Case reference: CHI/46UC/PHI/2023/0563
Site: Bungalow Park, Wiltshire
Date determined: 16 September 2024
Current pitch fee: £164.51 a month
Outcome: no increase. The pitch fee stayed at £164.51 a month.
What was in dispute
The site owner at Bungalow Park had issued a pitch fee review notice under paragraph 17 of Schedule 1 Chapter 2 to the Mobile Homes Act 1983 (England), proposing an increase to the fee the resident was paying. The resident did not agree the figure, which under paragraph 17(4) meant they went on paying the current fee of £164.51 a month while the matter went to the First-tier Tribunal Property Chamber.
The base the tribunal examined
The tribunal's finding turned on the condition of the base under the home. It found the base was subsiding, and that the subsidence was something the site owner was responsible for.
A subsiding base goes to the condition of the pitch itself. Where that condition has worsened and the owner bears responsibility for it, the index presumption behind a pitch fee review does not simply apply as a default.
The paragraph 18(1) reasoning
Schedule 1 Chapter 2 paragraph 18(1) sets out the factors a tribunal must weigh when deciding what, if any, pitch fee increase is reasonable. They include any deterioration in the condition of the pitch or the site, and any reduction in the services the owner provides. This review was assessed against the Retail Prices Index presumption that applied before the Mobile Homes (Pitch Fees) Act 2023 substituted the Consumer Prices Index for pitch fee reviews in England and Wales, with effect from 2 July 2023.
The presumption behind an index figure is a ceiling on the increase. The tribunal held that the subsiding base outweighed the RPI presumption in this case, so the index figure fell away entirely.
What the tribunal determined
The tribunal determined that the pitch fee at Bungalow Park remained £164.51 a month. No increase was allowed.
This is a record of how paragraph 18(1) was applied to one base, one site, and one owner's responsibility for its condition. It shows that the factors in paragraph 18(1) can remove an index-based increase altogether. It does not establish what a tribunal would decide on a different base, a different site, or a different owner's maintenance record. A reader with their own subsidence or disrepair issue can read the full determination at GOV.UK under the case reference above, and check whether it has since been superseded, before relying on it.
A resident who disagrees with a proposed pitch fee and wants to understand what happens next, including the paragraph 17(4) position while a dispute is unresolved, can read how notice defects are treated in Beechfield Park: When the Notice Was Void. For free, independent advice on a live dispute, the Leasehold Advisory Service (parkhomes.lease-advice.org) covers the pitch fee review process in full.