The Leasehold Advisory Service (LEASE) examines a recent Upper Tribunal decision concerning the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and home owners’ entitlement to ‘quiet enjoyment’ on a park
The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) (“UT”) case between Away Resorts Ltd and Ms Morgan (Sandy Balls Estate home owner) considered the extent of the powers of the Tribunal. The question was: whether the Tribunal is entitled to direct a site owner to ensure that access to a pitch on the site is not obstructed by inconsiderate parking on the part of the occupiers of the other pitches. The full decision can be found at the following link. www.landschamber.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk/Aspx/view.aspx?id=1409
Sandy Balls Park is a mixed-use site in Hampshire that consists of permanent residential park homes and holiday lets.
The three mobile homes with which this appeal is concerned are numbers 116, 117 and 119. Numbers 116 and 119 had been in a habit of parking directly in front of their homes in such a way as to narrow the gap between 116 and 119 through which 117 had to drive to reach or leave their own parking area.
Ms Morgan, the owner of number 117, made a number of complaints concerning activities of her neighbours which she felt breached her implied right to quiet enjoyment of her home.
She also complained that the site owner had erected a sign indicating that residents could park in what was otherwise a designated no parking area. In her opinion, the site owner has encouraged a breach of the site licence.
In her experience, rule breaking ‘had become a habit’ for her neighbours.
Ms Morgan applied to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (“FTT”) for a determination of a number of questions relating to the behaviour of her neighbours and visitors to the park which caused her a nuisance and annoyance, including obstruction of access to her designated parking area by inconsiderate parking.
Jurisdiction of the Tribunal
A site owner or a park home owner can apply to the FTT in England or Residential Property Tribunal (“RPT”) in Wales, for a determination of any question under the Mobile Homes Act or agreement to which it applies. (Section 4, Mobile Homes Act 1983 (in England) and Section 54 of Part 4, of the Mobile Homes (Wales) Act 2013 in Wales).
Paragraph 11, of the Implied Terms (Chapter 2, Part 1, Schedule 1 to the MHA 1983))
provides that ‘the occupier shall be entitled to quiet enjoyment of the mobile home together with the pitch during the continuation of the agreement’.
The relevant site rule at Sandy Balls
Rule 14 limits parking for each pitch to two vehicles and states that: ‘You must not park on the roads or grass verges or in any way which cause an obstruction to other vehicular access’.
The Tribunal’s decision
Upon evidence given by Ms Morgan, the Tribunal decided that her car was frequently blocked from entering or leaving her parking area, by vehicles parked on the central gravel driveway.
The Tribunal issued directions for the site owner to comply with the implied term providing for entitlement to quiet enjoyment by ensuring the shared gravel area leading to and providing access to various pitches on Sandy Balls Estate, is kept clear at all times.
The Tribunal directions continue to bind the park owner and to be enforceable against it, despite Ms Morgan, in whose favour the direction was given, no longer having an interest in the case (she sold the home and the new home owners did not wish to take part in the proceedings). The site owner was given permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal (UT).
If you need any further information, please do not hesitate to contact LEASE’s telephone advice line on 020 7832 2525.
Read the full story in the February 2021 issue of Park Home & Holiday Caravan