P R HARDMAN & PARTNERS v P R HARDMAN & PARTNERS v (1) BRENDA GREENWOOD (2) MARILYN FOX
Decision date: 27 October 2015
Neutral citation: [2015] UKUT 587 (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 paragraph 3(b) of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 written statement and the statutory scheme allowed a park owner to charge occupiers administration surcharges or overheads on top of the direct cost of LPG, electricity and private sewerage services. The Upper Tribunal held paragraph 3(b) applies to charges levied by third-party suppliers (outgoings) and does not authorise an owner’s general service charge or administration mark‑ups. The Tribunal limited recoverable items to the unit price actually paid to suppliers for LPG and electricity supplied to pitches, standing/unit electricity charges necessary to operate the private sewerage system, and third‑party contractor and licence fees for sewage; other overheads and owner administration costs are not recoverable.
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
Where a written statement requires occupiers to pay "charges in respect of electricity, gas ... and other services," that language is naturally read as referring to third‑party supplier charges (outgoings) rather than sums levied by the owner for administering or providing those services. Absent an express contractual provision allowing a separate or variable service charge, the pitch fee is the consideration for the owner's obligations (including ordinary administration and maintenance), so such overheads are not recoverable separately from occupiers.
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 indicated that parties wishing to create a recoverable variable service charge or administration charge must do so by clear, conventional drafting or by express agreement; such charges cannot be imposed on existing occupiers without their consent. It also observed that estoppel or historic practice defences require occupiers to have been sufficiently informed about the basis of charges, so lack of transparency undermines those defences.