Marigolds Management Limited v Karen Barnes & Ors
Decision date: 11 May 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKUT 186 (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 whether Marigolds Management Limited (MML) was the "owner" able to serve pitch fee review notices under the Mobile Homes Act 1983 when it served notices in September 2023, and related errors in the First-tier Tribunal’s (FTT) choice of starting figures for 2024 CPI increases. The Upper Tribunal held the 2023 notices invalid because MML lacked entitlement to possession of the pitches then, upheld the FTT’s refusal to apply a CPI increase to pitch 62 after a reduction in pitch size, and found that the FTT erred in using a 1 November 2023 starting figure for a subset of respondents’ 2024 increases.
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: medium
The decision indicates that the person entitled to give a pitch fee review notice under the 1983 Act is the person entitled to possession of the site or the individual pitches (subject to occupiers’ rights), and that holding the local authority site licence alone does not make one the "owner" for that statutory purpose. It also holds that a putative previous pitch fee cannot be treated as the lawful starting point for a later CPI-based increase without occupier agreement or a prior tribunal determination fixing that figure.
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 judgment includes observations that a local authority’s grant of a site licence does not bind the FTT to treat the licence-holder as the "owner" for 1983 Act purposes and that factual statements made to a licensing authority may be irrelevant to the ownership question before the tribunal. It also suggests that payment by direct debit despite occupiers’ objections does not amount to agreement to an increased pitch fee.