Analysis
The deceased was the owner and occupier of a mobile home situated on a site owned by the appellant. The site was a ‘protected site’ under the Mobile Homes Act 1983, s1 and the deceased had the benefit of a pitch agreement dated 25 November 2005, to which the Act applied. The agreement, together with the statutory controls incorporated by the Act, provided for limited rights of alienation, subject to the payment of commission to the site owner.
Sections 3(3) and (4) of the Act provide that:
- ‘(3) Where a person entitled to the benefit of and bound by an agreement to which this Act applies dies at a time when he is occupying the mobile home as his only or main residence, the agreement shall enure for the benefit of and be binding on—
- (a) any person residing with that person (“the deceased”) at that time being—
- (i) the widow, widower or surviving civil partner of the deceased; or
- (ii) in default of a widow, widower or surviving civil partner so residing, any member of the deceased’s family; or
- (b) in default of any such person so residing, the person entitled to the mobile home by virtue of the deceased’s will or under the law relating to intestacy but subject to subsection (4) below.
- (4) An agreement to which this Act applies shall not enure for the benefit of or be binding upon a person by virtue of ss(3)(b) above in so far as –
- (a) it would, but for this subsection, enable or require that person to occupy the mobile home; or
- (b) it includes terms implied by virtue of para 5, 8A, 8B or 9 of Chapter 2… of Part I of Sch I to this Act.’
The deceased died in 2018. By his will he bequeathed his residuary estate to a number of beneficiaries in unequal shares. In November 2018 the executors and one beneficiary executed two instruments: a deed of variation by which the will was purportedly varied so as to make a specific legacy of the mobile home to the beneficiary; and a deed of assignment by which the executors assigned their rights in the mobile home to the beneficiary.
The site owner applied to the tribunal for a declaration that the second deed was of no effect in relation to the pitch agreement. It argued that no person was entitled to the mobile home by virtue of the will, and accordingly the pitch agreement terminated upon the deceased’s death.
The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) held that while s142 IHTA 1984 is effective for inheritance tax purposes, it does not render dispositions in the varied will as being made ‘by virtue of the deceased’s will’ for the purposes of the Act. Section 3(4) prevented the benefit of the agreement from enuring to the beneficiary, and the deed of assignment was invalid for failure to comply with the Mobile Homes (Selling and Gifting) (England) Regulations 2013. The FTT considered that this meant both the mobile home and the benefit of the pitch agreement remained with the executors.
The site owner appealed only as to the ownership of the mobile home. The executors of the estate did not file a respondent’s notice and took no part in the appeal.
The issue to be determined was whether the deed of assignment was effective to transfer ownership of the mobile home, notwithstanding its failure to assign the benefit of the pitch agreement.
Held:
The legislation seeks to balance the interests of occupiers and site owners, by acknowledging the investment of the latter while giving limited rights of alienation to the former. It was perfectly possible for a person to succeed to the mobile home but not the benefit of the pitch agreement, and such a beneficiary retained the right to sell the benefit pitch agreement with the mobile home, subject to payment of commission to the site owner.
The beneficiary did not become entitled to the mobile home ‘by virtue of the deceased’s will’ and s3(3)(b) did not apply. The benefit of the pitch agreement was also not assigned. However, the deed of assignment was effective to transfer ownership of the mobile home to the beneficiary. The FTT had wrongly assumed that the ownership of the mobile home and the benefit of the pitch agreement must necessarily pass together, which was incorrect.
Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT HHJ STUART BRIDGE: Introduction [1] This is an appeal by the owner (the ‘site owner’) of a mobile home park. Such sites accommodate mobile homes which are owned and occupied by individuals (‘occupiers’) and which are stationed on a pitch on the site under the terms of a contract (a ‘pitch agreement’). The pitch …Continue reading "Barrs Residential & Leisure Ltd v Pleass Thomson & Co [2020] WTLR 759"