Responses to PHRAA,s “Special Edition” Newsletter. 

As promised we are publishing the responses to our very forthright “Special Edition” Newsletter.  May we first thank those of you who kindly passed on copies to your Local MP’s, Government Departments and others. which was much appreciated and has served to alert many more MP’s to the exploitation of park homeowners both in their own Constituency and nationwide.
Only one adverse comment was received from a member stating that he believed the fears PHRAA expressed concerning the new legislation were unfounded and has now withdrawn from membership. We are sorry to have lost this member, but nevertheless it is his opinion, which we respect and are grateful for his taking the time to inform us of his views.    The main and not unexpected reaction came from the other two National Residents Associations judging from their Newsletters, copies of which were kindly sent to us by our members, and the article predominately displayed on the opening page of the IPHAS website. Whilst agreeing with the IPHAS comment that they do not intend “to indulge in an acrimonious dispute with PHRAA”. PHRAA had no intention of prolonging this alleged dispute, which was really intended as constructive criticism, but I feel that in fairness to IPHAS and NAPHR members as well as members of PHRAA who may have been concerned by my critical comments an explanation may be prudent.
PHRAA operates in a totally different way to IPHAS and NAPHR in that PHRAA works exclusively for park home residents.  PHRAA firmly believes that not only our members but all park homeowners have the right to be kept informed by way of regular Newsletters and the PHRAA website, which unlike others is open to all to view, not just restricted to members only.  PHRAA gives you the truth “warts an all” and has more respect for our members than to mislead them into believing that the new legislation will afford them much greater protection than it actually will in practice. 
By operating a forthright and “Tell it as it is” approach and refusing to be silenced by anyone, but conducting our business with courtesy and dignity, PHRAA has gained the trust and respect consequently building up support and working relationships with a growing number of MP’s., some of whom have become Patrons of PHRAA, Local Council Officers from all over the UK, Trading Standards Officers, Solicitors, National Organisations ( Help the Aged etc) etc etc., in fact PHRAA will approach anybody or any organisation who we feel will be of help in our fight for park homeowners rights.
Unlike other National Residents Associations PHRAA publicly “Sticks its head above the parapet” and refuses to be silenced in spite of the many anonymous threats of violence and actual terrifying  incidents involving having a 4x4 vehicle deliberately driven at speed, straight at them, stopping only inches from their legs, I and other Officers of PHRAA have received. The only way we are ever going to rid the park home industry of the rogues who continue to buy up parks and by ruthless methods proceed to get rid of all existing residents is to expose them. Behind the neatly arranged rows of brand new park homes appearing on a park, which has obviously been, or is in the process of being redeveloped, will in many cases lay concealed, horrifying incidents of harassment, abuse and intimidation suffered by the previous occupiers, forced by the UPO to abandon their homes to make room for those brand new homes.
PHRAA does not make wild accusations as IPHAS claim and stands by the statement that the new legislation will be of very little benefit to park homeowners and is in the main biased towards the industry. What few minor changes, which appear to benefit park homeowners in most instances only amount to clarification of existing law.
As I stated earlier in this article PHRAA operates in a totally different way to the other National Residents Associations. PHRAA calls a “Spade a Spade” and “Tells it as it is”. PHRAA will not waste any more time trying to negotiate changes to improve the rights of park homeowners and curb the activities of the UPO with the park owners trade organisations (BH&HPA and NPHC),  who are only concerned with using all their power and influence with government to promote the wealth and prosperity of their members (park owners including many UPO’s) and don’t give a damn about the rights of park homeowners.  PHRAA has tried this method, but soon realised it is a complete waste of time.

PHRAA will never go cap in hand to such organisations as the BH&HPA in particular, who profess, in their publicity and their company Articles of Association etc., filed at Company’s House, to be the regulatory body of the park home industry, yet do absolutely nothing to curb, control or even utter one word of condemnation, concerning the uncontrolled atrocities and rampant exploitation daily practiced by UPO’s, many of whom are BH&HPA members, against their elderly, vulnerable and completely helpless residents, which having already reached epidemic proportions,  continues to spiral out of control. I well remember the telling words uttered by Ros Pritchard, Director General of the BH&HPA during an exchange of views with myself,  which took place during a Working Party meeting some years ago and I quote, “Any changes to park home law will need the permission of the park owners”.  I think this is a perfect example of the arrogance of the BH&HPA.

The BH&HPA firmly believe that the park owner because he  owns the land on which the homeowners home stands, he/they have the “God given right” on behalf of their members to dictate the terms on which park homeowners be allowed to live their lives PHRAA would like nothing better than to work with IPHAS and NAPHR and does fully support their concerns regarding some points of the new legislation. But unfortunately because of circumstances beyond PHRAA’s control including PHRAA’s refusal to adopt their favoured non-confrontational “softly softly”  “don’t rock the boat” policy, when dealing with the industry’s trade organisations and government, except on a very basic level and due entirely to PHRAA,s very different forceful and outspoken methods of operation, working fully together is not really possible at present. In any walk of life if you encounter a serious problem then you have to confront that problem. When the problems are as serious as those experienced by all too many of the 250,000 park homeowners there is nothing to be gained by “Pussy Footing Around”. As Lord Graham of Edmonton, Secretary of the All party Working Group, once remarked to Colin and I as we were leaving a private meeting with him on park homes problems at Westminster soon after the launch of PHRAA, “If I were in your shoes, I would be shouting it from the rooftops”. 
Also worth mentioning, that due to the information supplied to him by PHRAA and our close working relationship with him and Sir Patrick Cormack FSA MP., is the fact that it was entirely due to a Patron of PHRAA, Mr. Ken Purchase MP., that following his outspoken confrontation, on behalf of park homeowners, of the Housing Minister Yvette Cooper, who was present at a Working Party meeting a couple of years ago, that was directly responsible for her change of mind, having just previously announced at that same meeting, that the Government had no plans at that time to consider changes to park home law. But for the spirited intervention by Mr. Purchase MP it would be highly unlikely that the urgent need Park Home Law changes would have even been considered by Government to this day. Prior to this another of PHRAA”S valued Patrons, Angela Browning MP had tabled a Private Members Bill in the House of Commons calling for new laws for the protection of Park Homeowners, which unfortunately, because of a lack of Parliamentary time did not make it past the first reading.  

PHRAA was the only National Residents Association to host one  of the series of Government Roadshows, held around the country to promote the new legislation. The PHRAA hosted, very well attended, Roadshow, which was held in Shropshire in January 2006, was the only one of the series where no park owners were present. (PHRAA had stipulated that this Roadshow was STRICTLY for PARK HOMEOWNERS ONLY). This was in order to give Park Homeowners an unprecedented opportunity to meet face to face with the Government representative responsible for drawing up this new legislation and where the park homeowners present could, without feeling intimidated by the presence of park owners, including possibly their own listening, express their views and relate their experiences directly to a Government Official,  free from the fear of retribution later.  This PHRAA hosted Government Roadshow was as far as we are aware the only time that a significant number of Park Homeowners have been given the opportunity by anybody, including the other national Residents Associations, to address a Government Official directly. Unfortunately for park homeowners in other parts of the country, following the one already arranged further Roadshow in February 2006, hosted by a well known park home manufacturer, the Government, claiming that the Roadshows were not cost effective, stopped them dead. Therefore PHRAA was not able to host further similar Homeowner only Roadshows in other parts of the country as hoped.

Colin Packman, President of and representing PHRAA was the only representative of a National Residents Association to attend the House of Commons Standing Committee Debate on the most important part of the new park home law legislation, which took place on Thursday 22nd June 2006.  This was a vitally important Debate as it has a critical effect on the future welfare of every park homeowner, present and future, in the country.  We would have thought that the representatives of IPHAS and NAPHR would have regarded it as their duty to attend the most  important Government Debate on park home law since 1983, but it is not up to PHRAA to try and tell them how to conduct their business.  It should also be mentioned that Colin and I representing PHRAA were the only park homeowners representatives who accepted the invitation and took the trouble to attend the Government reception held at Portcullis House in London to launch the 2004 Housing Act which contained the first 5 significant amendments to the Mobile Homes Act 1983., which came into force in January 2005.  It is probably pure coincidence but PHRAA could not fail to notice that besides the absence of IPHAS and NAPHR representatives at either of the two above important events, no representatives from the two park home industry trade organisations (BH&HPA and NHPC) were present either?
When viewing the information being issued by the other National Residents Associations and that of the park owners trade organisations,  one could be forgiven for thinking that now this new legislation has become law that this is the end of it and we have to accept what we have been given.  Other National Residents Associations may be happy to accept this new legislation, BUT PHRAA IS NOT. AS FAR AS PHRAA IS CONCERNED  THIS FIGHT IS ONLY JUST BEGINNING, SO PLEASE IPHAS AND NAPHR COME DOWN OFF THE FENCE. STICK YOUR HEADS ABOVE THE PARAPET AND FIGHT ALONGSIDE PHRAA. YOU CANNOT RUN WITH THE HARE AND THE HOUNDS. APPEASEMENT HAS NOT WORKED. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN TRIED THAT WITH ADOLF HITLER AND WE ALL KNOW WHAT HAPPENED THERE. PHRAA IS NOT PREPARED TO LIE DOWN AND ACCEPT THE CONTINUED OPPRESSION OF PARK HOMEOWNERS AT THE HANDS OF UNSCRUPULOUS PARK OWNERS WHO BLATANTLY FLOUT THE LAW WITH IMPUNITY. ASKING DOES NOT WORK. WE HAVE TO DEMAND WHAT IS OUR BASIC HUMAN RIGHT TO A FAIR DEAL AND TO BE ALLOWED TO LIVE OUR LIVES IN PEACE AND QUIET. IS THAT TOO MUCH FOR 250,000 plus PARK HOMEOWNERS TO EXPECT?                 Ron.

   D DAY FOR NEW LEGISLATION  1st OCTOBER 2006.

“We have worked hard with the Government to bring about these changes and we are clearly happy with them”. “It (new law) is not going to bring about radical changes. In fact, it is more a case of formalising what is already happening.”
I have repeated this statement concerning the new legislation issued by Jon Boston, spokesperson for the British Holiday & Home Parks Association (BH&HPA),  the largest of the two very powerful and influential (especially with Government) Trade Organisations to which most Park Owners belong, which was published in an article in a Kent local newspaper recently, as we feel it is important for the reader to keep his statement in mind when considering the implications for the park homeowner of the new legislation outlined below.  Is this what we have waited 20 years for?
Whatever happened to the goverment promise of radical changes to park home law, which would afford long overdue and much needed protection for park homeowners on a par with those in brick built conventional housing, the Government announced when the Reform Process began?  Yes, a few crumbs, which may benefit park homeowners, have fallen off the Park Owners overfilled plate, but at what cost to the park homeowner?
(1)….Pitch Fee Review.     The clarification of the Annual Pitch Fee Review Process whereby it now clearly states that any proposed increase in Pitch Fee is subject to negotiation and the park owner must produce copies of all the previous years claimed expenditure to any request for an increase.
(2)…..Entry on to Pitch….The addition of a requirement whereby should the park owner wish to enter on to your plot, except in the case of emergency repair work to services etc., he is now required to give the occupier at least 14 days notice. Quite what you do if the unscrupulous park owner continually ignores this requirement by marching up and down on your garden shouting “its my land and I’ll do what I like” I really don’t know. Take him to Court perhaps?
(3)….The removal of the  “Five Year Rule” which enabled park owners to write to a homeowner stating that in his opinion within the next five years the appearance of that residents home would be detrimental to the park and after that five years he would be applying to the Court for the termination of the Agreement. This clause was designed to give the resident time to carry out ant repairs needed to the home. As the Five Year periods started from the date the home was first stationed on the park from new, some UPO’s used it to imply a five year lease applied to Agreements and/or it was used as a very effective way of preventing a homeowner from selling their home. Although at first glance this step may appear to benefit  homeowners the Five Year Notice has now been replaced with “FORTHWITH” which means that the park owner will now, without warning or notice, be able to apply to the Court for the termination of your agreement on the grounds that he considers your home is detrimental to the park, (whether it is or not), and that the 70,80,90 year old resident will be faced with the trauma and expense of having to defend this Action. We note that at least one other National Residents Association have attempted to excuse the fact that they agreed to this change, by stating in a recent Newsletter that it wont make any difference,  because the homeowner will have ample time to carry out any repairs, which the park owner claims are necessary during the time it takes before the case is actually heard. This may possibly be true in part, but what they have forgotten is the fact that unlike the helpless homeowner,  the unscrupulous park owner has ample funds to employ specialist Legal Teams who will ensure that their Clients case will be heard in double quick time, meanwhile actively preventing or obstructing any contractors or other workmen the homeowners try to engage to carry out the repairs. Bearing in mind that the main residents likely to be affected are usually the very elderly, therefore the most vulnerable owners of older homes, (over 10 years as stated by Alicia Dunne, Director of Policy for the National Park Homes Council (NHPC) in a recent article in the Park & Holiday Homes magazine recently) who would be so  terrified by  threats of Court Action from the park owner that they may well just abandon their home. PHRAA is receiving an increasing number of reports that some park owners having successfully acquired homes which they have previously condemned as detrimental to the park, then proceeded to rent them out at high rates in exactly the same condition. In the same newspaper article used at the beginning of this article Jon Boston from the BH&HPA also states that “News that park owners could force home owners to repair their caravans (note the use of the word “caravans” ) “Forthwith” was welcomed by most Residents Associations. NOT BY PHRAA IT IS’NT.  
The UPO will have a field day with this one, he will now be able to tell a residents prospective buyer that he is applying to the Court to have their home taken off the park “FORTHWITH”, whether he is or not. Yet another foolproof weapon in the UPO’s fully stocked arsenal to stop homeowners selling their homes to any one but him,  for peanuts.
 (4)…. Since January 2005 Park Owners selling new homes have been required to issue a copy of the Written Agreement (Contract) to the prospective buyer 28 days before the sale is agreed instead of up to 3 months later. From the evidence PHRAA is receiving many park owners are not complying with this new clause. What redress is available to incoming residents,  who having already moved into their £150,000 - £250- 000 plus brand spanking new park home on the advertised promise of a future life akin to paradise, when on being presented at some later date with an Agreement (contract) and a set of park rules, which in the case of a UPO park effectively denies them all the rights they enjoyed in their previous bricks and mortar house. It is then they also find out that,  should they wish to sell, even the next day, that they have to give the park owner 10% of the sale price. TAKE THE PARK OWNER TO COURT. 
(5)….Residents Associations.  All park homeowners will now have the right to form a Residents Association on their park. Aren’t we the lucky ones? The Government and the Industry have graciously granted us “caravan dwellers” a right we already have under “Article 11 of the Human Rights Act” ( Freedom of Assembly and Association) but have imposed rigid conditions before it can qualify as a bona fide Residents Association recognised by the park owner all of which must be complied with.
(A)……At least 50% of occupiers of mobile homes on that site are members of the Association. Where the park has a UPO this would be difficult if not impossible to achieve, certainly at first due to the fact that the majority of park homeowners are elderly and for many reasons would not wish to get involved or face the very real risk of  intimidation from a UPO who will stop at nothing to stamp out any united resistance to his dictatorial rule.
(B)….Park Owners, their agents or employees residing on the park are excluded from membership. PHRAA totally agrees with this condition for obvious reasons.
©…..Membership is open to “ALL” Owner Occupiers of Mobile Homes on the site with the exception of (B) above.  Note the “All”.
(D)…..The Association maintains a list of members which is open to public inspection together with the rules and Constitution of the Association. In effect this means park owners inspection. In the case of a UPO, disclosure of a list of members would render those on that list vulnerable to intimidation. The most elderly and frail, such as the little old lady or gentleman living alone being the first to be targeted.
Others becoming targets would be the Chairperson, Secretary or Treasurer. If the loss of even one member results in the qualifying number falling below the required 50%, the Association is lost.
(E)….The Park owner has acknowledged in writing to the secretary that the Association is a qualifying Residents Association. Every park homeowner having the misfortune to be living on a UPO park will know from bitter experience, UPO’s never answer letters so the chances of him acknowledging or recognising,  especially in writing, the one thing that all UPO’s fear most, a united and strong a Residents Association on his park is at best highly unlikely, which leaves the residents having to instigate long and very expensive Court Action against the UPO to force compliance.
(F)….One vote per home.   It is a condition of a qualifying Residents Association that membership must be open to ALL occupiers of mobile homes on the site, but it is decreed that only half will be allowed a vote on any proposed action discussed at full meetings of the Residents Association. This legislation clearly states that only one vote per home is allowed,  this being the first name on the Agreement (contract) thus denying wives, partners or other joint owner/occupiers of the right to vote on vital issues having an equally   direct effect on them, who as very incensed lady caller stated to me recently, “just because we live together doesn’t mean we have the same opinions”. It is a requirement of this new legislation that membership of a Residents Association has to be open to “ALL” owner/occupiers, therefore “ALL” owner/occupiers must be entitled to vote.  PHRAA is very disturbed and disappointed to note that the other National Park Home Residents Associations have published the fact that they fully support the only one vote per home clause.
(G)…..Not all the clauses are covered in the above review of the Residents Association section of the new legislation only the ones of direct effect to residents. But before I finish I will just offer one last comment. Whilst it appears that park homeowners are expected to conform to strict conditions imposed upon them by government obviously influenced by park owners and their powerful trade organisations, park owners can freely belong to any trade organisation without any restriction whatsoever. Park homeowners do not expect park owners to seek their permission or approval nor demand to see lists of memberships or copies of trade association constitutions so why are such conditions imposed on residents wishing to form Residents Associations.
(6)…..Re-siting of mobile home. Up to now under the standard form of Agreement ( that bearing the Logo’s of the two Trade Associations BH&HPA and NHPC) widely used by park owners, including UPO’s, nationally, (Clause 2 Part 1V Express Terms)  (From 1st October Implied Terms) the park owner only had the right to move the home to another plot for essential works. Other non- standard Agreements may be worded differently for example, may state that the home could be moved at the park owners “absolute discretion”. Until now “Essential Works” (Qualified as meaning repairs to base or other unavoidable emergency work) did not include moving homes in order to Re-develop the site. But new additional paragraphs have been inserted which refer to the park owners right to require a home to be moved to another broadly comparable pitch if the existing pitch is wanted for redevelopment, subject to the approval of the Court. As Lord Avebury remarked in the House of Lords Debate “If the park owner obtains planning permission to redevelop part of the site, but the residents of that part of the site decline for whatever reason,  an offer of a pitch elsewhere on the site, the Court would have to bear in mind that the park owner, having the support of the Local Authority and no doubt aiming at a higher density on the land in accordance with Government policy, would be likely to succeed on appeal against the resident.” “So this article (added clause) gives park owners licence to develop any part of the site so long as they can fit the mobile homes being displaced on to some other area of the same site.”  Have the Government Advisors responsible for adding this ridiculous clause,  which they must have known has given the park owner carte blanche to move residents homes at will,  given even one seconds thought to the traumatic effect this tremendous disruption will have on the lives of the helpless elderly residents faced with having to pack up all their belongings, put them into store for possibly weeks and having to move into other accommodation while their home is being moved to another plot chosen by the park owner, with no certainty, where a UPO is involved, of the home ever being re-sited and made habitable again. What a wonderful opportunity for the UPO to rid himself of older homes in the full knowledge that the affected residents have, neither the will or the finance needed to take Court Action, which may take years, especially as Lord Avebury states above, they have no chance of winning. Although the Act states that the park owner is liable for all costs involved where a home is moved, there is no such requirement for any form of compensation to be paid to the resident for the upheaval and inconvenience caused by the move,  which is entirely for the park owners extremely lucrative financial benefit  There is also no mention in the Act as to whether the plot the home is to be moved to is permanent or whether the home can be moved time and time again as redevelopment progresses.
Except for the addition of the detrimental to residents clause, outlined  above,  nothing else in this section has radically changed.
(7)…..The right to sell your home.  As this particular section of the Act was reported in reasonable detail in our “Special Edition” Newsletter, which if you missed or would like a copy please send a SAE to PHRAA Head Office, I will not go over it all over again here,  except to add a few more points….
(a)…. The amendment to the Act which came into force in January 2005, which the government stated would make it easier for the resident to sell their homes has, from the evidence PHRAA receives almost daily from distraught residents, made the situation worse.
(b)….UPO’s will now use the new threat of Court Action regarding the repairing of homes “FORTHWITH” to put off residents prospective buyers as explained in detail in  (3) above.
(c )….UPO’s will use the additional right to move homes as and when, as detailed in (6) above to put off residents prospective buyers.
(d)…..PHRAA has received several disturbing reports of what are known as “GAGGING ORDERS” being used by UPO’s against homeowners mainly those who have been forced to sell or give their homes to the park owner having being prevented from selling. The homeowner having been robbed of their home is then forced to sign a form of agreement drawn up by the UPO or his Solicitor which bans the homeowner from divulging any details of the transaction to a third party threatening dire consequences or penalties for failure to comply.  PHRAA believes this to be a widespread practice throughout the industry, but for the exception of a few brave victims of this scam informing PHRAA, it remains largely hidden from public knowledge.
(8)….. Gift of a Mobile Home. No change. The homeowner can gift or bequeath their home, and to assign the Agreement to a member of his family approved by the Park Owner, whose approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. This is a Clause, which I notice is usually glossed over in Government Fact Sheets etc., nevertheless it is a clause that causes much distress usually to any relative who finds that they have inherited a park home on the death of the occupier. Unless the relative or partner was actually residing with the late occupier,  then they cannot reside in the home without the approval of the park owner, but they do have the right to sell subject to the conditions in (7) above and would be liable to pay all the usual expenses due to the site owner such as pitch fees etc until the home is sold. Should the relative who inherits the home live a fair distance away or perhaps abroad then they could encounter severe problems when trying to sell the home, especially if the park has a UPO. Unlike conventional housing,, should the relative, because they live a distance away, to avoid the costs of hotel accommodation, decide to stay a few days in the late occupiers home in order to clear their effects and/or ready the home for sale they may well find, as was the case of a friend of ours, that  after stopping just one night in his late fathers home to carry out some essential maintenance he received a terse threatening letter from our UPO’s solicitor banning him from sleeping in the home which frightened him so much he was forced to stay with friends instead. Any one unfortunate enough to be placed in the position of trying to sell their late relatives home where a UPO is involved,  will find that is almost impossible and an extremely costly undertaking, which could drag on for years, with taking Court Action against the park owner the only option. The Act restricts gifting the home to relatives only. What happens if the occupier, as frequently occurs, has no immediate family to leave it to?  The home is the homeowners property and He/she should be able to leave it to whomsoever they like. Not just relations.
PHRAA very often hears of cases where following the death of a resident the UPO, on seeing relatives at the home will bang on the door, very often even before the funeral,  demanding to know what is going to happen to the home and telling them they are not to sell it as he is going to remove it from the park. This usually results in the already distraught relations being coerced into agreeing to let him purchase the home for a pittance there and then, after which the UPO immediately either smashes up the home or removes it from the site,  very often before the relatives have even had time to remove personal effects.
(9)…..Owners Obligations. Now an IMPLIED TERM.
The owner shall…..
(a)…if requested by the occupier, and on payment by the occupier of a charge of not more than £30 provide accurate details of….
(i)….the size of the pitch and the base on which the mobile is stationed.
(ii)….the location of the pitch and base within the protected site.
This clause does not make it clear whether this applies to brand new homes. For example, will the Agreement (Contract), which the park owner is now obliged to give to a prospective buyer 28 days before the sale, include a plan of the plot or does it mean that if the buyer requests such a plan, will the buyer then have to apply to the site owner and pay an extra £30 on top of the £150,000 plus price of the home to obtain such a plan,  which will probably just show a 3 metre wide strip surrounding the home. Should an existing homeowner (prior to October !st.) whose plot is larger than the bare minimum 3 metre’s apply to the park owner for a plan of his pitch he may well find that his plot on the plan he receives, will have been reduced in size to 3 metre’s. PHRAA has already received information from homeowners that their park owner had told them that the new law stated that the size of plots was now to be 3 Metre’s only and if their existing plot was larger they would be charged extra rent.

The above report, whilst not covering every detail of the new legislation,  it does deal with the most important aspects of major concern to residents, not from a strictly legal perspective (PHRAA officers are not Legally Qualified and leave that side of things to those who are), but purely and simply explaining how the new legislation will affect the homeowners, especially those of us unfortunate enough to own our own homes on a park with a UPO.  I should add that Legal Advisors, many MP’s., (some of whom raised these concerns during the House of Commons Standing Committee Debate with similar concerns being expressed by Lords in the House of Lords Grand Committee Debate)  Council Officers, Trading Standards Officers etc., we have contacted share PHRAA’s concerns regarding the adverse impact many aspects of this new legislation will have upon all park homeowners lives. There are some good points, but they are mainly clarification of existing law. We certainly haven’t got the radical changes needed to afford real enforceable protection from the ever increasing number of unscrupulous park owners who are buying up parks and destroying the lives of existing and new park homeowners who are the most vulnerable members of our society, the elderly and frail.  For the Government to sanction new laws, which it is claimed are to provide greater protection to park homeowners without accompanying powers of enforcement, but place the responsibility for enforcement entirely on the homeowner (victim), proves beyond doubt the total lack of understanding,  or failing to take into account, the traumatic and devastating effects the activities of the UPO has on the lives on the unknown numbers of innocent homeowners. 
In common with most other citizens of this country PHRAA believed that the days of “Forelock Tugging” and the lives of the community being ruled with a dictatorial “Rod of Iron” by the Lord of the Manor had gone out with the Dark Ages, but as all those unfortunate enough to own their own home on a UPO’s park know only to well, far from disappearing,  the Lord of the Manor, complete with his absolute power over his downtrodden subjects is alive and well, in the form of the UPO, and thriving throughout the park home industry in 2006.  Then as now, there was no one in authority for the helpless community to approach for help. The Lord of the Manor obsessed with power and driven by greed, made up and ruthlessly enforced his own laws and like the UPO, woe betide any subject who dared to protest or failed toe the line. However unlike the Dark Age communities who were born into this life from which there was no alternative or escape, Park Homeowners were lured into the clutches of the UPO by believing the glossy advertising, glowing press reports, smooth talking salespersons and charming park owners, all promising the wide eyed and innocent folk contemplating retirement perhaps,  a wonderful worry free future life of peace and tranquility if they sell up their bricks and mortar homes and buy a park home.  As all too many park homeowners living under the harsh regime based on fear imposed by the UPO have found out to their cost, the dark ages are back and thriving, carefully hidden behind the glossy façade of the park home site.                                                                       Ron

LED UP THE GARDEN PATH.

Now, more than ever, you can be confronted with attempts to lure you unsuspectingly into park home living. Recently an area beside a preserved steam railway became a show centre for park homes. Now, if you take a holiday with a coach company who serve the retired, a free draw to win £1,000 holiday vouchers from a well known park home manufacturer and park operator, can lead to receiving their literature.

CHALLENGE UNCHALLENGED.

Following ridiculous remarks by a representative of the BH&HPA to comments I made in a regional newspaper on the new legislation, I issued a challenge within my reply to him, to appear on national TV or Radio. This was to explain, amongst other concerns, that both they and their membership supported what amounts to discrimination against women, and ethnic minorities in a mixed race relationship, due to their demand, and the governments acceptance of course, of the new one vote per home scandal. This sets us back to the days of apartheid. Where’s our human rights for a change? Naturally, there has been no reply at the time of writing.    Colin.

WHY ARE WE WAITING.

GET ON THE BOX.

Now, more than ever, the media are warming to the exposure of atrocities that an ever growing number of unscrupulous park owners (particularly BH&HPA members) are dishing out to defenceless residents in the name of “development”.  Point to past exposures (PHRAA has an overflowing DVD of them) We will always offer a quote to support you in such cases. Only bad publicity will clean up this industry, and make it a truly happy environment. The new legislation will trigger even more cases worthy of national exposure.                                         Colin

THE MEANING OF WELFARE.

The Collins dictionary describes it as “health, happiness, prosperity and wellbeing in general”.  The All Party Group for the WELFARE OF PARK HOMEOWNERS would you say, lost its way?  More likely, it was overpowered by a mightier force, do I hear you utter?                                                         Colin.
                         
TURNING A BLIND EYE.

Much of the prolific advice, promotional and advertising material churned out by the park home industry and others,  when urging innocent folk to sell up their bricks and mortar homes to buy a park home in which to spend their Autumn years, emphasises to prospective buyers that to be assured that the park where their future home is to be stationed is operated by a reputable park owner, is to first make sure that the park owner is a member of the British Holiday & Home Parks Association (BH&HPA).  This, the BH&HPA claim, guarantees that the park owner operates his parks to a high standard, conforms to the requirements of the Mobile Homes Act, treats his residents with courtesy and respect, and operates his park at all times strictly in accordance with the code of conduct laid down by the BH&HPA. In other words park owners who are members of the BH&HPA are claimed to be whiter than white and a prospective buyer has nothing to worry about when handing over their £150,000 - £300,000, for their park home and the promised dream lifestyle,  to a BH&HPA Member Park Owner.

VOTE OF THANKS.

PHRAA extends a sincere vote of thanks to the BBC for making and broadcasting such excellent programmes as the recent “Watchdog” and “Inside Out”, which exposed horrifying examples of the previously carefully hidden atrocities suffered by helpless park homeowners,  who because of the total lack of any enforceable law are left completely at the mercy of unscrupulous park owners. If it were not for programmes like these, which represent only the tip of the iceberg regarding the extent of the abuse suffered by park homeowners especially those unfortunate enough to be stuck on a park which has been sold to an unscrupulous park owner and now, as illustrated by those programmes,  face losing or in many cases, have already lost  their homes and been robbed of every penny  of the capital tied up in their homes, their suffering would not have been made public. PHRAA is proud to have been of assistance to the BBC regarding the making of these programmes. 

ANONYMOUS LETTER

A WORD FROM PHRAA’S CHAIRMAN.

CHANGES AT PHRAA. 

NEW ADRESS FOR MEMBERSHIP SECRETARY.  Mr. Malcolm Samways, 3. Silver Poplars, Kingswood, Albrighton, Wolverhampton. WV7  3AP.  Tel. 01902 374987.