A visually impaired resident has successfully won a court battle against an "aggressive" mobile home site owner after his garden was churned up.

Andy Waller took his case to the First-Tier Tribunal Property Chamber after his garden pitch in Nook Park, Milton Keynes, was excavated 'without warning'.

A written statement under the Mobile Homes Act 1983 between Derek and Janet Moore (The predecessor occupiers) and Mrs Tapsell dated June 2, 2007, contains a plan showing the size and location of the pitch to be 62 ft by 39.5 ft.

ALSO READ: Investigation launched at Nook Park mobile home site as hedgerow axed

Bucks Free Press:

The series of events unfolded on October 18, 2021, shortly after Joe Burns took ownership of the mobile home site.

Judge Shepherd Mary Hardman heard how Mr Burns is in breach of the written statement because "he moved his pitch without permission". 

According to the tribunal, construction works started on October 17, 2021 and workers excavated parts of Mr Waller's pitch to build a new road without prior notice. 

The court also heard how there was a site meeting on October 28, 2022, when "nothing was resolved" and Mr Waller said "Mr Burns was aggressive".

Joe Burns explained to the Free Press: "Regards to the tribunal we are due to meet the resident who took the action to reinstate one small tree and grass, all works we were going to do anyway, however, the resident wanted the tribunal to confirm the works.

"The residents plot size remains the same as in his licence agreement." 

Bucks Free Press: Andy Waller's pitch from above

Mr Burns explained the works were essential to be carried out to repair the drainage and electricity cables.

However, despite Andy thinking his pitch will never be "reinstated to how it was" he still deems the outcome of the tribunal a success. 

"It's an absolutely massive thing really," he said.

"This is a landmark for the residents at Nook Park as other residents can now make an application to the tribunal to have their plots reinstated to their original condition.

"No matter what he says to me about the court ruling, this is a court order, there's no choice in it, there's now a ruling and that will apply to anyone or anything. We are now protected by the court and they have agreed this behaviour can't go on."

The judge accepted Andy's application as his pitch was surrounded by ditches and channels that had been excavated for utilities and by temporary metal fencing which made access to the pitch difficult and only accessible via a very narrow passageway bounded by temporary metal harris fencing.

Judge Shepherd Mary Hardman said: "Together with the uneven ground and lack of lighting the Tribunal felt that this would be particularly treacherous in low light and at night.

"The Tribunal finds that the Applicant’s pitch has been encroached upon during the works.

"Trees and sections of lawn were removed without permission or consultation. Although the pitch may be the same size as it was originally it has been moved. The original designating points for the boundary of the pitch were the footpaths, these have been removed altogether.

"The movement of the pitch and incursion represents a clear breach of the written statement.

"The Respondent did not follow the procedure in the written statement. He did not give the Applicant proper notice of the works starting. He did not make an application to court. Instead, he instructed his contractors to start work and they did so, in the process encroaching on the pitch thereby causing damage."

Mr Burns has been ordered to reinstate Andy's pitch to its original condition and reimburse him £300.