1/C3 Eland House,

Bressenden Place,

London.

SW1E 5DU.

Dear Minister, 20^th February 2009

It is well known fact that for many years the number of UPO’s buying up parks has been allowed, unchecked and unregulated, to multiply and prosper and has now reached epidemic proportions. In fact, there can be little doubt that UPO’s now control the majority of park home sites throughout the UK., reeking havoc and destroying the lives of the helpless residents trapped, with no means of escape that doesn’t incur their losing both their homes and all their savings tied up in the value of those homes and often,, as a direct result of the barbaric way they are treated, their lives.

It does not take a genius to work out why the UPO is attracted into buying park home sites. What can act as a bigger incentive to a UPO when seeing an established site consisting mainly of older homes probable owned by one of the fast diminishing breed of good and caring park owners who has enjoyed a very good income from treating his very happy and contented residents with courtesy, thoughtfulness and consideration,.

(The industry’s definition of older homes is stated to be homes over 10 years of age by Alicia Dunne, of the National Park Homes Council (NPHC). The UPO will know that these residents are vulnerable and ripe for exploitation being blissfully ignorant of the ruthless tactics employed by UPO’s? He will know that they will soon become so terrified of the abuse, harassment, intimidation methods commonly used by the UPO and his henchmen to subdue any sign of resistance by the existing residents to his future development plans for the park. These development plans usually involve clearing the park of all existing homes and residents by using threats and any or all of the deplorable methods mentioned above, starting with the most vulnerable residents first (The elderly widow living alone), knowing that this would be certain to destroy the resistance of the remainder, enabling him to cram the park with brand new park homes, complete with a new set of elderly, innocent and gullible homeowners, in the shortest possible timescale netting him a handsome profit of at least £100,000 + for each new home sold.

As I have said earlier, the UPO buys up parks for one reason only, to make huge sums of money in as shorter time as possible. He does not care about the devastating effects his ruthless and illegal activities have on his residents. But also for a moment consider the other knock on effects. For example, each park home resident displaced by such methods has to be found alternative accommodation usually by the local council? As this type of accommodation is known to be very limited, this is placing an unnecessary, unfair and avoidable burden on the public housing sector as well as the various Benefits Agencies.

One final point on this matter is well worth a mention is that PHRAA has heard of UPO’s bragging to residents that they have made an arrangement with the local authority that any homeowners they wish to kick off their parks will be re-housed.

I will now list other atrocities practiced daily by the UPO against Park Home Owners due entirely and in most cases aided and abetted by the outdated, discredited, loophole ridden, unenforceable MOBILE HOMES ACT 1983 compounded by the even worse 2006 Amendments to this Act.

(1)….. Totally ignoring the new legislation, it is still the widespread practice of many UPO’s not to give Agreements to new home buyers before they buy, indeed some residents have still not been issued with Agreements months or even years after taking up occupancy.

(2)…. Residents are still actively prevented by UPO’s, using the gaping loopholes in the Act, from selling their homes on the open market. This results, in almost all cases in the helpless resident being forced to sell their home to the UPO for a pittance. (£300 for a home professionally valued at £86,000, £7,000 for a home owned by a 78 year old widow, worth in excess of £90,000 are just two examples that come to mind, there are many more too numerous to list here. Provisions in the Act state that should the park owner “unreasonably” prevent the sale of a home, the homeowner can apply to the court for an order allowing the sale. But Minister, have you any idea of the length of time, expense and the trauma involved to the resident, in taking such an action, even in the unlikely event the resident would be successful?. Further more, Minister it is ludicrous to expect that a prospective buyer is going to wait around whilst the seller takes the UPO to court to obtain permission to sell their own home and even may be called on to give evidence in court, to support the sellers Action? Common sense must tell the Minister that no they would certainly not.

We have examples where two elderly widows, both with homes valued and had attracted several buyers each at around £100,000 ,one over 80 years of age, the other very ill with cancer, who were forced by ill health to move into sheltered accommodation, took the UPO to court on those grounds. The Action took well over two years to reach a hearing date. The actual result was ambiguous and they still have not sold, or are likely to, to this date. Indeed one of them has now sadly passed away from stomach cancer and it is now left to the family to try and sort it out. Both these ongoing cases were featured in a BBC Inside Out programme recently, also BBC Radio 4’s Face the Facts and Your and Yours .

Because of this useless ACT, which enables the UPO to prevent sales with impunity, it also provides another weapon to the UPO’s by the fact that all the time the UPO is blocking the residents sale, the helpless resident has to continue paying the pitch fees and other charges including Council Tax out of their pensions on top of the rent and council tax for their alternative accommodation. For most, embarking on court action on top of that is out of the question, meaning that the UPO is laughing all the way to the Bank. The cases outlined above are only the tip of the iceberg but are typical examples of how thousands of distraught 60,70 80 and 90 year old park homeowners, many ill and frail, are being robbed of their homes and life savings by UPO’s, eagerly assisted by their specialist legal firms, who are only too willing to write letters on behalf of their UPO Clients, designed to frighten the already terrified residents into submission..

The total sums the UPO has fraudulently obtained from just these four cases outlined above amounts to over £350,000, a third of a million pounds of their money has gone straight into his pocket. Multiply this by the hundreds of identical cases which have occurred over just the past year and you are talking many millions of pounds obtained by fraud from pensioners. Legalised robbing of the poor to give to the rich! How can this happen? Because the Mobile Homes Act 1983/2006 effectively gives the right to the park owner to veto the homeowners right to sell. The result, A “catch 22” situation for the resident. A fool proof win win position for the UPO.. Indeed so widespread has this problem become many local estate agents now refuse to accept instructions from park homeowners wishing to sell their homes.

(3)…. Then we have your departments decision, taken contrary to the majority view in favour of reducing the much despised 10% commission rate to 7 and a half %,, as revealed in the consultation process, thus retaining the park owners right, under the Act, to take 10% of the sale price of a park home received by the resident. Perhaps you could justify to all park owners why your department is convinced that this charge is actually justified.? A park owner, as already mentioned above, collects a huge profit when he first sells the home. On top of which he collects ever spiralling pitch fee payments, guaranteed against inflation , plus usually highly inflated charges for services such as electricity, water etc. Surely this is enough? How can this, what amounts to a penalty payment for selling your home, possibly be justified.? How many other businesses are allowed by law to charge the customer, (park homeowner) three times for the same service.?

There are unfortunately two other points regarding the park owners right to his 10%.

The first is that once he has filled his park with new homes, therefore no longer has this lucrative source of income. Thus being legally able to impose this charge acts as an incentive to the UPO to make life so unbearable for residents that they sell up and move away just to get some peace. The other acts as the last kick in the teeth for those residents forced to sell to him for the reasons described in (2) above as he also deducts 10% of the amount they receive. Ie., 10% of £300 is £30 and so on.

(4)…… We will now draw your attention to the subject of Pitch Fee payments which due to the legislation are now fast approaching Mortgage repayment levels and guarantee the park owner an inflation proof income not enjoyed by most other businesses. Yes. PHRAA would agree that the 2006 Amendments to the Act have made the situation clearer in that it emphasises the requirement for negotiation between parties. But this right has been effectively taken away from the homeowner by the insertion of the clause in this particular legislation which states that “there is a “presumption” that the pitch fee will rise annually by the rate of the Retail Price Index”. This clause would in practical terms make it very difficult, even impossible, for the residents to defend an action taken against them by the park owner for daring to challenge, however justified, any increase demanded especially when the park owner is represented in court by the very “clever” specialist legal teams he can afford to employ. I will also alert you to the disgraceful ploy used by certain of these specialist legal firms whereby they send out what amount to threatening letters to residents challenging an increase to the effect that (a) their defence is very unlikely to succeed and (b) including a highly inflated assessment of the costs that residents will be liable to incur when they lose, very often amounting to many thousands of £’s. This I think you will agree, is almost certain to stop any but the most determined residents from exercising their right to challenge the increase and ensure submission. It is also a fact that contrary to the Act, most of the UPO’s notices of increase still are in the form of a demand, rather than a “proposal. Ie. The pitch fee has been reviewed and from XX date your new pitch fee WILL BE XX amount. No room for negotiation there, I think you will agree.

(5)….. In addition to the pitch fee increases, there are the usually highly inflated charges for the supply of other services which with a UPO are also spiralling out of control. Electricity Administration charges which are imposed at will and without any justification following the much abused OFGEM Directive which was designed to ensure cheaper electricity supplies for park home owners. Water charges that are increasing dramatically again with no justification. Instances of water charges rising from £70 -£80 per year to £500 + per year overnight are common place especially where a park has just been sold to a UPO. Again residents attempts to challenge such obviously outrageous demands are actively discouraged by the same methods used for imposing pitch fee increases described in (4) above.

(6)….. Residents Associations on Parks. The 2006 Amendments to the 1983 Act give the right to residents to form a Residents Association on their park. But unfortunately, as with so many other sections of this Act, what appears to have been given with left hand is instantly removed with the right. Every citizen in this country living in a community has a right to belong to a Residents Association. This includes Park Home sites. But unlike other communities, the residents on park home sites the legislation decrees that park home residents cannot form or operate an active Residents Association without complying with the strict criteria stipulated by the Act in order to be recognised by the park owner as a Qualifying Residents Association. (QRA) Unfortunately for the residents, the criteria or list of conditions that the legislation states must be strictly complied with to qualify as a QRA include such restrictive terms as……

(a)….. Not less than 50% of residents must be members. This in practice means 50% of the homes as only one resident from each home is counted.

(b)….. In order to show that the 50% rule is complied with at all times, a list of members must be on public display. In practice this means that a list of members is available for the park owners inspection. This is wide open to abuse by the UPO and will in itself, due to residents fear of the UPO, stop the RA being formed. For example. A park has 100 homes. 50 = 50% of those homes are members of the QRA. The UPO intimidates one of the most vulnerable members, using the list of members names. This QRA now has only 49 members therefore , under the Act, no longer qualifies as a QRA and the park owner can legally refuse to recognise it as such. Thus he profits from his illegal actions.

©…. Any decisions taken by the QRA that require a vote, only one vote per home is allowed. By inserting this clause into the legislation the government have introduced discrimination against park owners wives and partners. What ever happened to democracy? Wives and partners etc., have the right to vote on matters affecting their lifestyle.

(d)…. The legislation decrees that should the park owner refuse to recognise a QRA the residents have, at their own expense, to apply to a court of law, for an order forcing compliance. Even if they have gone to the trouble and expense of obtaining such an order, the UPO can make it null and void by using the unscrupulous tactics outlined in paragraph (b) above.

The required conditions listed above have provided the UPO with the means by which he can effectively either prevent a QRA being formed or destroy an established QRA. In both cases the UPO will seek out the main officers branding them as the ring leaders and subject them to an intensive program of intimidation, threats or harassment. If this does not work, he will then using the list of members, pick out the most vulnerable and subject them to the same treatment. It is not long after being subjected to such treatment that either by frightening the vulnerable members into quitting, therefore reducing the numbers to below the required 50%, or by similar means causing the officers to resign that the QRA is disbanded.

The UPO thrives by using the “divide and rule” method. The last thing he will tolerate, as it is a threat to his totalitarian regime, is a strong and effective QRA. Practically every day PHRAA hears of parks Residents Associations being disbanded as a result of intimidation and other equally unpleasant pressure from the UPO, even those long established RA’s which existed before the latest legislation came into force, usually following the park being purchased by a UPO.

I will now turn to the most serious forms of abuse suffered daily by all too many of the estimated 250,000 park homeowners nationwide at the hands of the UPO’s. Harassment, Intimidation, Bullying, Exploitation, verbal and threatened physical abuse. Much of this abuse begins within hours of the park being sold to a UPO when the homeowners are at their most vulnerable. In most cases the residents are not aware that the park was being sold ,such is the veil of secrecy employed prior to the completion of the transaction. Usually residents only become aware when the new owner arrives on the park. The UPO then embarks on well practiced and highly successful routine common to all UPO’s.

He will march round the park, very often accompanied by a number of very unsavoury looking henchmen, accosting various residents, targeting those he sees are the most vulnerable, and in an aggressive manner will tell them that he is the new owner and from now on things are going to change. Whilst these residents are reeling from the shock of learning that the park has a new owner and frightened by his aggressive attitude, the UPO goes on to tell them that all the older homes are to be removed from the park, pitch fees are going to rise dramatically, all sheds fences, bushes, plants and trees have to be cut down, no homes can be sold only to him, etc etc., all designed to unnerve instil the maximum amount of fear, in many cases panic, into the hearts of his elderly 60,70 80, 90 year old extremely vulnerable residents.

But this is only the first stage, what may be regarded as the initial softening up process. As the weeks and months progress demands will be made for substantial pitch fee increases, highly inflated demands for increases in service charges, ie., gas, water electricity etc. Oppressive new park rules will be imposed severely restricting the residents terms of occupation, ie., whether they are allowed to maintain their homes, etc. JCB diggers will descend on residents cherished gardens ripping out plants, shrubs, hedges fences etc., having declared that the park was to become open plan, leaving total devastation in their wake. Tearing up residents plots in order to install extra homes. Bullying, by threatening them with eviction, very often backed up by a threatening letter from one of the UPO’s Solicitors, causing most elderly residents into abandoning their homes, thereby demoralising the remainder. Smashing up abandoned homes and leaving the resulting rubbish in situ for months on end. Arriving on the park late at night banging on selected residents doors threatening all manner of dire consequences if they do not leave the park or conform to his draconian rules. Verbally abusing any resident unfortunate enough to be accosted by the UPO whilst out on the park. Even in extreme cases, as the recent reported case proves, resorting to burning out any residents homes he wishes to get rid of from his park. Although this case, as the park owner and his henchmen were caught and convicted, due to the diligent work of the West Mercia Constabulary, may appear to be an isolated incident. It is not. There are several other suspicious incidents of this nature which have occurred on UPO Parks around the UK, which unfortunately have not led to a prosecution of the offenders.

I could fill pages and pages with further examples of the abuse, harassment etc, committed daily by UPO’s against the elderly and frail park homeowners nationwide, most of which remain unreported due the affected residents being too terrified to speak out, which given the deplorable behaviour employed by the UPO’s, is hardly surprising. It is also hardly surprising that Park Home Sites are rapidly becoming referred to as “PRISON CAMPS FOR PENSIONERS”.

The above is only a brief outline of some of the atrocities endured daily by residents unfortunate enough to have their park home stationed on a park owned by a UPO. Residents in this situation are in effect imprisoned. They have only two ways of escape. One is to leave the park, which means they lose both home and savings. The second is, be taken off the park feet first in a wooden box. You may think that a ridiculous statement to make, but nevertheless for all too many, it’s the truth.

We will now turn to the subject of what help is available to park homeowners in the way of protection from the law? The short answer is, in practical terms, virtually none. So who can the distressed and terrified park homeowner turn too for help when they are being bullied or robbed of their home etc by the UPO? In any other walk of life anyone in such a situation would turn to the Police who would be more than likely to take the necessary action and prosecute the offenders. But should a park homeowner try to enlist help from the Police, 99 times out of a hundred, they will be told, “there is nothing we can do. it’s a Civil Matter. You will have to take the park owner to Court”. Unfortunately for the residents concerned the fact that the UPO knows that the Police have been called, very often results in further acts of harassment and intimidation against him as the UPO knows the Police will do nothing to him.

So who else can the park homeowner turn to for help?

This brings us to the role of the Local Authority as they issue the Licence needed by the park owner to operate the site. They are also responsible for monitoring and the Enforcement of the Conditions governing the operation of the site, which accompany the Licence. So naturally the residents would feel that it is the council who are the body to help them when the Site Licence Conditions are not being complied with. Sadly for all too many residents requesting help from the Local Council is like banging your head against a brick wall.

The first major failing concerns the issuing of the Licence. Under current Legislation the Council are obliged, by law, to issue a Licence to anyone purchasing a park home (caravan)site regardless of the character of the applicant. Even the most violent convicted criminal cannot be refused. In every other case where the operator of a business is involved with dealing with members of the public, for example, elderly peoples homes, Taxi drivers, public house landlords, child minders, school teachers, carers etc etc., before they are granted a licence, have by law, to be rigorously investigated by the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB). Park owners, by the legal powers granted to them by the Mobile Homes Act command total control over the wellbeing of the mainly elderly park home residents on their parks, are currently completely exempt from this requirement. We are aware that there are future plans to bring in the “Fit and Proper Person” criteria, but as we understand the current situation, to include park owners within this legislation is so complex that it is liable to take many years, and will not be retrospective. For the welfare of potentially 250,000 park homeowners this vital piece of legislation is urgently needed now, not many years down the line when every remaining park is owned by UPO’ s who cannot be removed.

In most cases, not all, as there are some councils who do enforce Site Licence conditions in varying degrees. Should the residents make a complaint regarding park owners failure to comply with the Site Licence Conditions, facilities, the result is usually disillusion, frustration and anger at the lack of forthcoming action. In fact the most common comments expressed to PHRAA by distraught residents who are frustrated by the total lack of help or even interest from their council when they have sought help are, “The council are in the UPO’s pocket” and/or “The UPO is passing them brown envelopes”. Obviously PHRAA cannot condone such comments, but can well understand the reasons why they are made.

The most common serious complaints include Site roads that are not maintained, consequently full of pot holes. Totally inadequate or non-existent street lighting. Piles of rotting rubbish, soil, rubble, smashed up homes, old abandoned homes, etc, strewn around the site for months, even years resulting in vermin infestation. Water supply pipes left above ground or not sufficiently covered causing them to freeze up in winter months resulting in burst pipes and/or loss of supply to homes. Lack of adequate service drainage causing roads, gardens, even the underneath of homes, to flood after rain. Park owner putting new homes on designated car parks and recreation areas. Taking away residents plots in order to cram in extra homes. Replacing previous single units with much larger double units causing residents to be deprived of much of their pitches. I could go on and on, the list is endless.

But by far the most serious complaints concern ongoing problems with services to the homes. Totally inadequate and underpowered electricity supply to the individual homes, causing tripping out of supply if an electric kettle or other appliance is switched on, very often resulting in the resident/s having to leave their home at all times of the day or night, very often in the pouring rain and pitch dark, to reset the trip switch usually situated in a box many metre’s distant from their homes. Water supplies to homes that are so poor that the supply is reduced to a trickle if more than one resident turns at the tap at the same time. Totally inadequate sewerage disposal systems resulting in frequent blow back of raw sewage into residents bathrooms, kitchen sinks and/or toilets.

In most cases the problems of outdated and inadequate services is the direct cause of the site owners failure to maintain or where necessary upgrade services when new, much larger and modern homes are installed on the existing site. Many of these problems are caused by site owners cramming more and more homes on to an existing site and in many cases with the full approval of the local council expanding the sites without the council ensuring that the outdated and overloaded existing services are first upgraded to cope.

As mentioned earlier, the local council, as the licensing body are responsible for ensuring that Site Licence Conditions are complied with. As part of this responsibility includes periodic inspections of the sites under their jurisdiction. In many cases inspections only take place following complaints from residents. It is therefore hardly surprising that many UPO sites have developed out of all proportion, or been changed from holiday to residential site without the knowledge or any sanction whatsoever from the council, when its too late to do anything about it.

Although Site Licence Conditions exist and residents assume the site owner must comply, it appears that the council have the discretion as to whether or not they are enforced or to what degree. This leads to anger, frustration and helplessness for residents with legitimate complaints when the council fail to take the remedial action they have expected namely, order the park owner to carry out the work needed to bring the site up to acceptable standard. I have lost count of the number of reports received by PHRAA stating that the local council have carried out an inspection during which they carefully walked round the masses of deep water filled potholes in the site roads and totally ignored other glaring faults, and then reported back that the park fully complied with Site Licence conditions.

There can be severe consequences for residents who have approached the council for help. (a)…. It will almost certainly bring forth very unpleasant retribution from the UPO involved. And (b)…. It can and very often does result, in letters ordering them to cut down any plants and bushes, remove fences and hedges, etc., in their gardens to ground level, as they have been deemed to be a fire hazard or other equally distressing orders such as removing porches.

It is stated that Local Councils have the “POWER” to Enforce Site Licence Conditions, but not the “DUTY”. In order for residents to obtain any sort of action concerning satisfactory enforcement to improve their conditions, urgent legislative changes must be made to charge Local Councils with the “DUTY” to Enforce.

One final point whilst on the subject of local council licensing officers. It is a sad fact that some licensing officers have little or no experience regarding park home sites. To illustrate this I will relate an account, received whilst writing this letter, told to me by an 87 year old widow on a site in the South of England. She rang the local council licensing officer to complain about the park owners breaches of the site licence. The officer informed her that he could not pay a visit to the site as it was private land and he could only visit by invitation. She replied by inviting him to visit her home for a cup of tea and during his visit she would take him round the park and point out the reasons for the complaint. He readily agreed, and on the date arranged the visit took place. During the conversation, the officer asked where were the mobile homes? The lady explained that he was sitting in one. “These are not mobile homes he replied, these are bungalows, they have brickwork down to the floor”. She replied by telling him to go outside and peer through the inspection door situated in the brick skirt where he would see that the home was constructed on a steel chassis complete with wheels. I will not comment further.

Finally, we will now turn to the real source of all the problems facing park homeowners throughout the UK. Government Legislation, or rather lack of, the totally discredited and unenforceable MOBILE HOMES ACT 1983/2006, together with the outdated CARAVAN AND CONTROL OF DEVELOPMENT ACT 1960.

Taking the1960 CARAVAN ACT first. This Act as well as being outdated and largely unworkable for reasons explained earlier, originated in the days when residential caravans became popular, but has no place in the modern world where modern park homes bear no resemblance to the caravans of yesteryear. Besides being 50 years out of date it also brands today’s park homes costing anything from £100,000 - over £300,000 as caravans, situated on caravan sites and their owners as caravan dwellers. It also means that park homes have no status in law within the Housing Act as they are nothing more than a CHATTEL. This Act needs urgent reform to bring it into the 21^st century or ideally scrapped altogether and park homes be given their rightful status and be included in the HOUSING ACT.

PHRAA has always publicly predicted that tinkering with the MOBILE HOMES ACT and the whole of park home legislation, as a solution was no use whatsoever as has been proved beyond doubt by recent events. The 2006 Amendments which, we were assured by your department, would provide the much needed protection for park home residents have not only proved to be worthless, but have in practice, given the UPO and his “clever” Legal Teams far more power to exploit his helpless residents. In fact I will go farther, the 2006 Amendments are proving to be, without doubt, the final nail in the coffin for park home owners and will also lead to the demise of the park home industry that the government is so keen to promote.

What other form of legislation brands a persons £100,000 - £300,000 home a CHATTEL, A CARAVAN included within the same ludicrous definition as a horse drawn Gypsy caravan of bygone years? Not only that but then also officially defines the parks these homes are stationed on as CARAVAN SITES again governed by legislation 50 years out of date which may well have been relevant then, but has absolutely no relevance to the modern bungalow type park homes of today.

To make the situation of the estimated 250,000 park homeowners even more untenable is the proven fact that the Mobile Homes Act governing the terms of the homeowners right to station their home is not backed up by any form of official powers of enforcement. Where else in society does the victim of a crime, especially when that victim is very elderly and possibly frail, have to take their own proceeding to prosecute the offender. For example. Should a person be robbed in the street or defrauded of their life savings are they charged with the responsibility of prosecuting the offenders? No they are not, the law does it for them. So why are thousands of park homeowners who fall victims of similar crimes at the hands of the UPO., denied by means of this Act, the same privilege ?

By the same token the Caravan and Control of Development Act 1960 again purports to ensure that those living on the sites enjoy decent facilities on a par with those enjoyed by those occupying conventional housing. But again in all too many cases, lack of enforcement by the local authority as explained earlier means that where a UPO owns the park even the basic facilities are denied to residents. In fact it too often happens that a determined UPO can totally ignore the authorities instructions to remedy blatant breaches of the Site Licence Conditions with impunity, safe in the knowledge that the local authority has neither the resources, manpower or the will when faced with the UPO’s “clever” legal teams, to exercise their power to take the necessary action. Issuing “Guidelines” to local authorities outlining action they can take in such circumstances is useless. What is needed are “Directives” not “Guidelines” together with the “Duty” to take action, which your department continue to refuse to do. Until this is done, many desperate residents calling for the help of local authorities continue to be frustrated and usually instead of receiving help are penalised and face untold acts of retribution from their UPO for daring to complain.

On the subject of the lack of resources available to local authorities to enable them to take action or in extreme cases prosecute offending UPO’s, I and my colleague representing PHRAA, were present at the All Party Working Group for the “Welfare” of Park Home Owners, 29^th October 2008 at which you were present, when a request was made to you by a concerned MP that your department allocated a few thousand pounds to local authorities for them to use to take action, when needed, against UPO’s. You immediately stated that this was not possible as funds were not available. Only days later it was announced in the press that your department has allocated £87 million pounds to Local Authorities nationally to be used to update Gypsy and Traveller sites. No doubt you feel this is justified, but Minister, why are the elderly long suffering park home owners, many of whom fought in World War 2 for the freedom of this country, denied a few thousands of pounds to improve their “welfare“? No doubt Minister you will rightfully claim that Gypsy’s and travellers are a minority group and need protection for their chosen way of life. But are not the estimated 250,000 mainly elderly and vulnerable park homeowners also a minority group therefore equally entitled to legally enforceable protection to guarantee their right to live their chosen way of life free from persecution?

For over four, possibly five, years to date, discussions, consultations etc., have been taking place with your department involving the park owners two trade organisations, (BH&HPA and NPHC), Voluntary National Park Homeowners Residents Associations and other interested bodies, supposedly aimed at assessing the need for bringing in new legislation to end the exploitation of park homeowners. But as results prove, from the homeowners (victims) point of view, this time has been utterly wasted, for all that has changed is solely of direct benefit to the UPO’s.

As mentioned above the three National Park Home Residents Associations IPHAS, NAPHR and PHRAA have been involved in these consultations from the beginning some four or five years ago. Out of the three National Residents Associations, one of which IPHAS has a foot in both camps as it openly advertises for park owners to become members,

PHRAA is the only National Park Home Residents Association prepared to speak out publicly and expose the atrocious tactics used by UPO’s, by means of the PHRAA website, which averages over 250 hit’s a day totalling over 89,000 to date since its radical reconstruction about two years ago., Open to all to view, the PHRAA website is not restricted to members only. .PHRAA also distributes information via newsletters to our rapidly growing membership. PHRAA is the only national park home residents organisation that supplies information to, and has frequently taken part in, several BBC “Inside Out “, Radio 4 “You and Yours” and “Face the Facts” , local TV news broadcasts, including news paper articles, all exposing UPO’s. Prospective park home buyers are frequently advised to do their homework before they buy especially by the BH&HPA AND NPHC who naturally would only issue industry biased advice carefully omitting mention of the hidden pitfalls. The only source of factual information covering all aspects of park home life “warts and all” freely available anywhere throughout the park home industry open to buyers is contained upon the PHRAA website.

It is PHRAA’s policy to “Tell it as it is”. None of the information released by PHRAA is embellished, exaggerated or cannot be proved, just the plain unvarnished truth. Not a popular policy with the industry no doubt, but also not welcomed by your department it seems, as it resulted in PHRAA being barred early on from, not only attending future meetings and taking part in the discussions, but from receiving any information relating to these discussions. This ban, the reason for which, despite our many requests, has never been substantiated or officially communicated to us to this day, was imposed by Mr. John Connell, who was at that time responsible for park home affairs in your department. We note that although banned PHRAA is still listed as being one of the Key Stakeholders consulted. Besides being an affront to PHRAA’s integrity, it also deprived park home owners of the only voice dedicated and prepared to really fight tooth and nail up for their rights within those meetings. As PHRAA was prevented from presenting its case on behalf of park homeowners we are very disturbed or I should say outraged by the statements issued by your department, the industry representatives and others, that the current changes had been discussed and agreed to by the National Residents Associations which implies that PHRAA is a party to these agreements. PHRAA does not agree with the present changes for as the reasons given above clearly indicate and we must completely disassociate PHRAA from such untrue and misleading statements.

In the course of our campaign for residents rights, PHRAA has submitted many submissions and other material, to your department, including a Petition calling on the Government for park homeowners rights. This PHRAA Petition, containing over twelve hundred signatures from park homeowners nationwide was personally handed to Lord Graham by myself at the first Working Party Meeting of 2008 and I know he passed it on to your department, none of which was afforded the courtesy of an acknowledgement. This confirms our belief,, backed up by the evidence of the park owner biased changes to the recent legislation, that the views of the residents representatives are totally dismissed by your department in favour of those demanded by the Park Owners powerful and influential representatives, their trade associations BH&HPA and NPHC to which many of the UPO’s are members. The BH&HPA and NPHC have a vested interest in ensuring that any changes in legislation favour the park owners over and above those of the long suffering residents whose only role is to ensure that the UPO’s remain free from any changes in legislation that would prevent them continuing to extract the highly lucrative, inflation proof income, or I should say, ill gotten gains, they have come to expect from their captive residents. Bleed them dry then kick them off is the UPO’s code of practice. In fact the BH&HPA code of practice document lodged at Company’s House clearly boasts that they have the constant ear of Government and are the Association that the Government first consults with regarding any proposed changes to park home legislation and provide advice and guidance to Government to ensure that any changes that cannot be avoided and may be burdensome on their members, will be administered with the “lightest possible touch”.

If you as the Minister responsible for park home affairs are really interested in improving the rights of park owners, then please, listen to them and take account of the masses of evidence, detailing abuse, at your disposal. I and my colleague were present at a previous Working Party meeting at which you were present and were confronted by over 30 MP’s all complaining and relating shocking incidents of abuse of park home residents by the UPO’s in their constituency’s. What more evidence do you need before you take this matter seriously and take action?

If the tone of this letter indicates that it is written in anger, then I make no apology for that. We are angry both for ourselves here at PHRAA who voluntarily work up to 12 hours a day, very often 7 days a week, for no reward on behalf of park home residents, but more angry for the devastated and terrified residents who contact us for help when forced to live under the tyrannical regime of a UPO with no one else to turn too for help. We also get very angry when we hear and read misleading statements, such as one from you in a Cornish newspaper recently to the effect that UPO’s were only a “minority” of park owners. Unfortunately as with all statements of this nature and usually uttered by the industry, it did not include the fact that this so called “minority” are all multiple park owners which equates to thousands of abused residents. Perhaps Minister, you would realise the horrific extent of the abuse of elderly residents if you were to take one of the many calls I and my colleagues at PHRAA receive from elderly widows or gentlemen absolutely heartbroken, so distraught they are hardly able to speak through floods of tears pleading for help because their UPO has told them he is going to evict them,, he has destroyed their garden with a JCB, they have had a threatening letter from the UPO or his dubious solicitor, or any other of the hundreds of instances of abuse we hear of every day? Maybe then you would take this matter seriously?

There is no doubt that the UPO’s are monopolising the park home industry and by your continued refusal to take the long overdue and very urgently needed decisive action your department is encouraging them. As the current park home law exists UPO’s know they have absolutely nothing to fear from the law leaving them free to continue their abuse of their elderly victims with impunity. The tragedy is that the rampant growth of the UPO will ultimately destroy this what could be a wonderful way of life. The remaining good park owners are suffering as well as they will inevitably be tarred with the same brush.

One final point of significant relevance. Whilst writing this letter I received the latest edition of the “PARK HOME NEWS” a free magazine produced by a section of the industry. Our attention was drawn first to the editorial article basically extolling the virtues of park home life with particular emphasis on how much better off anyone would be selling their bricks and mortar and buying a park home and I quote…. “The sale of a bricks and mortar house definitely has its advantages. Financial security, fewer bills, quality of life, and a safe, peaceful and friendly environment in which to live alongside like-minded individuals “. Reading that glowing article one could well understand how people would find the prospect of park home life attractive. But how does one equate this glowing article with the 32 page property section included within this same magazine by Seekers Estate Agents, one of the agencies specialising in second hand private park home sales, advertising, complete with photographs, “nearly 400 park homes for sale”, ranging from £24,000 to £220,000 a large proportion of which are nearly new, and all in perfect condition. Add these to the large amount of private sales advertisements appearing in the two monthly Park Home magazines and the press and you have a huge amount of residents wishing to sell. Could it possibly that when faced by the reality of park home life under the UPO has resulted in hundreds of disillusioned park home owners desperate to get back to bricks and mortar and regain their freedom from oppression?

Take action now and rid this industry of the cancer that is the UPO’s. Listen and take account of what the park home residents and many of your fellow Members of Parliament are telling you instead of acceding to the demands of the BH&HPA and NPHC and park owners. Abuse of the elderly is rife throughout the park homes industry. Always remember, “You have to live it to know it”. Thousands of abused pensioner park home residents know it only too well. Park home residents have been betrayed by this legislation. UPO’s are the only winners.

The Park Home Residents Action Alliance (PHRAA) has, since it was formed in 2002, been actively spearheading this campaign for the rights of park home owners to a FAIR DEAL, and will continue to fight while there is breath left in our bodies. Indeed I am proud to say that since it was founded, PHRAA has done more to bring the problems suffered by park home residents at the hands of the UPO into the public eye than any other organisation. The Government, the BH&HPA and NPHC and others may be content to sit back and allow, even encourage, the UPO to continue to wreck the lives of his innocent and helpless victims, but PHRAA is not.

As I said earlier the information given in this letter is only a brief outline of the problems. There are no words of mine that could possibly portray the extent of the horrific suffering endured by those living under the barbaric rule of the power crazed greedy UPO. If you wish to discuss this matter further, PHRAA will always be glad to meet with you, anytime at your convenience and prove to you that everything in this letter is the truth. Abuse of the elderly is rife throughout the park home industry.

Yours Sincerely,

Ron Joyce. General Secretary PHRAA.

Copies to all interested parties.

Published on the PHRAA Website.