Whilst I note the tension between the caravan and the pitch agreement, the case and indeed the Mobile Home Act 1983 appear to deal with the situation where the mobile home is occupied as the only/main residence. This is not the position with my client, for whom the caravan is a holiday home.
Do you have any further suggestions for this scenario?
I cannot really see a problem other than of definition and verification that the testator has the legal right to grant the intended right of occupation. I have never dealt with this before but if a person only “owns” a caravan for 10 years “under the arrangement” his right to possession must surely be contractual. The pitch agreement plainly is, every lease of land is contractual, but it presumably creates a tenancy of the pitch unless it is a licence only. I doubt that as it is presumably cedes exclusive possession. The caravan “owner” can only give away what he has, which is determined by the two contractual agreements and the tenancy/licence.(I prefer my premises licensed!).
These may contain restrictions on assignment or parting with possession which if the grantor has done his homework, probably having legally drawn standard terms, these may be entirely enforceable. I am not familiar with these agreement types but I did regard myself as competent to advise on contract and transfer of personal property. There may be a preliminary question of whether the caravan is a chattel or if it is immobilised whether it is real property which I would have had to refer to a land expert. There must by now be a ready answer however.
I remember vaguely a case on a Dutch barn which remained a huge chattel as it stood on the land by its own weight and it did not matter that it was movable only with great difficulty and not ever intended to be moved. This is a branch of the broader law of fixtures which I had some detailed experience of in my Stamp Duty practice: there was duty on consideration for true fixtures whereas removable fixtures could be passed by delivery without a chargeable document if severed. HMRC claimed duty if they were not actually severed. They were described as “goods, wares and merchandise” as those over 90 may recall. Everyone accepted the severance idea though I think “severable” should have been enough, but the then low rates of duty and the High Court being the first appeal stage made any challenge particularly costly. For SDLT see SDLTM04010 and especially 10023. This is only consequentially a tax issue based as it is on the general law of property, real and personal, as HMRC see it. They seem to have read their Megarry & Wade, those of them that can read.
I’d assumed it was a holiday home as broadly a partner of the deceased married/civil would be party to the overall agreement and therefore would have no need of a RTR clause (residence park home/caravan).
Agree with Jacks analysis above.
My experience:
Holiday caravans arent covered by the 1983 Act, its my understanding the caravan would pass by the will, the agreement to rent the land on which it sits would end. Therfore the new owner would need to negotiate a new agreement with site owner.