5 Silver Poplars Park, Holyhead Road, Kingswood, Albrighton, WV7 3AP ((Park) homes - Section 4 - any Question Under Act or Agreement)

Factual and Procedural Background

This case concerns an application under section 10 of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 by the Applicants, owners of Silver Poplars Park, a licensed residential mobile home park, seeking to permanently relocate the Respondent's mobile home from Pitch 5 to Pitch 22. The Applicants intend to undertake a redevelopment and infrastructure upgrade of the north-eastern corner of the Park, which includes replacement of foul drainage pipes beneath Pitch 5 and reconfiguration of the site layout. The Respondent, owner-occupier of Pitch 5 since 1987, disputes the necessity and reasonableness of the relocation, citing concerns over the condition and movability of his home, lack of trust in the Applicants, and alleged harassment. The Tribunal conducted an inspection and held a remote hearing due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The central dispute is whether the relocation is justified under the statutory provisions for essential repairs or reasonableness, and whether Pitch 22 is broadly comparable to Pitch 5.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the proposed works to the foul drainage system beneath Pitch 5 constitute "essential repairs" under section 10(1)(b) of the Mobile Homes Act 1983, necessitating relocation of the Respondent's mobile home.
2. Whether Pitch 22 is "broadly comparable" to Pitch 5 and it is reasonable under section 10(1)(a) for the Respondent's mobile home to be permanently relocated there to facilitate the Applicants' redevelopment plans.
3. Whether the term "any period" in section 10(1) includes permanent relocation of a mobile home.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicants' Arguments

• The foul drainage system beneath Pitch 5 is in poor condition and fails to comply with relevant legal requirements and Park Licence conditions, necessitating replacement as an essential repair.
• The Respondent's mobile home must be relocated to Pitch 22 to enable excavation and replacement of the drainage pipes and installation of new services under the proposed internal access road.
• Pitch 22 is broadly comparable to Pitch 5, offering a larger space, new services, parking, and an improved garden area, making it reasonable to relocate the Respondent permanently.
• The redevelopment is supported by the Council and the majority of Park residents and will improve the Park's amenity and capacity.
• The Applicants offered to pay all costs associated with relocation and to provide a replacement mobile home if the Respondent's home cannot be moved without damage.
• The Respondent's refusal to allow inspection of his home and rejection of offers are based on mistrust arising from past conflicts and alleged harassment.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Respondent disputes the necessity of relocating his home, asserting the foul drainage system does not pass beneath his home and that any replacement could be done without moving him.
• The Respondent's home has a side extension that makes it incapable of being moved without significant damage and expense.
• The Respondent fears continued harassment and mistrusts the Applicants due to a history of aggressive and abusive behavior, including destruction of his garden and water supply issues.
• The Respondent demands £150,000 to relinquish his pitch to purchase a permanent home off-site, rejecting the Applicants' offers.
• The Respondent denies any breach of Park Licence conditions regarding drainage and disputes the Applicants' interpretation of expert reports.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Tribunal analyzed the evidence and submissions with particular focus on the statutory criteria under section 10 of the Mobile Homes Act 1983. Regarding essential repairs under s10(1)(b), the Tribunal found the Applicants failed to provide sufficient expert evidence that the foul drainage system beneath Pitch 5 required replacement to comply with legal requirements. The expert report relied upon was prepared by a non-qualified individual who lacked relevant expertise in drainage systems and relied on an uncommissioned CCTV report without professional analysis or recommendations. The Council's letter did not independently verify any breach of licence conditions. Alternative repair methods and routes for drainage replacement were not adequately considered. The Tribunal concluded the application under s10(1)(b) was effectively a pretext to facilitate redevelopment rather than addressing a genuine essential repair.

Regarding the reasonableness of relocation under s10(1)(a), the Tribunal acknowledged that Pitch 22 is broadly comparable to Pitch 5 in size and amenity, though the new garden would require time to mature. However, the Tribunal found it was not reasonable to relocate the Respondent's home there for any period. The Respondent's evidence that his home would likely be damaged in a move was accepted, given the extension and refurbishment. The Respondent's mistrust of the Applicants was found to be reasonable, considering past incidents of property damage, harassment, and abusive conduct by the Applicants. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of trust and confidence between the parties and the precarious position an order would place the Respondent in, weighing these factors against the benefits of the redevelopment. The Tribunal did not need to determine whether the term "any period" includes permanent relocation, as it rejected both grounds for relocation.

Holding and Implications

The Tribunal's final decision was to DISMISS the Applicants' application for relocation of the Respondent's mobile home to Pitch 22, both on the basis of essential repairs and reasonableness under section 10 of the Mobile Homes Act 1983.

This decision means the Respondent's mobile home will remain on Pitch 5, and the Applicants cannot proceed with relocation for redevelopment or drainage replacement purposes as proposed. No new legal precedent was established; the ruling is specific to the facts, evidentiary shortcomings, and parties' conduct in this case. The Tribunal also noted the procedural right to appeal within 28 days to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).