haywood CHI/00HE/PHI/2023/0658 39 Planet Park Mr & Mrs Richard CHI/00HE/PHI/2023/0659 2A Roughtor View Mr & Mrs Shore CHI/00HE/PHI/2023/0660 4 Roughtor View Mr & Mrs Ratcliffe CHI/00HE/PHI/2023/0661 5 Roughtor View Mr & Mrs Allin CHI/00HE/PHI/2023/0663 19 Roughtor View The Estate of the late Mrs Whiteman CHI/00HE/PHI/2023/0664 17 Roughtor View Mrs Driscoll[4]The Tribunal determines that the proposed monthly pitch fee for each of the Respondents is reasonable and is payable from the 1 April 2023. Individual pitch fees payable are listed at paragraph 87 of this decision.[5]The Tribunal determines that each Respondent shall reimburse the Applicant the £20.00 Tribunal application fee.[6]The reasons for the Tribunal’s decision are set out below.
REASONS
[1]The Applicants are the owners of Planet Park and Roughtor View, Westdown Road, Delabole, Cornwall, PL33 9BQ (“the Park”). The Respondents are mobile home owners who are entitled to station their homes on a pitch within the Park by virtue of agreements under the 1983 Act, which include the statutory terms referred to below. There is no dispute as to the Respondent’s right to occupy the respective pitches.[2]The Park is a protected site within the meaning of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 (“the 1983 Act”). The definition, found in Part 1 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 includes a site where a licence would be required under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 if the exemption of local authority sites were omitted.[3]On 27 June 2023 the Applicants served on each Respondent a Pitch Fee Review Notice with the prescribed Form, detailing the proposed new pitch fee and its calculation, with effect from 1 August 2023. The Notice was served by way of a late review, pursuant to paragraph 17 of Part 1 of Chapter 2 of Schedule 1 to the 1983 Act.[4]The Applicants calculated the adjustment in line with the Retail Price Index (“RPI”) from January 2023, that being 13.4%. No recoverable costs or relevant deductions were applied.[5]The Respondents did not agree to the increase.[6]Against that background, on 20 September 2023, the Applicants sought a Tribunal determination of each matter.[7]On 22 April 2024 the Tribunal issued directions for the conduct of the application, followed by further directions dated 5 June 2024, leading to an inspection of the site and a hearing, both held on 6 September 2024.[8]The Tribunal were provided with a hearing bundle extending to 1000 electronic pages. The bundle included the Application Forms PH9, the pitch fee review forms and Notices, Written Statements, the Respondents’ replies and forms, and the Applicants’ reply. References in this determination to page numbers in the bundle are indicated as [ ].[9]These reasons address in summary form the key issues raised by the Applicant and the response of the first Respondent. The reasons do not recite each point referred to in submissions but concentrate on those issues which, in the Tribunal’s view, are critical to this decision. In writing this decision the Chairman has had regard to the Senior President of Tribunals Practice Direction – Reasons for Decisions, dated 4 June 2024.[10]The hearing was recorded and such stands as a record of proceedings. The Law[11]The relevant law is set out in the Mobile Homes Act 1983 (as amended) (“the Act”).[12]Section 1(1) of the Act provides as follows: (1) This Act applies to any agreement under which a person (“the occupier”) is entitled – (a) To station a mobile home on land forming part of a protected site; and (b) To occupy the mobile home as his only or main residence.[13]The Tribunal derives its jurisdiction to determine disputes in these matters by virtue of Section 4(1) of the Act which states as follows: (1) In relation to a protected site a tribunal has jurisdiction – (a) To determine any question arising under this Act or any agreement to which it applies; and (b) To entertain any proceedings brought under this Act or any such agreement, Subject to subsection (2) to (6)[14]Under the Act, terms are implied into all agreements to which the Act applies. Those implied terms are set out in Chapter 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Act.[15]The relevant terms for the purposes of a pitch fee review are set out at paragraphs 16-20 of that part of the Schedule. In summary, a review of a pitch fee is governed by three statutory principles: i. The pitch fee can only be changed either with the agreement of the occupier or by determination by the Tribunal; ii. The pitch fee shall be reviewed annually as at the review date; iii. A presumption that the fee will increase or decrease in line with the variation in the Retail Price Index (now CPI).[16]Paragraph 16 states that a pitch fee can only be changed in accordance with paragraph 17, either –(a) With the agreement of the occupier, or(b) If the appropriate judicial body, 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.”[17]Paragraph 17(4)(a) states that where the occupier does not agree to the proposed new pitch fee “the owner [or . . . the occupier] may apply to the [appropriate judicial body] for an order under paragraph 16(b) determining the amount of the new pitch fee.”[18]Paragraph 17(5) provides that “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 [but . . . ] no later than three months after the review date].[19]Paragraph 18 requires the Tribunal, in determining the new pitch fee, to have regard to particular factors: i. Any sums expended by the site owner since the last review date on improvements; ii. Any deterioration in the condition and any decrease in the amenity of the site; iii. Any reduction in the services provided by the site owner and any deterioration in the quality of those services; iv. Any legislative changes affecting costs. The Inspection[20]At 10:00am on 6 September 2024 the Tribunal inspected the Park, accompanied by Mr Michael T White, on behalf of Messrs. White, Mr Sundlerland, and Mr Dixon. The Respondents met the Tribunal towards the end of the inspection and stated that they did not understand they were entitled to join the inspection. The Tribunal explained what they had seen.[21]At the outset of the inspection the Tribunal Chairman explained that the attendees were welcome to indicate areas that they wished the Tribunal to view and upon which they would later rely on in the hearing but that the Tribunal would not take any evidence during the inspection nor have regard to any comment passed at the inspection.[22]The Tribunal observed the overall condition of the Park as highlighted by each party within their written submissions but did not undertake a formal survey of any part of the Park.[23]The Tribunal is mindful that the inspection was carried out some considerable time after the date upon which the Pitch Fee Review Notice was served and from the date upon which the proposed new pitch fee became payable. The inspection is only capable of showing the condition of the Park as at the date of inspection and not as at any other date. That said, it was helpful for the Tribunal to view not only the configuration and amenity of the site but as an aid to visualisation when the parties later referred to specific factors during the hearing.[24]The Park is located on the outskirts of the village of Delabole, itself providing traditional village facilities and amenities. Views from the Park stretch across open countryside and the north Cornish coastline.[25]The inspection commenced from the site entrance, accessed off the B3314 Westdown Road. The Tribunal walked the entirety of the site, with those in attendance identifying features later relied upon in the hearing.[26]The surfaces of the roads were noted by the Tribunal to be uneven and rough in patches. A number of potholes were identified to have been recently filled with tarmac, whilst other, shallow, potholes remained. Unmarked speed bumps were observed.[27]The Tribunal noted site signage set back from the entrance and a Fire Point.[28]Communal grass areas were noted to be tidy and greenery cut back. The Respondents’ written replies[29]Nineteen of the Respondents submitted written replies to the application. A number of the replies were not copied to the Applicant and were forwarded by the Tribunal. The Applicant did not receive the reply submitted by Mr & Mrs Ratcliffe. During the hearing Mr Sunderland objected to the inclusion of their reply on the grounds that he had not been afforded a prior opportunity to consider the contents. The Tribunal identified that the grievances set out within Mr and Mrs Ratcliffe’s statement were similar to those raised by other Respondents. Accordingly, the Tribunal decided that the Applicant would not be prejudiced by inclusion of the reply and that the Applicant would have an opportunity to address the points raised within closing submissions.[30]The Respondents’ written replies, being broadly similar, are summarised collectively: i. The Applicants are not required to levy the maximum RPI increase and provide no justification for doing so. ii. The RPI increase at the date of service of Notice, i.e. June 2023, was 8.9%. iii. Objections as to the timing of the review, i.e. late. iv. The Applicants are not entitled to change the review date from 1 April. v. With the exception of communal area grass cutting the Applicants provide minimal site maintenance or management. vi. Park roads are in a dangerous and hazardous condition, with numerous potholes and general disrepair, resulting in residents suffering multiple accidents. vii. Inadequate and poorly maintained Park lighting. viii. Inadequate and poorly maintained site drainage. ix. Lack of pavements and footpaths. x. Failure to trim hedges and maintain communal areas. xi. Failure by the Applicants to accept responsibility for a boundary tree, resulting in a risk to life and property. xii. Contrary to the Site Licence, the Park has no registered Fit and Proper person. xiii. No Park supervisor, nor information as to whom to contact in regard to site management issues. xiv. Poor communication between the Applicants and residents. xv. Electricity meters are read too infrequently; electricity demands are served late and for incorrect amounts.[31]At the outset of these proceedings three additional Respondents were named, these being Mrs Lazenby of 21 Planet Park (CHI/00HE/PHI/2023/0649); Mrs Stone of 23 Planet Park (CHI/00HE/PHI/2023/0651); and Mrs Willis of 35 Planet Park (CHI/00HE/PHI/2023/0656). On 16 July 2024 the Tribunal received a letter from each of these Respondents stating that they now accepted their respective proposed new pitch fees. As these parties are no longer in dispute the Tribunal is without jurisdiction in these three matters. The Hearing[32]The hearing was attended by the Applicant, Mr Michael T White on behalf of Messrs. White, and their representative Mr Sunderland. Those Respondents present were Mr & Mrs Johns, who also represented Miss Mary Carry of 3 Planet Park; Mr Mitchell; Mr Valentine; Mr Holland; Mrs Harris; Mrs Hobbs; Mr Allin; Mr Shore; Mr & Mrs Ratcliffe; Ms Haywood; Ms Carrigan; Mr & Mrs Provis. Also, in attendance were a number of observers including Mrs Lazenby and Mrs Stone. The Applicants’ Case[33]Mr Sunderland stated that the Respondent’s written statements each set out the terms of their agreement, including provision for the payment of a pitch fee on a monthly basis and an annual review of the pitch fee on 1 April.[34]On 27 June 2023, the Applicant served a pitch fee review Notice and associated documentation on each Respondent proposing to review the pitch fee from 1 August 2023 in line with the percentage change in RPI of 13.4%, that being the figure for January 2023, as published in February 2023. The Respondent’s did not agree the new pitch and, in due course, the Applicant applied to the Tribunal for a determination.[35]The pitch fee review was carried out as a Late Review under the provisions of the Implied Terms contained within paragraphs 17(6) – 17(10) of the 1983 Act. Mr Sunderland explained that, in accordance with statute, when undertaking a late review, the Applicants had adopted the review date provided for within the Written Statements. In this instance, the review date being the 1 April, the appropriate figure is that of January 2023 as published in February 2023, such figure being 13.4%.[36]Mr Sunderland asserted that the late review forms were correctly served. The Respondents’ challenge to validity, based on an alleged varied review date, were misconceived. Mr Sunderland explained that the review date remained as at 1 April but that the effective date of the proposed pitch fee increase was, in this instance, the 1 August 2023.[37]Mr Sunderland explained that the objections raised in regard to lighting and roads had been determined by the Tribunal in a decision dated 22 May 2023 (CHI/00HE/PHI/2022/0119). Furthermore, that the adequacy of lighting and the condition of roads was a matter for Cornwall County Council under the site licence conditions and not a matter within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.[38]Mr Sunderland explained that Mr Dixon, a resident on the Park, was engaged by the Applicants as a general handyman and was tasked with assisting Messrs. White in undertaking general site works.[39]Mr Sunderland explained that an application had been submitted for Mr Michael T. White to be appointed as the Fit and Proper person for the site, a role Mr Dixon was not eligible for.[40]In response to repeated assertions by the Respondents that maintenance and tidying of the site had been undertaken just days prior to the Tribunal’s visit, Mr Sunderland accepted this was correct and suggested that Mr Dixon had been instructed to undertake such work as a mark of respect for the Tribunal.[41]Mr Sunderland asserted that the tree to which Mrs Haywood refers is not the responsibility of the site owners.[42]Mr Sunderland explained that whilst the Respondents may be dissatisfied with the condition of the site and wish for enhancements they had failed to adduce evidence that the issues identified had arisen within the period under consideration or that such issues are sufficient to displace the presumption that the pitch fee should be increased in line with the RPI.[43]Mr Sunderland reminded the Tribunal of the Upper Tribunal’s decision in Vyse v Wyldecrest (Management) Ltd [2017] UKUT 24 (LC), where it was held that the starting point is that there is a presumption that a pitch fee shall not increase or decrease by more than the relevant RPI percentage unless it is unreasonable to do so; that the presumption operates unless it is displaced by other competing matters which renders an increase unreasonable; and that particular regard must be had to matters at paragraph 18(1) but other “weighty matters” may also displace the presumption.[44]Mr Sunderland asserted that the site was well maintained and that, as no evidence had been submitted to displace the statutory presumption of an RPI increase, it would be reasonable for the pitch fee to increased as proposed.[45]Pursuant to Rule 13(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 Mr Sunderland sought reimbursement of the £20.00 application fee from each Respondent, (including those Respondents who only agreed a revised pitch fee after a Tribunal application had been submitted), on the basis that the Respondents had chosen not to accept the proposed pitch fee increase, leaving the Applicant with no option other than to submit these applications. The Respondents’ Case[46]The Respondent’s each presented their own submissions and were provided with an opportunity to ask questions of the Applicant. Taking each of the Respondents’ evidence in the order presented at the hearing, the main points are summarised as follows.[47]Mr Mitchell – The Applicant provides no on-site management or maintenance. Mr Mitchell does not have a written agreement and therefore considers he has no obligation to either accept or refuse a pitch fee increase.[48]Mr Shore – There is no Fit and Proper person appointed to the site and neither has the Park owner notified residents of a site manager. The roads have deteriorated over the last year, causing serious harm to a resident. Potholes were filled in only the day prior to the Tribunal’s visit. With the exception of grass cutting there is no site maintenance. Complaints were lodged concerning the inadequate and faulty lighting in excess of six months ago.[49]Mr Allin – The Applicants’ behavior is unacceptable. Electricity demands are late and meter readings taken too infrequently. The Applicants only carry out maintenance when a Tribunal attends. With the exception of grass cutting no site maintenance is undertaken.[50]Mr Johns – The Written Statement provides for a review date of 1 April, a date the Applicant is not entitled to vary. The RPI as at June 2023 was 8.9%. The condition of the site, and in particular the roads, has deteriorated and whilst complaints are lodged no works are undertaken until the Tribunal attends. Mr Johns is aware of three residents having been injured in falls, allegedly caused by deteriorating road surfaces. Park lighting is not fit for purpose, affecting the night time mobility of residents. There is no Fit and Proper person appointed.[51]Mr Valentine – The Applicants have failed to maintain and repair the site since the Tribunal’s previous determination. The Park has fallen into further disrepair since such date. Nine days after the previous determination a resident suffered a life-changing injury due to disrepair of road surfaces. No assistance was provided by any representative of the Applicant. Residents are advised that Mr Dixon is not the Park manager. Since the roads were installed there has been minimal maintenance. Lighting is inadequate. No improvements to the site have been completed. The residents are entitled to peaceful and quiet occupation but this is denied by the Applicants.[52]Mrs Harris – Communication from the Applicants is poor, with no prior notification of contractors’ attendance. Mr Dixon’s employment status requires clarification in order that residents understand whether he is their designated point of contact. Mrs Harris’s Written Statement differs to the copy provided by Mr Sunderland, although the review date in both is 1 April and, for all intents and purposes, the agreement terms match.[53]Mr Holland – Poor condition of the roads. Inadequate and inappropriately placed lighting. No official Park manager. Correspondence is incorrectly addressed. Insufficient notice provided of inspections.[54]Mrs Hobbs – Very poor lighting, with no nighttime visibility in some parts of the Park. Uneven road surfaces causing Mrs Hobbs to fall on three occasions. Infrequent electricity demands.[55]Mr & Mrs Ratcliffe – Deterioration of the site is an ongoing issue which worsens year on year. Kerb stones are collapsing, rainwater pools on pitches, solar lighting is poor, particularly in winter. There is a lack of information forthcoming from the site owners. The review date is 1 April and the Applicants are not entitled to amend it.[56]Ms Haywood – The site layout sign is inappropriately located. Whilst negotiating the purchase of her home, Ms Haywood was advised that road surfaces were scheduled to be replaced. Instead, the Applicants undertook an inferior solution by tarmacking over the existing road surfaces which were already in poor condition. Lighting is inadequate. No road markings or lighting to indicate speed bumps. The site owner refuses to take responsibility for a boundary tree, the branches of which may fall on her property.[57]Ms Carrigan – Lack of site maintenance, poor condition of roads and unacceptable lighting. Late service of electricity demands.[58]Mr Provis – Breaches of data protection legislation. Written Statement provides for a review on the first Saturday of April. Failure by the Applicants to enforce site rules concerning vehicles with no MOT or tax onsite. Roads were repaired and hedges cut forty-eight hours prior to the Tribunal’s visit. No maintenance or repairs prior to such date. Findings of Fact & Determination[59]The Tribunal finds that the Applicants are entitled by virtue of the implied terms contained within paragraph 17 of Part 1 of Chapter 2, of Schedule 1 to the Mobile Homes Act 1983 to undertake a late review of the pitch fee. The annual review date of 1 April is preserved.[60]The Applicants served the pitch fee review Notices and prescribed forms on each Respondent on 27 June 2023, with an effective date of 1 August 2023. The Tribunal finds that the Applicants were entitled to do so.[61]The Applicants proposed an increase in pitch fee in accordance with the percentage increase in the RPI. The Mobile Homes (Pitch Fees) Act 2023 changed the basis for calculating the pitch fees for park homes in England and Wales from the RPI to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) with effect from 2 July 2023. The Tribunal finds that the Applicants were correct in adopting the RPI methodology at the pertinent date.[62]The Tribunal finds that the Applicants adopted the correct RPI percentage of 13.4%, that being the January 2023 figure, published in February 2023.[63]The Tribunal finds that the correct effective date for the pitch fee review, in this instance, is 1 August 2023.[64]The Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicants complied with the procedural requirements of paragraph 17 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the 1983 Act in this matter.[65]The Tribunal next turns its attention to the question as to whether the proposed increase in pitch fee is reasonable, irrespective of whether the sum payable is in itself reasonable.[66]The Tribunal reminds itself that paragraph 18(1) of the Act requires the Tribunal to determine whether there has been 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 of the site, and/or whether there has been any reduction in the services provided by the site owner and any deterioration in the quality of those services. Furthermore, whether any other weighty factors displace the presumption in favour of an inflationary increase in pitch fee calculated in accordance with RPI.[67]The Tribunal further reminds itself that the inspection only demonstrated the condition of the Park on that day and not on the relevant date of the pitch fee review. The Tribunal is aware that, on occasion, a party may seek to enhance the aesthetics of a Park prior to the Tribunal attending, evidence of which typically including grass cutting, hedge maintenance and pot-hole filling. During the Tribunal’s inspection on the 6 September 2024 it was evident that communal grass areas had recently been cut, hedges and greenery newly trimmed and pot-holes freshly filled.[68]The Applicants assert that they are entitled to a pitch fee increase in line with the appropriate RPI index and that the Respondents have provided no evidence as to why such is not reasonable.[69]The Respondents dispute the Applicant’s entitlement to an increase in pitch fee on the grounds of deterioration in the condition of site and decrease in amenity, and a reduction in services provided and/or a deterioration in the quality of services.[70]The Respondents say that there is no Park manager, nor a Fit and Proper person appointed. The Tribunal finds this correct. There is no appointed Park manager, Mr Dixon being engaged on an ad-hoc basis to carry out repair and maintenance at the owners’ discretion. However, the Respondents have adduced no evidence that such is a reduction in services during the relevant period, i.e. that a service previously provided has been withdrawn. The Applicant accepts that the Park is without an appointed Fit and Proper Person but that Mr White is in the process of being appointed such and, irrespective of any pending appointment, this is neither a reduction in the level of service provided nor a pitch fee matter to trouble the Tribunal. The Tribunal finds no reduction in the level of services in such regard.[71]Multiple Respondents alleged a failure on the part of the Applicant to undertake routine or periodic maintenance of the Park. Whilst the Tribunal has no reason to doubt the veracity of the Respondent’s statements, the Respondents were unable to direct the Tribunal to any evidence, either by way or photographs, videos or similar, which demonstrated a deterioration in the condition of the Park within the relevant period.[72]The Tribunal witnessed areas of the access roads which required routine maintenance but found no evidence of deterioration in condition within the relevant period. The Tribunal makes no findings as to the cause of a residents’ fall, such being the subject of litigation in an alternative forum.[73]The Respondents state that no improvements have been made to the site. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction does not extend to improvements, or suggested lack of, but concentrates on deterioration in condition, decrease in amenity, reduction in services and deterioration in quality of services. Nor was such argued to be a weighty factor.[74]The Respondents refer to an alleged failure on the part of the Applicants to enforce the site rules. No evidence was adduced and the Tribunal is therefore unable to conclude that there has either been a failure in this regard or, if so, that the failure has caused either a deterioration in condition or decrease in amenity.[75]Repeated reference was made by Respondents as to the poor relationship between the parties and a lack of communication on multiple matters, including site inspections and the service of electricity demands. Whilst hostility between the parties was clearly evident throughout proceedings, the Tribunal does not find such to either be a deterioration in service or a weighty factor capable of displacing the presumption in favour of an inflationary pitch fee increase.[76]The Tribunal finds that although the site signage may not be the most conveniently located, it is fit for purpose and, furthermore, that the relocation of the sign is not a deterioration in either the site of the services provided by the Applicant.[77]The Tribunal finds the only evidence of inadequate lighting to be within the written statements and oral evidence provided by the Respondents, as refuted by the Applicants. The Tribunal finds insufficient evidence that the lighting has deteriorated during the relevant period or that such would displace the presumption of a pitch fee increase in accordance with RPI.[78]The parties remain in dispute as to who is responsible for a tree sited within the boundary of pitch 36 Planet Park. The Tribunal finds that, irrespective of whose responsibility the maintenance was going to be, the Tribunal was not persuaded that the tree constitutes such a deterioration in the condition of the plot that it would, at the pertinent date, impact on the pitch fee, nor that it is a weighty factor that would displace the presumption of an increase in line with the RPI.[79]Mr Mitchell says that he has not been provided with a Written Statement and, accordingly, he neither has to accept or refute a pitch fee increase. The Tribunal finds that Mr Mitchell does not dispute that he is entitled to station, and occupy, a mobile home on a pitch on the Park. The Tribunal finds that Mr Mitchell is not obliged to respond to the Applicant’s Notice of pitch fee review but, in the absence of doing so, the Applicant is entitled to refer the matter to the Tribunal for determination. Mr Mitchell may be entitled to pursue an alternative recourse in relation to any lack of a Written Statement.[80]The Tribunal accepts that the Respondents are dissatisfied with the management and maintenance of the site, and with the level of communication between site owner and themselves, and that suggestions have been made as to improvements. Nevertheless, the Tribunal must confine its determination as to the matters set down by statute and expanded upon in appellate courts’ determinations.[81]The first of these matters being, as to whether there is evidence of a deterioration in the condition of the site or a decrease in amenity. Further to the findings set out above, the Tribunal finds no evidence to prove such within the relevant period.[82]The second matter being, as to whether there is evidence of any reduction in services provided or deterioration in the quality of the services during the relevant period. As explained in the preceding paragraphs, the Tribunal finds no evidence in such regard.[83]Finally, the Tribunal must turn its attention as to whether any weighty factors displace the presumption in favour of an inflationary increase in the pitch fee. The Tribunal finds no evidence in such regard. The effect of the above determinations and the pitch fees[84]The first question to be addressed by the Tribunal is whether there should be any change from the pitch fee for 1 April 2023 onward and, if so, what that change should be.[85]Having considered the evidence and submissions before us the Tribunal are satisfied that it is reasonable that the pitch fee should be changed.[86]Turning next to the amount of increase in pitch fee, the Tribunal finds that the Respondents have failed to persuade the Tribunal that the presumption in favour of an increase in line with the relevant RPI should be displaced.[87]Accordingly, the Tribunal confirms the proposed monthly pitch fees, payable with effect from 1 April 2023, as follows: Case reference Property: Determined Pitch Fee (per month) CHI/00HE/PHI/2023/0641 15 Planet Park £131.96 CHI/00HE/PHI/2023/0642 2 Planet Park £197.23 CHI/00HE/PHI/2023/0643 3 Planet Park £137.99 CHI/00HE/PHI/2023/0644 4 Planet Park £126.08 CHI/00HE/PHI/2023/0645 6 Planet Park £135.98 CHI/00HE/PHI/2023/0646 7 Planet Park £197.23 CHI/00HE/PHI/2023/0647 14 Planet Park £125.98 CHI/00HE/PHI/2023/0648 18 Planet Park £127.97 CHI/00HE/PHI/2023/0650 22 Planet Park £116.49 CHI/00HE/PHI/2023/0652 24 Planet Park £130.26 CHI/00HE/PHI/2023/0653 26 Planet Park £125.86 CHI/00HE/PHI/2023/0654 28 Planet Park £115.89 CHI/00HE/PHI/2023/0655 32 Planet Park £129.37 CHI/00HE/PHI/2023/0657 36 Planet Park £125.23 CHI/00HE/PHI/2023/0658 39 Planet Park £115.87 CHI/00HE/PHI/2023/0659 2A Roughtor View £173.71 CHI/00HE/PHI/2023/0660 4 Roughtor View £125.68 CHI/00HE/PHI/2023/0661 5 Roughtor View £120.18 CHI/00HE/PHI/2023/0663 19 Roughtor View £126.08 CHI/00HE/PHI/2023/0664 17 Roughtor View £119.87[88]Pursuant to Rule 13(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 the Applicant applied for reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee from each Respondent. In view of the outcome of its determination the Tribunal finds it reasonable that each Respondent reimburses the Applicant the £20.00 application fee.[89]The order to reimburse the Applicant the £20.00 application fee extends to those three Respondents who accepted the proposed pitch fee only after the Applicant’s application to the Tribunal, namely: i. 21 Planet Park: Mrs Lazenby ii. 23 Planet Park: Mrs Stone iii. 35 Planet Park: Mrs Wills RIGHTS OF APPEAL[1]A person wishing to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) must seek permission to do so by making written application by email to rpsouthern@justice.gov.uk to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional office which has been dealing with the case.[2]The application must arrive at the Tribunal within 28 days after the Tribunal sends to the person making the application written reasons for the decision.[3]If the person wishing to appeal does not comply with the 28 day time limit, the person shall include with the application for permission to appeal a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28 day time limit; the Tribunal will then decide whether to extend time or not to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed.[4]The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates, state the grounds of appeal, and state the result the party making the application is seeking.