The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) has dismissed two appeals by park management companies, upholding findings that pitch fee review notices were invalid because the company serving them was not yet the "site owner".
Key facts
- Who: Residents of protected mobile home sites, and the companies that run them, where the site is held through leases
- From: 13 July 2026 (judgment date)
- Source: The Willows General Management Ltd v Janet Hawkins, [2026] UKUT 263 (LC)
Background
On 13 July 2026 the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), Upper Tribunal Judge Elizabeth Cooke, decided two linked appeals in [2026] UKUT 263 (LC). They concerned pitch fees for mobile homes on protected sites to which the Mobile Homes Act 1983 applies. One appeal related to Beechfield Park, Aldingbourne, and the other to 14 The Willows Park, Ford, near Arundel.
Under the 1983 Act, a pitch fee can be reviewed only once a year, by prescribed notices served by the site owner. An increase is payable only if the resident agrees or the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) considers it reasonable.
In both appeals the FTT had decided that the notices were invalid because, when they were served, the appellant was not the "site owner" as the Act defines it. Each appellant appealed with the FTT's permission. The ownership structures were complicated and had recently been regularised, but the rearrangement of the leasehold titles had not taken place when the notices were served.
The question
Who counts as the "site owner" for serving a pitch fee review notice, and does it matter that the title was put in order only afterwards?
The decision
The appeals failed.
Section 5 of the 1983 Act defines the owner as the person who, through an estate or interest, is entitled to possession of the site, or would be but for the rights of people to station mobile homes on it. A freeholder is therefore not the owner if, for example, long leases mean it would not be entitled to possession of the site.
At The Willows, the appellant held a long lease of the whole site, but the 40-year lease of Mrs Hawkins's pitch was not assigned to it until 22 May 2024. When it served the notice on 23 September 2023 it was not the owner. By the time of the 2024 notices it was, so the FTT was correct to treat the 2023 notice as invalid and the 2024 notice as valid.
The appellant also argued that, as the holder of a site licence granted by the local authority, it satisfied the definition of "occupier" in the 1990 Act and so must be the owner under the 1983 Act. The Tribunal agreed with the analysis of HHJ Johns in an earlier case: the local authority's decision to grant a licence is not relevant to the validity of the notices.
At The Willows, the FTT had concluded that it was reasonable for the pitch fee to increase by 2.20%, from £252.35 to £257.90 a month, from 1 November 2024. The Upper Tribunal said that decision now takes effect.
Other matters raised by the residents, including about the site licence, were outside the scope of the appeals and the Tribunal could not comment on them.
What this means for mobile home residents and site operators
- A pitch fee review notice must come from the person who is the "site owner" as the 1983 Act defines it, at the time it is served. Holding a site licence does not settle that.
- Where a site's leasehold titles are complicated, the position at the date of service may decide whether a notice is valid.
- Residents unsure whether a notice was validly served, and operators unsure of their title, should consider getting advice.
- Any party may appeal to the Court of Appeal on a point of law, but only with permission. The application must be received within one month of the decision being sent to the parties, unless a costs application is made within 14 days of the decision being sent, in which case the month runs from the date the Tribunal's costs decision is sent.
Sources
- The Willows General Management Ltd v Janet Hawkins, [2026] UKUT 263 (LC), Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), 13 July 2026: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukut/lc/2026/263