Sacketts Grove Residential Park, Jaywick Lane, Clacton-on-Sea, Essex, CO16 7JB ((Park) homes - Section 4 - any Question Under Act or Agreement)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicants, consisting of the chairperson of the Sacketts Grove Park Residents Association ("SGPRA") and the occupiers of two residential units within Sacketts Grove Residential Park ("the Park"), brought an application against the site owner, Company A, concerning a dispute over an accessway between Sacketts Grove Residential Park and the adjacent Saddlebrook Chase Holiday Caravan Park. The dispute arose after Company A closed a fire escape route and entrance to the Park without consultation. The Applicants alleged that this closure was unreasonable and sought reinstatement of the accessway. Additionally, the second Applicant claimed a pre-existing right to park near the adjacent caravan park, which was affected by the closure. The Applicants also sought an undertaking from Company A to comply with consultation requirements under the Mobile Homes Act 1983.

Company A became the owner of both parks in January 2014 and closed the accessway in June 2019 without formal consultation with the SGPRA, which was contested. The accessway was re-opened by Company A in October 2019. The Tribunal conducted a site inspection before the hearing. At the hearing, it was established that the accessway would remain open, and the Applicants withdrew certain allegations due to unavailability of a key witness. The parties subsequently reached a settlement agreement regarding the parking rights of the second Applicant and reimbursement of Tribunal fees.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether Company A acted unreasonably by closing the accessway without consultation, warranting its reinstatement.
2. Whether the second Applicant held a right to park near the adjacent caravan park, granted prior to 2013, which was affected by the closure of the accessway.
3. Whether Company A should be required to provide an undertaking to comply with consultation provisions under the Mobile Homes Act 1983.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicants' Arguments

• Company A acted unreasonably by closing a fire escape route and entrance without consultation, requiring reinstatement.
• The second Applicant had a pre-existing right to park near the adjacent caravan park, which was infringed by the closure.
• Company A should undertake to comply with consultation requirements under the Mobile Homes Act 1983.

Respondent's Arguments

• Company A denied the existence of any parking right granted to the second Applicant by the previous owner.
• Company A disputed whether consultation was formally required before closing the accessway.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Tribunal acknowledged that Company A closed the accessway without formal consultation, which was undisputed. However, the accessway was subsequently re-opened, and Company A confirmed no intention to close it again. The Applicants withdrew their claim for an undertaking under the Mobile Homes Act due to the unavailability of a key witness. The Tribunal invited the parties to settle their differences concerning the disputed parking rights. The parties reached a settlement agreement granting the second Applicant permission to park in the adjacent caravan park's car park during their ownership, with acknowledgement that the parking space is not exclusive and may occasionally be unavailable. The Tribunal consented to the withdrawal of the application based on this agreement and ordered Company A to reimburse the Tribunal fees to the SGPRA.

Holding and Implications

The Tribunal consented to the withdrawal of the application on the basis that the parties had reached a settlement agreement resolving the dispute.

Company A was ordered to pay £300 to the SGPRA as reimbursement of Tribunal fees within 21 days. The decision resolved the specific dispute between the parties without establishing new precedent. The accessway will remain open, and the second Applicant has permission to park in the adjacent car park subject to availability, thereby addressing the core issues raised.