The court was asked to set pitch fees on a registered mobile home site. The site owner had sought to rely upon the fact of the order which cut from 15 per cent to 10 per cent the maximum commission chargeable by a site owner on an occupier’s assignment of his mobile home that reduction in his commission entitlement as a relevant factor on the pitch fee review. The court asked whether evidence of the pitch fees or rents charged at other sites was a relevant factor.
Held: Evidence of pitch fees at other caravan sites did not fall within the review clause, because the phrase ‘applicable to the operation of the park’ qualified the term ‘any other relevant factor’. Thus the court favoured a fairly narrow interpretation of sub-paragraph (iii) in that case. The phrase ‘applicable to the operation of the park’ applied equally to ‘any other relevant factors’ as to ‘the effect of legislation’.
Glidewell LJ said, however, that ‘Grammatically there is no break, no comma or any other indication to show that the phrase ‘applicable to the operation of the park’ is intended only to include the effect of legislation. The words make sense read as a whole, and for myself I would so interpret them.’ and ‘In my view the Court cannot merely decide whether relevant factors have been taken into account but it can also decide the figures themselves: in other words, in this respect the Court is acting as an arbitrator would do’ The judge had been right to hold that the loss of commission was a relevant factor applicable to the operation of the site. Evidence as to the rent charged on a new letting of a pitch on the same site ‘could be considered to be relevant’.
Judges:
Glidewell LJ, O’Connor LJ, Lloyd LJ
Citations:
[1987] 1 EGLR 190, (1987) 19 HLR 151
Statutes:
Mobile Homes Act 1983, Mobile Homes (Commissions) Order 1983
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Walker v Badcock CA 24-Jun-1997
The tenants on a registered mobile home site appealed a decision that they shoud contribute to the expenses of lopping trees at the edge of the site by including it in the pitch fee. The site owner said that it had been carried out for the benefit . .
Cited – Howard and others v Kinvena Homes Limited CA 19-Mar-1999
Application for leave to appeal – granted. . .
Cited – Warfield Park Homes Ltd v Warfield Park Residents Association CA 27-Mar-2006
Under the Act ‘the Recorder is given a wide discretion by the agreement. The width and unstructured nature of the discretion may seem surprising in relation to an issue as important to residents, and as potentially contentious, as that of pitch . .
Cited – Howard and others v Kinvena Homes Ltd CA 27-Jun-1999
An owner of a park for mobile homes increased the rent to allow for loss of profits after the home owners began to buy their liquid gas from other sources. He showed that profits from such sales were part of the normal profit structure of such parks . .
Cited – Du Plessis v Fontgary Leisure Parks Ltd CA 2-Apr-2012
The claimant, who owned a holiday mobile home on the respondent’s site challenged the raising of site fees, saying that the contract was unfair. Previously all site fees were equal within the site, but the respondent had introduced a scheme which . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant, Contract
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.263955