(First published in the September 2009 edition of the Park Home & Holiday Caravan magazine and reproduced by PHRAA by kind permission of the author Graham Watts LL.B (Hons) LL.M)

INTRODUCTION

“In the last couple of articles I have cast a critical eye over both of the Governments recently published fact sheets : ‘Selling a Park Home’ and ‘Pitch Fees and other payments to the owner’. In this article I will look at the fact sheet entitled ‘Residents Rights and Obligations’. The reader should be reminded that the fact sheets do not represent the law, they are simply the Department of Communities and Local Government’s (DCLG) views. Only a court can determine the law. All four of the fact sheets are available on the Governments website.

Note the error on page 8 after the sub-heading, ’Gift of the Park Home’ I believe it should say that when a mobile home is gifted to a member of the giftors family but the site owner withholds approval of that person, the giftor’…..can apply to the court, or an arbitrator, for an order declaring that the person to whom the gift is made (the gifted) is approved so the gift can go ahead’. There is no ‘purchaser’ involved.

Not withstanding the ’purchaser’ error, this process of application to the court is correct in this instance unlike the procedure outlined for the selling of a park home where the buyer is not approved. The reader will recall my first criticisms of the “Selling a Park Home” fact sheet in relation to where the homeowner is proposing to sell the home but the buyer is not approved by the site owner. The ’Selling’ fact sheet wrongly claims the seller ’…..can apply to the court….. For an order requiring the site owner to give approval’. It is correct for the court to approve the person to which the home is to be gifted. It is certainly not for the court to ’…require the site owner to give Approval.’

Page 10 considers the issue of ’Quiet Enjoyment’. This is a broad legal expression which in practice will cover a range of abuses which are perhaps more familiar to Landlord and Tenant practitioners. It has grown over the years to include such general concepts as harassment and anti-social behaviour. I appreciate that this fact sheet is not the right medium within which to elaborate on such legal aspects.

As the DCLG rightly explain, the expression ’Quiet enjoyment’ concerns a substantial interference with the occupier’s ability to use the property in any ordinary sense. This can range from the site owner preventing access to the home, cutting off electricity supplies and regular excessive noise caused by the landlord!

The normal remedy in quiet enjoyment cases is damages and it may, for example, be applied in conjunction with the site owner unlawfully entering the occupiers pitch. So far as entry to the pitch is concerned , I do applaud the DCLG making it clear that provided the owner has followed the correct procedure I.e. giving the occupier the correct notice, the site owner is not restricted, ’….as to what he may do…/’ Disputes have arisen when the owner has sought to obtain a survey of the property and the occupier has said ‘No’ to the access. I have always asserted that the owner has an implied that the owner has an implied right to conduct a survey if he believes the home is in a state of disrepair. How else could the owner determine if their were breaches of the agreement or the concrete hard standing was in need of repair?