Park homeowners may be aware that on the 1st October 2006 the Government brought in a number of amendments to the Implied Terms (law) of the1983 Mobile Homes Act. The Government claim that these Amendments afford much greater protection for the Park Homeowner in general and drastically curtail the illegal activities, widely practiced against the mainly elderly and vulnerable residents of his park/s, by the ever increasing number of UNSCRUPULOUS PARK OWNERS. Unfortunately for the helpless homeowner, in all too many instances these Amendments have made the elderly homeowners situation far worse, resulting in an increasing number of homeowners finding themselves, through absolutely no fault of their own, having explored every possible avenue purportedly ensuring them full protection under the Act, firmly stuck in a “CATCH 22” ( no possible way of escape) situation other than, in most cases, losing not only their home, but the many thousands of pounds in assets tied up in the value of the home..

Unfortunately for all Park Homeowners the Government have neglected to accompany the new Amendments to the Implied Terms or the Act itself with any Statuary Powers of Enforcement with the result that if an Unscrupulous Park Owner breaks any of the Terms of the Act to the detriment of the homeowner, the only form of action open to the homeowner seeking redress, is to undertake Legal Action through the Civil Courts (County Court), which is certain, for the average pensioner park homeowner, to prove a daunting, traumatic and financially crippling, extremely lengthy undertaking, with no guarantee of success. However although it may be almost impossible for the average Park Homeowner given their advanced age, financial situation and physical condition, difficulty, due the ambiguity of the Act (Law) to obtain knowledgeable Legal help, it is comparatively rare for a park homeowner to instigate Legal Proceedings against the Unscrupulous Park Owner. But from the alarming increase in the number of reports PHRAA is receiving currently, it seems that there is a rise in instances where park owners are taking Court Action to obtain Eviction Orders against elderly, defenseless homeowners by using the clauses in the new Amendments, as the following example will show.

In plain English this meant that the relevant five year periods commenced on the date the home was sold to its first occupier from new.

The “five year period” clause was in many cases abused by unscrupulous park owners who used it as a very effective method of preventing the owners of older, but well maintained, homes from selling. This was accomplished by unscrupulous park owners writing a letter to the homeowners concerned, regardless of however good the condition and the external appearance, (which is all that is relevant under the Act) of the home, stating that in his opinion at the end of the current ‘relevant period’ the home will be detrimental to the amenity of the park, consequently he will be making an application to the court for an order for termination of the agreement, (contract). It is highly unlikely that you would be successful in your efforts to sell if the prospective buyer is told by the park owner that he can only stay on the park for a maximum of five years, or even less depending on how much of the current “five year period” was left. Try selling your home then when the park owner shows all your prospective buyers a copy of such a letter.

PHRAA in its submissions to government on behalf of park homeowners pushed hard for the abolition of the ‘five year period’ owing to the widespread number of instances of its abuse by unscrupulous park owners with devastating consequences for park homeowners. But it seems that PHRAA,s warnings fell upon deaf ears. The decision to reduce the five years to “forthwith” was, as it appears as was most of this ill-conceived, loophole ridden, park owner biased 2006 legislation, agreed by officers representing the government, park home industry trade associations and other national park home residents associations, without PHRAA,s knowledge or agreement with disastrous consequences for homeowners with unscrupulous park owners.

The ‘Five year period” clause was amended by the new 2006 legislation to be replaced by “FORTHWITH”. The “five year period” clause, when used correctly, did allow the owners of homes, which possibly had become shabby and may have had a detrimental effect on the amenity of the park, a reasonable amount of time to carry out any necessary remedial work, but now this has been replaced by “forthwith” no such period of notice exists unless the court when considering the park owners application for termination of the agreement(contract) orders that the homeowner be granted reasonable time to carry out any remedial work, a discretionary course of action which could be taken by the court, but not guaranteed.

Taking full advantage of the “Forthwith” clause unscrupulous park owners, especially where a park has changed ownership and the new unscrupulous owner (UPO) is seeking to rid the park of all older homes to clear the way for his development plans are, either themselves, or by using the services of their very “clever” solicitors sending letters to homeowners of homes over 10 years old stating that their homes, because of their age and/or condition, are no longer in keeping with the amenity of the park. The letters usually contain threats of intended court action for eviction if a schedule of works, specified the park owner, which he alleges is needed on the home to bring it to up the standard that he deems acceptable on his park is not carried out.

It is becoming common practice for the unscrupulous park owner to engage the services of a park home surveyors company without the permission, and in many cases, even the knowledge of the homeowner, to produce a damming report condemning the condition of the home including a schedule of works the surveyor “alleges” are needed on the home. Copies of these reports will be produced by the park owner as evidence in any court action for eviction he takes against the helpless homeowner. (See Warning Bulletin “Covert Surveys”)

A typical example of a schedule of works “allegedly needed” would include, new roof, new doors, new windows, complete re-cladding of the exterior walls, removal of porches etc. Not content with merely demanding that all this, usually totally unnecessary, work possible costing thousands of pounds, be done, he will also impose an impossible time scale within which the “schedule of works” is to be completed. This is usually 28 days accompanied with the threat of court action for failure to comply.

But he ain’t finished yet! The unscrupulous park owner (UPO) has another even more devastating trick up his sleeve. Even if the terrified homeowner has the financial resources available to reluctantly agree to have the work done in an attempt to satisfy the UPO demands, he will then be faced with having to find and employ a specialist contractor to carry out the work. This is when the already distraught homeowner finds that tucked away in his agreement (contract) is a clause stating that before any work can be carried out on the home he has to obtain the written permission from the park owner.

PHRAA is receiving a growing number of complaints from homeowners who have received letters from their park owner stating that before any work can be carried out either INSIDE or OUTSIDE written permission must be obtained from the park owner. Letters of this nature usually follow a change in park ownership, but not always.

The homeowner will be required to submit details of the contractor he hopes to engage for the work to the park owners for approval. Now is the time that the homeowner finds himself TRAPPED, hopelessly embroiled in the classic CATCH 22 situation. The unscrupulous park owner completely refuses to allow any of the contractors engaged by the homeowner on to the park. (Its land and he can do as he likes)

This case involves an elderly widow living alone and had lived happily on a park for many years in her well maintained but older park home. Out of the blue early last year she was confronted by the park owner who informed her that he had had a survey done on the outside of her home, which although the report concluded that in his, (the surveyors) opinion the condition of the home was not detrimental to the park, nevertheless the park owner ordered her to undertake £15,000 worth of repairs to the outside of her home. When she told him that she did not have £15,000, he told her that if she did not have the work done, he would take her to court for the termination of her agreement.

The lady then obtained a grant from the local council through the government backed “Care and Repair” scheme, which meant that she could have her home completely refurbished bringing the home up to modern day standards and extending its life indefinitely. “ Care and Repair” then obtained several quotations for the work from various contractors, but the park owner raised objections to those chosen. The park owner then engaged the services of a well known legal company specialising in park home law used by park owners who sent a letter to the administrator of “Care and Repair” setting out a list of specific conditions, obviously designed to put off any bona fide contractor, that had to be complied with by any contractor employed by them to carry out the work on the home, before the park owner would grant them permission to enter the park and carry out he work.

If you are one of the ever increasing number of worried park homeowners trapped in this outrageous situation please contact PHRAA in complete confidence.

Compiled and produced for PHRAA by Ron Joyce. General Secretary. March 2008.