CA 25 July 2002. Respondent (C) had an agreement to occupy a plot and a caravan on a caravan site. C erected subsequently with planning permission a porch extension to the caravan. Appellant site owner (H) brought proceedings against C arguing that the caravan and porch extension could not be moved as a single unit and therefore C had lost protection under the Mobile Homes Act 1983. H appealed against county court judgment that held that the caravan had not in fact and degree changed its character as a mobile home and her claim for possession was dismissed. "Held" appeal dismissed. The mere fact that a mobile home had been extended did not of itself provide any ground for terminating the defendant's agreement to occupy. It was not necessary in this case to consider whether the extension took the home outside the statutory definition of a caravan and/or the protection of the Mobile Homes Act 1983. Full copy of judgement available on Court Service website http://www.courtservice.gov.uk/View.do?id=1291&searchTerm=Howard&ascending=false&index=1&maxIndex=19.