SHAW’S TRAILER PARK (HARROGATE) v MR P SHERWOOD AND OTHERS
Decision date: 21 May 2015
Neutral citation: [2015] UKUT 194 (LC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
This appeal concerned the validity of three pitch‑fee review notices served in 2014 for a protected caravan site where annual review date is 1 April. The Upper Tribunal held the first notice invalid because it specified the wrong RPI percentage calculated under the prescribed method, but allowed the appeal on the third notice, ruling that a late review notice can validly take effect after the next review date and substituting a determination fixing the new fee at £28.71 effective 28 April 2014. The FTT's finding that all three notices were ineffective was therefore varied.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high
Notices proposing an increase must comply precisely with the statutory requirement to state the RPI percentage calculated in the prescribed manner; failure to do so renders the notice of no effect. Further, the phrase "at any time thereafter" in paragraph 17(6)(b) permits a late review notice to take effect after the next review date rather than being strictly time‑barred once 12 months have passed.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The tribunal observed that the guidance notes in the prescribed form are only guidance and do not override the statutory wording, so they may be an unreliable indicator of the statute's effect. It also commented that multiple reviews in a single year may be unattractive but that practical safeguards (no retrospective effect and a 28‑day period after service before effect) limit potential unfairness.