Pitch fee increases and exceptionally high RPI/CPI: The Mobile Homes Act 1983

Is an exceptional level of RPI good reason to depart from an increase in pitch fees at that level? Joe Warren examines a recent Upper Tribunal ruling.

The Mobile Homes Act 1983 applies to sites run as gypsy and traveller sites, whoever is the owner or manager. More often than not it is a local authority or a registered provider of social housing who owns or manages the site.

When increasing the Pitch fee there is a set legal procedure and statutory notices that need to be used and followed, and the relevant Tribunal can take into account certain matters to determine the pitch fee level.

Such was the position with a recent case that Cobb Warren took to the Upper Tribunal Lands Chamber for determination on behalf of a client. This case was Teignbridge District Council v Clark [2024] UKUT 279 (LC) and the judgment can be found here.

In this case, the pitch occupant challenged the annual pitch fee increase based on both the amenity value of the site and because this pitch fee increase was at an ‘exceptional level’ – you may recall that interest rates at RPI were particularly high in or around December 2022 when this was assessed and pitch fee increase notices were served. At the first hearing, the respondent stated that this level of increase would cause him hardship during the time of the costs of living crisis.

The normal presumption is that RPI increases will be permitted by the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), although this is only a presumption and not an entitlement.  

The First-Tier Tribunal, in the first instance, reduced the increase on two grounds: (1) the amenity of the site and (2) the exceptional level of RPI.

The applicant, Teignbridge, appealed this decision to the Upper Tribunal and succeeded in part. The Upper Tribunal found that the First-Tier Tribunal had sufficient evidence to reach the conclusion that amenity value had been affected (albeit the evidence of this from the Respondent was only pursued verbally at the first hearing). However, the Upper Tribunal also decided that, by considering the ‘exceptional level of RPI’, the First-Tier Tribunal had taken into account an irrelevant consideration. Accordingly, the Upper Tribunal remitted the case back to the First-Tier Tribunal to think again about the decision and remove any deduction they had attributed to the exceptional level of RPI.

Although the Mobile Homes Act 1983 has since changed (from July 2023) and it is now CPI that is used, similar principles will apply to any CPI increases where its level is particularly high in one year and when this then impacts pitch fee increases.

Joe Warren is a partner at Cobb Warren. Expert advocacy (written and verbal) was provided by Jonathan Ward of Magdalen Chambers.