Inclusion of Site Licence Fee in Pitch Fee under the Mobile Homes Act 1983: Vyse v Wyldecrest Parks

Introduction

Vyse v. Wyldecrest Parks (Management) Ltd ([2017] UKUT 24 (LC)) is a pivotal case adjudicated by the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) on January 30, 2017. The case revolves around the interpretation and application of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 and subsequent amendments introduced by the Mobile Homes Act 2013. The primary parties involved are Mrs. Toni Vyse (Appellant) and Wyldecrest Parks (Management) Ltd (Respondent). The central issue pertains to whether an increase in the site licence fee imposed by the local authority should be incorporated into the pitch fee paid by occupiers of mobile homes.

Summary of the Judgment

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) initially determined that only a proportion of the £200 site licence fee could be included in the pitch fees for certain pitches at Scatterdells Park. The £100 increase in the site licence fee, attributed to higher risk due to management deficiencies, was excluded, and no Retail Prices Index (RPI) adjustment was applied to this element. Mrs. Vyse appealed this decision, arguing that the entire increase should be included and subject to RPI adjustments. Wyldecrest Parks appealed to have the full £300 site licence fee incorporated into the pitch fees. The Upper Tribunal ultimately allowed Mrs. Vyse's appeal, determining that the additional £100 fee could not be included in the pitch fees, thereby upholding the presumption that pitch fee adjustments should align with RPI unless otherwise justified.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Walker v Baldock [1997] 2 EGLR 163, CA: Established that in the absence of specific legislative guidelines, courts have discretion in determining the fairness and reasonableness of pitch fee alterations.
Sayer [2014] UKUT 283 (LC): Emphasized that RPI serves as a presumption rather than a strict rule, allowing for discretion based on "weighty factors."
Stroud v Weir Associates [1987] 1 EGLR 190: Asserted that market pitches comparisons are not directly relevant in pitch fee reviews.
Charles Simpson Organisation Limited v Martin Redshaw & Another [2010] 2514 (Ch): Highlighted the presumption of RPI as a starting point, subject to possible displacement by significant factors.
Britaniacrest Limited [2013] UKUT 521 (LC): Clarified that administrative charges should be included within the pitch fee unless explicitly separated in agreements.
PR Hardman & Partners v Greenwood & Fox [2015] UKUT 587 (LC): Confirmed the approach regarding administrative fees within pitch fee considerations.
Wyldecrest Parks Management Limited v Kenyon and Others (LRX/103/2016) [2017] UKUT 28 (LC): Provided an example of considering site licence fee issues as "other factors" beyond specific statutory considerations.

Legal Reasoning

The Tribunal meticulously dissected the provisions of Schedule 1 to the Mobile Homes Act 1983 as amended by the Mobile Homes Act 2013. Key considerations included:

Paragraph 18(1)(ba): Requires particular regard to any direct effect on the costs payable by the owner due to an enactment that has come into force since the last review date.
Paragraph 20(A1): Establishes a presumption that pitch fees should adjust in line with RPI unless this adjustment would be unreasonable given the factors in Paragraph 18(1).

The Tribunal concluded that the £100 increase in the site licence fee was not directly attributable to a new enactment but rather to management failings, thus categorizing it as an "other factor." Consequently, the RPI presumption was not displaced, and the additional £100 could not be included in the pitch fees.

Impact

This judgment significantly clarifies the boundaries within which site licence fees can be incorporated into pitch fees. It underscores that only fees directly arising from new legislative enactments can be considered under specific statutory provisions, while other increases, such as those due to management issues, remain outside this scope. This delineation provides greater certainty for both site owners and occupiers regarding permissible fee adjustments, potentially reducing litigation over pitch fee determinations.

Future cases will likely reference this judgment when addressing similar issues of fee inclusions and adjustments, especially concerning what constitutes a direct effect of an enactment versus other operational factors.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Pitch Fee: The fee paid by occupiers of mobile homes to the site owner for the right to occupy a specific pitch (plot) on the site.
Site Licence Fee: A fee charged by the local authority to the site owner for the privilege of operating a mobile home site.
Retail Prices Index (RPI): An inflation measure used to determine the annual increase in pitch fees.
Paragraph 18(1)(ba): A statutory provision requiring consideration of any direct cost impacts from new legislation when reviewing pitch fees.
Presumption of RPI: The default assumption that pitch fee changes should align with RPI increases unless overridden by significant factors.
Other Factors: Elements not explicitly covered by statutory provisions that may justify deviations from the RPI presumption, such as management issues.

Conclusion

The Upper Tribunal's decision in Vyse v. Wyldecrest Parks (Management) Ltd reinforces the regulatory framework governing pitch fee adjustments under the Mobile Homes Act 1983. By delineating the conditions under which site licence fee increases can influence pitch fees, the judgment provides clarity and predictability within the mobile home sector. It emphasizes the primacy of statutory provisions while allowing for judicial discretion in exceptional cases involving "other factors." This balance ensures both regulatory compliance and fairness to occupiers, fostering a more stable and transparent environment for mobile home site management.