Various at Pasadena Park, East Hill Road, Sevenoaks, Kent, TN15 6YH:CHI/29UK/PHI/2024/0263-0266 CHI/29UK/PHI/2024/0263-0266
DECISION
[1]The Tribunal finds that the Application was not made in time. The Tribunal declines to extend time as no good reason was advanced by the Applicant and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine the applications. The application and the history of the case BACKGROUND[2]On 1 May 2024 the Tribunal received four applications for each of the properties listed on page 1 for determination of pitch fee increases, effective from 1 January 2024.[3]A Pitch Fee Review Notice and Form dated 28 November 2023 was served on each of the occupiers proposing to increase the pitch fee by an amount which the site owner says represents only an adjustment in line with the Consumer Prices Index. Time Limits[4]Chapter 2, Paragraph 17 (5) of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 states that ‘An application under sub-paragraph (4)(a) may be made at any time after the period of 28 days beginning with the review date [but…no later than 3 months after the review date].[5]The Review Date is said to be 1 January 2024. The time limit for applying to the Tribunal was 1 April 2024.[6]The applications were dated 23 April 2024 and received by the Tribunal on 1 May 2024 so are out of time.[7]Paragraph 17 [9A) states: A tribunal may permit an application….to be made to it outside the time limit specified in sub-paragraph (5)…if it is satisfied that, in all circumstances, there are good reasons for the failure to apply within the applicable time limit and for any delay since then in applying for permission to make an application out of time].[8]As a result directions were issued on 10 October 2024 listing the matter for a preliminary hearing to determine whether or not the time for making the application could be extended. This included directions for the Applicant to make submission as to why the application was lodged late and listing for a video hearing on 24 October 2024[9]The Applicant failed to supply any evidence or explanation as to why the application was lodged late.[10]Ms Wilmot made a case management application seeking for her attendance to be excused or the hearing adjourned due to her attending a funeral.[11]At the hearing, Messrs. Henning Evans and Chapman attended remotely. Ms Smith whom the applicant had nominated as their representative, was not in attendance, as such the clerk was directed to make contact. The clerk reported back that she had spoken to Mr Howard who had advised that he was at a funeral and Ms Smith was unable to attend due to an issue with her daughter.[12]This was explained to the Respondents.[13]The Respondents in attendance explained how they had been earlier this year subjected to county court proceedings which had not moved forward as the Applicant had not pursued the same. The each explained that they had not agreed the pitch fee increases in earlier years and Mr Howard had not obtained a Tribunal determination. They therefore considered that those increases were not effective.[14]The Tribunal considered not to proceed further with the hearing given non-attendance by Mr Howard or his representative, Miss Smith. Whilst it was clear that Mr Howard was aware of the hearing, although the link for the remote hearing was sent late, it was considered that the Applicant may have had a good reason for not attending and a short adjournment should be agreed. This would also give Ms. Willmott an opportunity to attend.[15]The Tribunal issued Directions to the parties, noting the events of the hearing and recording that if in earlier years pitch fee notices have been served and not agreed by the home owners, and there has been no determination of such, then those increases will have no effect. The correct pitch fee payable will be that last agreed by the parties or determined by the Tribunal. That was stated to be for the Site Owner to prove.[16]The Directions set down a date for the Preliminary Hearing for the 18 November 2024 at 10am via a remote hearing, allowing 2 hours for the same. The parties were given the opportunity to notify the Tribunal if they disagreed with the length of hearing.[17]The Applicant was directed to send to the Tribunal and all Respondents any witness statement or other evidence that he sought to rely upon explaining why his application was received by the Tribunal late, by 4 November 2024. The Directions further advised the Applicant that if he failed to comply with the direction he would be barred from relying upon any evidence in the hearing.[18]No evidence was sent by the Applicant.[19]The Respondents had until the 11 November 2024 to reply. The Hearing[20]The hearing was conducted remotely on the 18 November 2024, having commenced some 15 minutes late owing to technical problems experienced by Mr. Howard and for affording the clerk opportunity to contact Ms. Wilmot who was not in attendance nor answered the clerk’s calls.[21]As the clerk had attempted to make contact with Ms. Wilmot and all other parties were in attendance, it was decided that the hearing should proceed subject to Mr Howard having adequate connection.[22]Mr Howard was able to join the Hearing via telephone and whilst the parties were not visible, Mr Howard confirmed that he could hear the audio and was happy to proceed.[23]At the start of the hearing, Mr Howard confirmed that he had not complied with the Directions dated 24 October 2024 by not supplying the Tribunal, and Respondents, with reasons as to why the application was made late. Mr Howard was directed to paragraph 25 of the Directions which cited the consequences of non-compliance being that he was barred from relying on any evidence in the hearing.[24]Mr Howard confirmed that he understood, stating simply that his Representative and assistant in managing his sites, Ms Smith, was relatively new to the role and Park Homes generally ‘within the last couple of years’ and as such had not understood the pitch fee review process, mistakenly believing that arrears were to be sought following the Small Claims route, rather than needing to have a pitch fee determined by this Tribunal.[25]The Respondents were given the opportunity to make comment on whether an extension of time should be granted to the Applicant.[26]Mr Henning stated that this had gone on long enough and there was no reason why an owner of multiple park home sites did not know that he had to go to Tribunal for pitch fee determinations.[27]Mr Evans concurred, stating that the Tribunal process was attempted to have been bypassed and that a Park Owner not understanding the review process was surprising to him.[28]Mr Chapman concluded that the original Rent Review form issued by the Applicant stated that the park home owner should not pay the increased fee if they disagree with the increase so it was of surprise to him that the applicant had sought arrears.[29]The submissions were unchallenged by Mr Howard.[30]On final opportunity for submissions, Mr Howard questioned the Respondents on why the 4 Respondents had not paid the pitch fee increases for this year or in previous years when all other Park Home Owners had been paying, stating that there were no reasons for them to continually contest reviews where there are no issues at the site. Mr Howard was reminded of the purpose of today’s preliminary hearing which was limited to the issue of the application being made late.[31]Upon my questioning, Mr Howard had confirmed that he not made applications for pitch fee determinations to the Tribunal for previous years, having not understood the process. Mr Howard was advised to seek legal advice regarding the Pitch Fee Review process. Consideration[32]The Applicant had not advanced any grounds for the late application, as directed for by Judge Whitney’s directions dated 24 October 2024. In accordance of such, Mr Howard was barred from adducing any evidence at the hearing. Notwithstanding, Mr Howard had provided a simple explanation that his Representative, had misunderstood the review process.[33]The Tribunal gave consideration to the Respondent’s submissions as to the Pitch Fee Review Notice and Form, to which cites the statutory procedure where a review is contested with the guidance notes making several references to ‘the Tribunal’ in the determination of the pitch fee.[34]Whilst the notes do not state which Tribunal an application should be made to, they clearly do not make mention of the Small Claims / County Court or arrears. Conversely, they explicitly direct the home owner to not pay the increased pitch fee and to continue paying the current fee until determined by the Tribunal.[35]The Pitch Fee Review Form was signed by Miss Natalie Smith, Representative of the Applicant, on behalf of Howard Park Homes.[36]I determine that no good reasons have been advanced for the late application by Mr Howard, who has been given two opportunities to provide such. Mr Howard did not contest the Respondent’s submission’s as to his experience and knowledge as a Park Home Owner and I find that ignorance to the review procedure is not good reason for a late application, particularly where that same is cited on the Pitch Fee Review Form issued by the Applicant.[37]I therefore find no grounds to issue an extension of time for the four applications, rendering them ‘out of time’. As such, the Tribunal therefore has no jurisdiction to determine the applications for Pitch Fees. As a result, the pitch fee review notices are of no effect and Mr Howard is not entitled to the increase claimed. 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 to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional office which has been dealing with the case by email at rpsouthern@justice.gov.uk[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