No More I Love You  

(reflections of a relationship)  

 

Exclusive Occupation  

​

1966 was a notable year for three reasons, England were Top of the World, Manfred Mann were  Top of the Pops and privately owned static caravans, together with their pitch, became rateable  as one unit of hereditament (not to be confused with the word heretic, even though that too has  strong associations with the holiday park sector).  

​

So whilst Sir Bobby Charlton was grooming his famous comb-over and pretty flamingos were  flying everywhere, the holiday park sector began a desperate search for something to deal with  all the bird shit that was about to come raining down on them, following the Court of Appeal  case, Field Place Caravan Park Ltd & Others v Harding (VO) 11th May 1966. (Read the case here)

​

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTxzmLyVFYY 

​

The law, for the first time, held that a caravan, which is a chattel (an item of personal property),  was rateable if it was enjoyed, as Lord Denning put it, “in such circumstances and with such a  degree of permanence that the chattel with the land can be regarded as one unit of occupation.”

 

Which meant that if a caravan and pitch were enjoyed ‘together’ with ‘exclusive occupation’ then  it would be liable to paying rates. The key words being ‘exclusive occupation’. If you read  through the Field Place case you will see many historical case references that relate to the  legal principles for what is and what is not ‘exclusive occupation’.

 

Following the 1966 case, all static caravans, both permanent residential and leisure, and their  pitches became liable for separate rating, with the site operator liable for rates for the common  parts of the site together with any part of the site let out for the use of touring caravans.

 

However, in the years following the case the Valuation Office (VO) of England and Wales was  involved with some pressing administrative tasks, including preparing for the 1973 blockbusting  general revaluation. The task of valuing the quarter of a million leisure caravans was so  enormous that Sweet wrote a song about it:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y64211sjSko 

​

In 1975 it became obvious that the disparity of treatment between leisure caravans which had  been separately assessed and those which had not, could not be allowed to continue much  longer. The owners of the caravans which were separately rated were understandably asking  why they should be paying rates on their caravans when other caravan owners, even had they  wished to, could not give the local authority anything but their love. A group of caravan owners  from one park were so moved by the situation, that they quickly penned a song; 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_4D5e_RIrg 

​

The rating authority was, by law, required to serve a rating notice on all individual caravan  owners, which, for numerous reasons, was an administrative nightmare. So much so that in  1976 the government introduced that Rating (Caravan Sites) Act 1976, which included a  provision which gave VOs discretion to treat pitches (and caravans) as forming part of a single  hereditament together with the remaining parts of the site in the primary occupation of the site  operator. This power was replaced, with effect from 1 April 1990, by The Non-Domestic Rating  (Caravan Sites) Regulations 1990 (SI 1990 No 673) which made this provision mandatory.

​

Yes it  has not gone unnoticed that this was April Fool’s day, but they did enact it after 12 noon.

 

So in a nutshell we went from caravans which were not rated prior to 1966, to them being rated  ‘separately’ from the caravan parks until 1976, then to them being rated as one hereditament  together with the caravan park, but only on the basis that they could properly have been the  subject of separate assessments in their own right. - We know it has blown our minds too!  

​

This is how the regulations define it:  

​

Treatment of pitches etc. as one hereditament  

​

3.—(1) Where pitches for leisure caravans on a relevant site constitute separate hereditaments  by virtue of their being occupied by persons other than the site operator, those pitches shall,  subject to paragraph (2), together with so much of the site as constitutes a hereditament in the  occupation of that site operator, be treated as one hereditament and as occupied by that site  operator.

 

‘Relevant site’ refers to a holiday park and should not be confused with a ‘protected site’ which  refers to a residential park.  

​

In effect the changes in law since 1966 were as a result of ‘public policy’ to enable the local  authorities to collect the non domestic rates from those caravan owners with ‘exclusive  occupation', in a way that reduced costs to the public purse. This is evident from the debates in  the House of Commons, extracts which can be read on the following links:

.  

Quotes from The Secretary of State for the Environment Mr Oakes, 25th June 1975;  

​

“Technically such caravans were liable to be entered in the valuation lists from that date, but the  earliest available opportunity came in the course of the 1973 revaluation.”

 

“The representations my right hon. Friend has received are of two sorts. First, rating authorities  have claimed that the cost of collecting the rates due on the large number of caravans involved  will be high and extra staff will be needed. My right hon. Friend agrees with them that this is not  an efficient method of collecting the rate and he is concerned at the staffing implications at this time.”  

 

https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/written-answers/1975/jun/25/caravans

 

Quotes from The Secretary of State for the Environment Mr Oakes, 24th July 1975;  

​

“I have had representations about this from many local authorities and also from the Association  of District Council. They largely agree with me that it is legally right that caravans should be  individually rated, but they ask for help in easing the rate collection problems which have  arisen.”  

​

“On that same subject, it has come to my notice, and has been referred to by many hon.  Members, that sometimes where a tenant has previously paid his rates included in his rent and  is now separately assessed, his rent has nevertheless not been reduced by 1p and there is,  therefore, a hidden increase of rent charged by the site owner on the caravan owner.

 

If this is happening, I deplore it. I think that caravan owners who suspect that it is happening  should press for details of what the site owner is charging, and if they are paying rates twice  they should certainly get a refund.”  

 

Oh dear, the true picture of this ruthless sector was also very well known by the Government  and MPs back in 1975.  

 

https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1975/jul/24/caravans-ratings 

 

Quotes from The Secretary of State for the Environment Mr Oakes, 3rd March 1976; 

 

“Now that most leisure caravans have been separately assessed, rating authorities must by law  serve a rate demand on the caravan owners—and this is where the problem lies. I do not think I  need explain how difficult it is to identify one caravan amongst the many hundreds that may be  on a site, let alone trace the owner of that caravan—who may visit the site only occasionally and  whose permanent address may be miles away. In some areas the total number of entries in the  valuation list for all rateable properties has increased by as much as 20 per cent. because of the  separate entries for leisure caravans. In order to collect these rates, many local authorities  would certainly have to increase their staff if leisure caravans continued to be separately  assessed.  

​

The Bill resolves this by allowing valuation officers to value as one unit a caravan site together  with any leisure caravans and their pitches at present separately rateable. Thus, there will be  only one rate demand to the site operator, who will be able to recoup the cost of this additional  overhead through the rent charged for the pitch, commonly known as the site charge.”

 

https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1976/mar/03/rating-caravan-sites-bill-lords 

 

Having digested all that argy-bargy you will be relieved to know that Tina Charles was topping  the charts with “ I love to love”:  

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMnns_iIB2M 

 

The finding in law, as a result of the Field Caravan Park case, that for a caravan to be rateable it  must be enjoyed with exclusive occupation of the pitch, remains the legal position today.

 

So if you pay non domestic rates, (business rates), on your caravan, whether that is in the form  of a separate bill or included in your pitch fee, that is because the Valuation Office has decided  that your use of the pitch constitutes a single rateable unit, by virtue of the findings in the Field  Caravan Park case. Having done so the VO will have served a Regulation 4 Notice on the park  operator setting out the value of your occupation for the purposes of apportionment, so that the  park operator can recover the appropriate amount of rates from you.  

​

Those rates would have been individually recoverable from each and every caravan owner, by  the rating authority, had the law not been changed to accommodate a more efficient way of  collection.

 

This is how the VO approaches the assessment of rates using the Rating Manual section 5a:  valuation of all property classes;  

​

6.2 Unit of Assessment

 

Reference should be made to RM Section 3 Part 1, which deals with the general principles  governing occupation and the hereditament, however, the following problems are likely to arise  in connection with caravan sites.  

 

It is of paramount importance, whether valuing under The Non-Domestic Rating (Caravan Sites)  Regulations 1990 [SI 1990/673] or not, that the correct tests are applied and consideration must  be given to the ingredients of rateable occupation which are set out in RM Section 3 Part 1. This  SI, while introducing a requirement to treat caravan pitches as a single hereditament in the occupation of the site operator, does not in any way alter the basic rules for determining the  units of separate assessment; indeed, it is essential for the proper operation of the SI to apply  these rules, for the SI can only be invoked if pitches are separately rateable. 

​

Any person occupying a pitch for a leisure caravan on a relevant site may, after giving  reasonable notice to the VO, at any reasonable time and without payment can inspect a copy of any  statement supplied to the operator of that site under Regulation 4.

 

You really should ask for a copy either from your park or the VO, so that you can see if you are  also being swindled, on another level, by the park operator. Let’s face it, to our knowledge, they  have never been known to miss out on such an opportunity, and the evidence shows they have  been ripping owners off since as far back as 1975 on this very matter.

 

Ok so now that you have read and processed all the above we will now move onto the theory of  nuclear fission…..well maybe not….. but we do know that once this thing blows it is going to  make one hell of an atomic bang! We know a song about that, don't we?  

​

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_WLw_0DFQQ 

 

Exclusive Possession  

​

‘Exclusive possession’ and ‘exclusive occupation’ are not the same thing, however there is a  presumption that if a person has exclusive occupation then, depending on the full circumstances  of that occupation, it is highly likely that the two terms will come together in perfect harmony. If  that happens, then it will make sweet music for the ears of caravan owners.  

​

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXAlfh6QKQs 

​

So far we have established that if the VO has assessed your caravan and pitch as being  rateable then that can only be on the basis of your exclusive occupation of your pitch. If you did  not have such quality of occupation then it would simply be illegal to apportion any non domestic  rates to you.

 

But what if, after taking into account the full circumstances of your occupation, it transpires that  you actually have ‘exclusive possession’ for the purposes of the law?  

​

Well for one thing, when a park was sold we would no longer see all the devious and underhand  attempts, by the new owners, to get you to unwittingly relinquish your rights by misleading you  about your tenure on the park. This is something we have seen time and time again since 1966.  It is as synonymous to the whole of the holiday park sector as is the comb-over to Sir Bobby  Charlton.  

​

We want you to consider Question number 1;  

​

If two people agree to call their cat a dog, do they have a cat or a dog?  

​

This conundrum has been played out over many centuries when it comes to land law, until, that  is, when Phyllis Nelson topped the charts with ‘Move Closer’ on 2nd May 1985:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ove8u-AlvZo 

​

As also on that date, the Court of Appeal, in Street v Mountford, found in favour of Mrs Wendy  Mountford, a tenant, who, being happy with her flat, didn’t want to move anywhere else. That  case is now the leading authority on what constitutes a lease or tenancy. It remains the  benchmark against which all subsequent cases have been measured. (Read the case here) 

​

That benchmark was summed up by both Lord Hoffman and the Vengaboys on 24th June 1999.  

Lord Hoffamn in Bruton V London & Quadrant Housing (Read the case here);  

  

““... The decision of this House in Street v. Mountford [1985] A.C. 809 is authority for the  proposition that a "lease" or "tenancy" is a contractually binding agreement, not referable to any  other relationship between the parties, by which one person gives another the right to exclusive  occupation of land for a fixed or renewable period or periods of time, usually in return for  a periodic payment in money. An agreement having these characteristics creates a  relationship of landlord and tenant to which the common law or statute may then attach various incidents. The fact that the parties use language more appropriate to a different kind of  agreement, such as a licence, is irrelevant if upon its true construction it has the identifying  characteristics of a lease....”  

​

Vengaboys in Number 1 Top of the Pops:

 

“Boom boom boom boom”  

​

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llyiQ4I-mcQ 

​

Now we want you to consider Question number 2;  

​

If two people agree to call a lease a licence, do they have a lease or a licence?  

​

For decades Park Operators and Trade Associations have been labeling your agreements as  ‘Licences’. However, when you consider the authorities alongside the terms of your agreements,  and in the context of the relationship between a Park Operator and Caravan Owner, it becomes  very clear that all the evidence points to the fact that most caravan owners have a lease and not  a licence.  

​

Just because the Holiday Park Sector “she bangs, she bangs” on about the agreements being  licences, it does not follow that you actually have a licence, even if that was what you believed  you were agreeing to. After all the sector also bangs on about the great value for money you get when buying into the ‘dream’ and look how that is turning out!

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ihtX86JzmA 

​

Let us look at the Street v Mountford case in more detail by comparing the circumstances of Mrs  Mountford’s occupation of her flat and your occupation of your caravan together with the pitch.  

​

Mrs Mountford signed a ‘Licence Agreement’ for the occupation of the top floor of a property  which included rooms number 5 and 6, a bathroom and lavatory. However after many court  cases the Court of Appeal found that she had a lease.

 

You signed a ‘Licence Agreement’ to site your caravan on a pitch. We know you ‘occupy’ that  pitch as the Valuation Office has assessed you in relation to rates payable due to your exclusive  occupation of it. You bought your caravan on the basis of the right to occupy that pitch for a  certain length of time in exchange for a periodic payment (annual pitch fee).

 

Mrs Mountford signed to say that she agreed and understood she would have to comply with  certain rules;

 

1. She would pay £37 per week.

 

2. No paraffin stoves. 

​

3. No one other than the person named on the licence was allowed to stay in the room (without  permission).

 

4. The licence was not assignable.

 

5. The owner was permitted to enter the rooms for maintenance, to inspect its condition, to read  meters, install/replace furniture and any other reasonable purpose.

 

6. All rooms must be kept tidy.

 

7. All damages paid for or replaced.

 

8. No nuisance or annoyance to others.

 

9. No children or pets.

 

10. The prompt payment of licence fee.

 

11. The licence may be terminated by either party with 14 days written notice.  Mrs Mountford then signed the following declaration;  

​

I understand and accept that a licence in the above form does not and is not intended to give  me a tenancy protected under the Rent Acts.

 

Unlike Mrs Mountford, who signed up to rent a flat from a landlord, you signed up for a dream  having fallen in love with the Devil.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_VH125as8Y 

​

You signed an agreement for the occupation of a ‘pitch’. For the purpose of the BH&HPA/NCC  standard model agreement a “Pitch” does not include any part of the park except that on which  it stands.

 

You signed to say that you agreed and understood that you would have to comply with certain  terms and rules. We have numbered the below terms/rules as they compare to Mrs Mountford’s  above.  

  

1. You agreed to pay an annual pitch fee. 

​

2. You can only have 4 plant pots per pitch. (The park can have as many plant pots working for it as it wishes).

 

3. You can have whomever you wish to stay with you and can allow your friends and family the  use of your caravan. You may be permitted to sublet your caravan. 

​

4. Your licence appears to be assignable as you can gift or sell your caravan, on the pitch,  together with the full benefit of all payments made in respect of it, and on the exact same terms.

 

5.The park owner is not permitted to enter your caravan without your expressed permission,  even if it holds a key for emergency purposes. It is your caravan, it is your chattel.

 

6. Your caravan must be kept in a clean and tidy condition.

 

7. You must insure your caravan and that must include cover for subsidence, heave or landslip  of the site (the pitch) on which the caravan stands and any accidental damage to underground  services to the pitch, cables, pipes etc.  

​

8. You must comply with the behavioural standards.

 

9. Your caravan park is most likely to allow children and pets.

 

10. You must make prompt payment of your pitch fee and other associated costs.

 

11. You can terminate your agreement by giving notice, however the Park Owner can only  terminate the agreement if you are in serious breach of the contract which is not capable of  remedy.

 

When comparing the points, 1 to 11, between Mrs Mounfords licence and yours, it is clear that  you actually have more control and rights in relation to your caravan and its use than Mrs  Mountford had over her flat.  

This should be of no surprise though as the caravan is your personal chattel (property) and you  have all the rights over your property that the law provides.

 

However as the pitch is not your property, in the same sense that your caravan is, the following  questions arise;

 

1. Do you have an exclusive occupation of the pitch?  

​

2. Could you take action against the park owner to stop him entering your caravan?

 

3. Could you take action against the park owner if they prevented you access to the park in  order that you may use your caravan?

 

4. Is it possible for your pitch to be used by the park owner, or anyone else, for any other  purpose whilst your caravan is sited on it?  

​

5. Is it physically possible to access your ‘pitch’ while your caravan is sited on it?

 

6. Could you enforce any rights against the park owner if they interfered with your use of the  pitch in such a manner that it interfered with your property rights as they relate to your  caravans? 

​

In answer to those questions;

 

1. We believe that you do have ‘exclusive occupation’ of the pitch based on the findings in Field  Place Caravan Park Ltd v Harding, the resultant legislation relating to the rating of caravans and  the public policy behind the subsequent amendments.

 

2. We believe you could take an action against the park owner for a trespass to chattel,  pursuant to the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 and at common law to prevent entry to  your caravan or any interference with it.

 

3. We do not believe the park owners could seek any order against you for trespass, or by any  other means remove your right to access the park, to use your caravan, on the basis of it  exclusively occupying the pitch it is sited on, save for you being in serious breach by the  agreement, the breach of which was not capable of remedy.

 

We believe you could bring an action against the park owner if, in any way, they interfered with  your right to use your caravan and the pitch, save as for the occasions as provided for in the  agreement. Some of those occasions, being so unlikely and so rare an event, they do not affect  the presumption that you have exclusive possession of the pitch.

 

4. We believe it would be impossible for the park owner to make any other use of the pitch, that  being the parcel of land directly beneath your caravan, to which your caravan must be physically  secured other than it by its own weight.

 

5. We believe that a park owner does not have the right to access the pitch beneath your  caravan, other than for emergency purposes relating to the electric, gas, water or sewage  services, as to do so would involve a trespass to your chattel by way of removing skirting or in  some other way interfering with it.

 

6. We believe you could take action against the park owner if they interfered with your peaceful  enjoyment of the pitch. Whilst there are very limited occasions, as part of your agreement, when  the park owner could remove your caravan from the pitch, these instances are very rare and in  the vast majority of cases never occur and in some could never occur, due to the planning  restrictions preventing any further development.

 

You have to also consider that in most cases you are required to insure the pitch against  landslide, heave etc, and most agreements also allow you to make changes to the pitch, having  sought the permission of the park owner which will not be ‘unreasonably withheld’ . In addition  when you end the agreement you are required to put the pitch back to the condition/state that it  was before your occupation.  

​

All these matters point to the fact that you have ‘exclusive possession’ of the pitch, for the  duration of the agreement, which cannot be terminated by the park owner unless you have  committed a serious breach of the agreement.  

​

In our opinion the Holiday Park Sector has been misleading caravan owners since 11th May  1966 about the nature of their tenure of the pitch. We believe that park owners have gone out of their way, in the extreme, to avoid facing up to the reality that you have a lease and not a  licence. Why? Well it's simple really. The more vulnerable they can make caravan owners feel  about their security of tenure the easier they are to exploit in every other aspect of the  commercial relationship. And boy have they been on a feeding frenzy these past few years.

 

It is no wonder that thousands of caravan owners across the UK are now waking up, looking at  their money pits and thinking, “No More I Love You.”  

​

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSkboTTTmpg 

  

We have not even started on the precedents set in the case Baybut v Eccle Rigg Country Park  Ltd 2006, which appear to have been well and truly swept under the sector’s grubby, thread  worn carpet.  

That’s for another day, “Judgment Day.”

​