RONS RUMINATIONS.

I refer of course to one particular and, as in this case, abuse of a clause contained within the strict terms and conditions introduced by Government which by law have to be conformed with by the park residents in order that their proposed parks Residents Association be recognised by the Park Owner. (See Government Park Homes Fact Sheet “Qualifying Residents Association” available from Department of Communities.) a minimum of 50% of residents must be registered members and for the purpose of voting only ONE VOTE PER HOME is allowed. This is taken from the first name on the Agreement, usually the male.

For the purposes of this article I will highlight the offending clause which in PHRAA’s view (which contrary to the other two National Park Home Residents Associations and trade organisations all of which fully support this clause,, PHRAA continues to publicly condemn on the PHRAA website and elsewhere ) blatantly discriminates against Park Homeowners wives or partners by denying them, by law, the right to vote on all matters and decisions directly affecting the quality of their park home lifestyle, including pitch fee increases, proposed park rule changes etc. In short this clause effectively means that if wives or partners disagree with decisions affecting their lifestyle, then thanks to the ACT, they are required to ‘put up and shut up’!!!! Only in the Park Home industry would this outrageous practice, which amounts to an insult to women, be tolerated by authority, let alone Government approved. I should add that written complaints on this subject to Harriet Harman, (the then Minister for Women who still continues to champion women’s equality rights,) both by PHRAA and MP’s remain unanswered to this day. Mrs. Emily Pankhurst and supporters who bravely fought and sacrificed so much to achieve the right of all women to the Vote must be turning in her grave. I am sure that Mrs. Pankhurst did not fight for the vote for all women with the particular exception of those living on park home sites????

Although the park owners, government, the park home industry trade organisations and their very “clever” and influential legal teams and not forgetting the total support for the inclusion in the legislation of this discriminatory clause demonstrated by the other two National Park Home Residents Advisory Associations, will I am sure be very proud of their victory regarding this clause, but unfortunately for many park home owners, this law only applies one way. This is when, (Yes you’ve guessed it) it benefits only the park owner as 65 devastated residents of Carr Bridge Park, Blackpool found to their cost following an Appeal Court Hearing held at Preston Court Lancashire on 23 rd November 2010.

For the purpose of this article I need not go into the details of the case here as a full report will be available shortly on the PHRAA Website

Although the Mobile Home Act dictates that only one vote per home is allowed when decisions are made. As mentioned earlier this is stated to be the first name on the Agreement (contract) which is usually the male. However as recent events have proved beyond doubt when the park owner GREEN TREE PARKS Ltd and his very “clever” legal team TOZERS of Exeter represented by Mr. Leslie Bloem QC, undertake Court Action against a group of his residents who have exercised their right under the MHAct by actually daring to question his recently imposed extra charges, as if by magic the interpretation of this rule abruptly changes. SURPRISE, SURPRISE, THE SUMMONSES TO APPEAR IN COURT ARE SERVED ON EACH INDIVIDUAL OCCUPIER OF THE HOUSEHOLD CONCERNED. This means that if there are two or more occupiers eg., Husband and Wife then two or more, entirely separate but identical, sets of Court Papers are issued to that household. When as in this case there were 40 households involved it amounted to a nice little earner for the Solicitor eh?? But obviously extremely intimidating for the terrified elderly residents on the receiving end of this outrageous but legalised racket. How’s this for a legalised racking up of legal charges. Just imagine the rumpus if a residents solicitor were to try the same trick on a park owner???

But it seems every thing is possible when it involves a Park homeowner.

I should also point out to our readers that PHRAA fought tooth and nail against the “One Home One Vote” clause at the consultation meetings we attended in London. This proved to be a very unpopular stance to take with the DCLG Ministers etc, the Trade organisations, and the other two National Residents Associations and resulted in PHRAA being banned from future meetings in a concerted bid to silence PHRAA which remains the only National Park Home Residents Association with the guts to “TELL IT AS IT IS” Some two or so years ago our President Colin Packman was graciously granted an audience with the great Robert Shceoch Advisor to the Government on Park Home Policy at the DCLG with a view to getting this unofficial ban lifted. He was told that the ban would be lifted immediately providing PHRAA agreed to toe the official line. This interprets as the line as dictated by the Park Owners Trade Associations supported by the other National Park Home Residents Associations and continues to be adopted by Government. NEEDLESS TO SAY PHRAA DECLINED THIS “OFFER” ON THE GROUNDS THAT WE WILL NOT BE SILENCED AND WILL CONTINUE AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO EXPOSE THE EXPLOITATION SUFFERED EVERY DAY BY THOUSANDS OF VULNERABLE PARK HOME OWNER CAPTIVE VICTIMS AT THE HANDS OF THE EVER GROWING NUMBERS OF UNSCRUPULOUS THAT NOT ONLY INFEST THE RESIDENTIAL PARK HOME RESIDENTS, BUT ALSO HOLIDAY CARAVAN AND CHALET OWNERS who despite being the customers of a £6 Billion industry (figures supplied by Mr. Scheoch DCLG) have even less protection than us Residential Park Home owners.

Compiled for the PHRAA Website by Ron Joyce. General Secretary. PHRAA.