|
Lord Graham reply 23 June 09 to Mark Jaffreys |
|
|
|
|
Written by Lord Graham of Edmonton
|
|
Friday, 17 July 2009 |
Lord Graham of Edmonton's Reply to Mark Jaffreys
23 June 2009
Dear Mr Jaffreys
Many thanks for your letter dated 16 June and I have every sympathy with what you say on behalf of your residents Association. When the Mobile Homes Act of 1983 was propagated a higgledy piggledy means of charging pitch fees was consolidated into the legislation resulting in the present position that on the sale of a home the site owner is entitled to NOT MORE than 10% of the sale price. The argument then, as now, was that if this source of income from sales was not invoked the site owner would need to obtain the four feeted income from another source. When last consulted the situation resulted in site owners opting for the status quo while residents argued for a reduction inthe sale aspect. It was resolved by the government siding with the site owners. Very few site owners ask for less than 10%, but some do.
What to do? The All Party Parliamentary Group is a channel to allow Members of Parliament to represent the views of their constituents and your Member of Parliament, Dr Andrew Murrison, is able to make strong representations direct to the Minister for Park Homes. Aggrivatingly, there has just been a change of minister and this, I am afraid, is the problem we have faced for many years. I am sending a copy of this letter to Dr Murrison and hope to have a conversation with him and perhaps be helpful in his representation on your behalf.
You invite me to visit you, and nothing would please me more, but I am afraid that my legs are getting the better of me at this time and I am therefore unable to accept, but am grateful for the invitation.
Yours sincerelly,
Lord Graham
Hon Secretary
All Party Parliamentary Group for Mobile Homes.
COMMENTS FROM PHRAA CHAIRMAN MALCOLM SAMWAYS
As Chairman I would like to place a few comments before you,but first let me make it quite clear Lord Graham has worked very heard on our behalf for many years, but with Parliamentary protocol and, I feel having his hands tied so to speak he probably cannot say or do what he would like to.
The use of the words Higgledy Piggledy covers this act and its ammendments quite well. With regards to the commision what is not said is that the vote on consultation was 80% of residents voted for a reduction and 17% of site owners, the trade and clever lawyers voted for status quo!!!!
I leave that to your own views as to the fairness of the decision. Constant changes of ministers in charge has made it almost impossible to have continuity in the discussions at Westminster, such as they are to bring about democracy in this industry.
|
|
Last Updated ( Monday, 20 July 2009 )
|
