The Willows General Management Ltd v Janet Hawkins

Decision date: 13 July 2026

Neutral citation: [2026] UKUT 263 (LC)

Overall AI summary confidence: medium

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

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: medium

This appeal concerned whether The Willows General Management Ltd was the "owner" under s.5 of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 when serving pitch‑fee review notices on two sites with complex title arrangements. The First-tier Tribunal was held to have correctly found the 2022/2023 notices at Beechfield Park invalid for lack of owner status, and at 14 The Willows the 2023 notice invalid but the 2024 notice valid because the pitch lease had been assigned before the 2024 notice; the 2024 increase to £257.90 from 1 Nov 2024 stands.

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

For s.5 of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 a person is an "owner" only if, by virtue of an estate or interest held by them, they would be entitled to possession of the site but for occupiers' rights under mobile home agreements; holding a headlease subject to subsisting underleases may mean the holder is not the owner in respect of individual pitches. A local authority's grant of a site licence does not of itself establish s.5 owner status for the purposes of validating pitch‑fee review notices.

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 approved HHJ Johns' view that the licensing regime under the 1990 Act and the grant of a site licence do not substitute for legal title when determining s.5 owner status; information given to the licensing authority and the authority's reasons for granting a licence are not determinative of the legal question of ownership for pitch‑fee notice validity.

Warning

- The chunk contains significant repetition of passages and some editorial duplication, which made extraction of unique passages necessary. notes contain repetition and some editorial duplication; they may be materially incomplete.

Source links

Judgment page Judgment PDF Judgment XML