|
“CATCH 22”
No. 2.
THE HIDDEN PITFALLS OF SELLING AND/OR ABANDONING YOUR PARK HOME TO THE PARK OWNER RESULTING IN YOUR BEING MADE HOMELESS OR PLACED IN COUNCIL BED AND BREAKFAST ACCOMMODATION OR WORSE.
Every time you turn the pages of the two specialist Park Home Magazines, view the adverts for park homes in the press, or even whilst enjoying weekend a trip out into the country, you cannot help but notice the huge amount of Park Home Sites advertised as “New Developments”, with brand new luxury Park Homes for the retired and semi – retired, for sale.
Seeing this type of park home advert may well lead the unsuspecting to believe that these are brand new parks being created from scratch. But in 99 out of a 100 cases, these so called “New Developments” are in fact long established existing parks, which have been either cleared, or are in the process of being cleared, of most or all of the existing homes, complete with the homeowners, to make way for this “New Development” which is actually “Redevelopment”.
This “New Development” usually follows a change in the ownership of the park. The trend nowadays is for usually multiple park owning companies to buy up established parks especially those consisting of mainly of older homes, which, from the evidence PHRAA is receiving, is rapidly becoming regarded to mean HOMES OVER 10 years old by the industry. Parks consisting of so called “OLDER HOMES” are seen by park owning companies as ripe for development which involves “PERSUADING” the existing elderly and vulnerable residents (homeowners), who will usually have lived happily on that park for many years, to give up their cherished homes, leave the park to clear the way for the park owner redevelop the park with all new brand new homes as soon as possible in order to generate the guaranteed very high return, which could amount to something like £100,000 plus, for each new home, on his initial investment.
The methods used by park owners to “PERSUADE” homeowners to leave the park are many and varied including offers to purchase the for usually a fraction of its true market value. But where an unscrupulous park owner is involved the methods used will involve harassment, intimidation, bullying, continued threats of, or even resorting, (using his very “clever” solicitors,) to Court Action for eviction against any residents refusing to budge. One way or another, (and he wont care which,) he will rid his park of all the older homes starting with the oldest and weakest residents first, picking them off one by one until, they either accept his derisory offer, or as very often happens, when residents can stand the unrelenting pressure no longer, they are forced to abandon their homes and leave the park. It is at this point the already devastated 70, 80 or 90 year old park homeowner finds himself in the hopeless CATCH 22 situation.
Most park owners believe that if they have to leave their park homes for any reason if they have placed their names on the housing list their Local Council will be obliged to provide them with alternative accommodation. While this may be the case if the park owner has been successful in his application to the Court and obtained an order for the eviction of the homeowner concerned, the Council will not be under any duty to provide accommodation if the homeowner has, either sold his home to the park owner, even if only for a pittance, or has simply given up the fight and in desperation, abandoned the home to the park owner for nothing. In either case, as many traumatised park homeowners have found to their cost, the Council can refuse to provide alternative accommodation on the grounds that HAVING SOLD OR GIVEN THEIR HOME TO THE PARK OWNER THEY HAVE MADE THEMSELVES INTENTIONALLY HOMELESS. Just one of many classic examples where the helpless park homeowner is trapped in the “CATCH 22”.
“CATCH 22” also applies to those park homeowners unfortunate enough to be living on a park operating under a form of limited Lease agreement, whereby the park operator Leases the park for a stated number of years from a third party. When the park operators lease term expires so does the park operators interest in the land. This means that on the expiry date of the lease, the park operators interest in the land ceases and all the homes stationed on the park have to be removed or vacated for good by the homeowner.
The fact that a park is subject to his type of limited lease arrangement and expiry date should be clearly stated on the Agreement (contract) issued by the park owner to the homeowner. Unfortunately for some homeowners they may not have been made aware of the limited term lease, or may have been assured when purchasing their home that either there was nothing to worry about as the lease would be renewed or it was a rolling lease.
PHRAA knows of several parks where homeowners, caught up in this situation, have lost their homes and the equity tied up in the value of those homes, which obviously have become worthless. Many others face the same fate in the not too distant future. A case in point is Springfield Park, Hinkley, Leicestershire. This park has permanent planning Permission as a permanent residential Mobile Homes Site licensed for 50 park/mobile homes.
The park is owned by the landowner, but leased to and operated by a separate company on a lease agreement that expires in 2016, meaning that the company operating the park interest in the land ends on that date consequently every one of the 50 homeowners will also loose their right to station their homes on the park in 2016.
Reading this you may well ask “why did people buy homes on this park knowing that they may not be able to stay after 2016?’ There are several answers to this question…..
(1)…. Some homeowners allege that at the time they purchased they were not informed of the lease agreement.
(2)…. Others who consulted local solicitors were made aware of the lease, but allege they were assured that it was nothing to worry about as it was a rolling lease and would be renewed on of before the date of expiry. It is interesting to note that residents trying to sell their find that solicitors are now alleged to be advising any prospective buyers not to buy as the lease expires in 8 years time obviously making it impossible to sell except for a pittance, if at all.
(3)…. The landowner is adamant that he will not sell the lease to the present leaseholder (park operator) and fully intends to sell the land to the highest bidder when the current lease expires.
Unfortunately it appears from PHRAA,s investigations that these alleged assurances were only issued verbally, nevertheless many of the residents concerned, because they went ahead and purchased their homes on the strength of this alleged advice, now find themselves completely trapped in a CATCH 22. They cannot, due to there only being 8 years left on the lease…..
(a)…. sell their home for anything like their true market value, if at all.
(b)….cannot stay in their homes after the lease expires.
©…. cannot sell for a very reduced price or give up their homes in the hope that the local council will re-house them because by doing so they will be judged as making themselves “intentionally Homeless” therefore the council is not under any duty to re-house them under such circumstances.
The only other option open to these devastated homeowners is to sit tight and wait the 8 years until the lease expires when the park owner will apply to he court for eviction orders against them in order to qualify for local council re- housing. Imagine the scenario in 2016. Hinkley Borough Council, who admitted to PHRAA that they are facing a acute shortage of Council accommodation, having to find alternative accommodation for 50 traumatised elderly homeless park homeowners all at once. This will not only place a huge burden on that Council, but possibly Social Services and Benefit Offices as well, as most of the helpless park homeowners will be destitute owing to the fact that they will not receive a penny for their homes, plus the costs of moving. Many of these residents may well end up, due to the lack of availability of alternative council accommodation, in many residents being placed in temporary Bed & Breakfast accommodation for long periods awaiting suitable alternative accommodation.
Although the Homeowners occupy their homes under the so called “protection” of the Mobile Homes Act 1983/2006, which states that they cannot be evicted without a Court Order, you may be led to believe that no Court in the land would grant such an order making each one of the 50 mainly elderly homeowners on this, or any other park subject to this type of lease arrangement, homeless. You would be wrong as the following quote from a letter passed on to PHRAA from the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State Mr. Ian Wright MP with responsibility for Park Homes dated 12th March 2008. “You raise a point in relation to residents security of tenure being threatened. In the majority of cases a residents written agreement (contract) will be for an indefinite period. However, a site owner cannot grant a right of occupation for an indefinite period where he only has a leasehold interest. The right of occupation MUST CEASE before or at the time his leasehold interest expires (unless he is granted a further lease).
However, when the residents right to occupy the site ceases he is not required to vacate the site unless the site owner has obtained a court order under the Caravan Sites Act 1968. The court may suspend the operation of any possession order it grants, BUT IT (the Court) DOES NOT HAVE THE DESCRETION TO REFUSE TO GRANT IT”.
So there you have it. The perfect example of innocent elderly Park Homeowners being caught in “CATCH 22”. So what do they do? Spend perhaps Thousands of Pounds they don’t have defending themselves against the park owners application to have them evicted, when in the Government Ministers own words the Courts cannot refuse to grant the order, so although by going to court you may gain a few weeks grace, the end result is, you lose your home anyway.
A WIN WIN SITUATION FOR THE PARK OWNER. JUST ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF A TYPICAL CASE OF “CATCH 22 FOR THE HELPLESS PARK HOMEOWER.
If you or any of your friends are currently, or have been in the past, trapped into a similar situation as park homeowners? PHRAA would like to hear from you.
Compiled and published for PHRAA by Ron Joyce. General Secretary PHRAA.
April 2008.
|
