|
REAL PROTECTION FOR PARK HOMEOWNERS? IS THERE HOPE ON THE HORIZON? YOUR CHANCE TO HELP.
Park Homeowners are worse off now than they ever were. This is the message PHRAA has been consistantly striving to impress. over the past 5 years of PHRAA's existance, on Government Ministers, MP's, the All Party Working Group for the Welfare of Park Homeowners, The Department of Communities, the Press, the Media, Local Government, the industry and their representatives and other national organisations linked to the Park Home Industry and many others. Would they listen? No they wouldn't UNTIL NOW THAT IS. At last it appears from the evidence gained at the recent All Party Working Group meeting PHRAA attended, that the full realisation of the total lack of any real protection on law for park homeowners, made even worse by the abuse od the recent new 2006 amendments to the Mobile Homes Act by unscrupulous park owners, had been brought home to all present.
The main item on the agenda at this Working Party meeting was the Government department decision to retain the 10% commision rate, which we will deal with in the next article in the newsletter. Several MP's, two Lords and Baroness Maddock were also present expressed their deep concern to Simon Llewellyn from theDepartment for communities and Local Government regarding the lack of protection for park homeowners under the present Legislation. Mr Ken Purchase Labour MP for Wolverhampton (a PHRAA Patron) said that the committee had clearly failed. The objective had been to redistribute power between the occupier and the park owner. Colin Packman representing PHRAA regretted that it had not been possible to include two ofthe items originally proposed for the new Legislation - the requirement for the Park owners to be Licensed as FIT and PROPER persons to run parks; and for a DUTY to be placed on Local Authorities to Police Site Licences. Lord Graham of EDmonton who has devoted many years to trying to improve Park Homeowners rights and Secretary of the All Party Working Group summed up by telling Simon Llewellyn that he hoped he would be going back to his department with the COMPLETE DISSATISFACTION ABOUT THIS LEGISLATION RINGING IN HIS EARS. "WHAT REALLY MADE MY HACKLES RISE" he said. "IS THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SOMEONE'S RESIDENCE AS A "CHATTLE" IN THE 21ST CENTURY. THAT IS QUITE UNACCEPTABLE" HERE HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BUT IS THIS NOT WHAT PHRAA HAS BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG????
Responding to the criticisms raised by those present concerning tha many examples of disgraceful explotations of park homeowners at the hands of unscrupulous park owners rampant throughout the nation, Simon Llewellyn stated that" To remedy some park problems would require Primary Legislation",(A new Act of Parliament) which is ahat PHRAA has been fighting for. It is a grave injustice to all Park Homeowners that all this time and effort has been wasted tinkering about with the discredited Mobile Homes Act when clearly what is urgently needed is eithe a brand new Act complete with Government backed powers of ENFORCEMENT that do not totally rely on the 70, 80 or 90 year old Park Homeowner having to take their Park Owner to Court to obtain his rights, or bring Park Homes under the HOUSING ACT which would not only remove them the status of "CHATTEL", but would afford the owners of Park Homes the same protection as that enjoyed by the owners of all other forms of property. Park Homeowners pay comparable prices for their homes to owners of conventional housing. They also pay Council Tax, so surely they should have the right to the same protection under the law????
NOW AT LAST THE GOVERNMENT HAVE ACCEPTED THAT THERE IS WIDESPREAD EXPLOTATION OF PARK HOMEOWNERS RAGING UNCONTROLLED THROUGHOUT THE NATION AFFECTING THE LIVES OF A LARGE PROPORTION OF THE 250.00 PLUS PARK HOMEOWNERS, NOW IS THE TIME TO REALLY PILE ON THE PRESSURE FOR A REDICAL REFORM OF PARK HOME LAW. TO THIS END PHRAA IS LAUNCHING A NATIONAL CAMPAIGN BY WAY OF A PETITION (Form enclosed with this newsletter) WHICH PHRAA URGES EVERY PARK HOME RESIDENT TO SIGN (wives, partners etc included, no one vote per home rule applies here) This PHRAA Petition is open to all Park Home Residents in the UK., including members of other National Park Home Residents Associations. PHRAA is also sending copies of this Petition to Members of Parliament, officers of other National Park Home Residents organisations and other National Organisations (Help the Aged, Shelter, CAB Age Concern etc) to enlist their support. PHRAA is offering you this opportunity to play a vital role in shaping the future of all park home residents present and future. We are not "second class citizens" living in caravans on caravan sites as we are classed at present. We are respectable senior citizens who have contributed all our working lives to the welfare of this country. We have earned the right to a peaceful life in our Autumn years with the same rights and enforceable law to protect us from explotation as every other citizen of this country has.
Please don't miss this opportunity to make your voice heard. Even if you have no problems on your park at present, don't be complacent. Your present happy and contented situation could change overnight should your park be sold.
This petition together with this newslatter will be available for signing on the PHRAA website www.phraa.co.uk, but for those of you who do not have access to computers copies will be enclosed with this newsletter to PHRAA members. It is also vitally important that as many park home residents as possible are afforded the opportunity to participate, so could we please ask PHRAA members to tell their friends and neighbours on theirs and other parks in the area to request copies from head office free of charge or inform us of other parks in their area with if possible a number or address wher we could make contact. If you wish you can photocopy, and distribute forms if this is more convenient.
When completed the Petition will be presented by PHRAA to the Secretary of the All Working Group for the Welfare of Park Homeowners, Lord Graham of Edmonton at Westminster in early January 2008 with copies to Department of Communities and the relevant Government Minister, WE HAVE TO STRIKE WHILE THE IRON IS HOT. SIGN NOW!!!!!!!!!! PLEASE HELP PHRAA TO HELP YOU. PHRAA IS FIGHTING FOR YOU, BUT WE NEED YOUR HELP AND SUPPORT.
______________________________________________________________________________________RON
COMMISION RATE TO REMAIN AT 10%
If proof were ever needed of the way that the wishes of Park Homeowners are being dismissed the recent Government departments decision to retain the rate of commission, transfer fee (or whatever else it is called) payable by law to the park owner by the homeowner on the sale price of their home at 10%, is surely it. In spite of an overwhelming majority of homeowners, Residents Associations, (National and individual parks RA's) voting for a reduction from 10% to 7.5%. Months and months of everybodies time has been wasted in consultations on this subject alone. The results of these consultations were 162 in favour of keeping the 10% of which 141 were park owners. 834 in favour of a reduction to 7.5% 78 of which were Residents Associations whic alone jointly represented over 15,000 members. Only in the park home situation does a minority vote win precedence over the majority when the minority are park owners. Transfer this method of voting to a General Election and some small fringe party with the least votes would win. Whatever happened to DEMOCRACY.
RON
RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION????????
We are sure that PHRAA is not the only one of the National Resident's Associations receiving complaints from disillusioned Park Homeowners encountering problems from their park owner when trying to negotiate a path through the new Implied Term in the legislation, which states that they now have the right to have a Residents Association. Whilst appearing to give this right with one hand, in practice it has been taken away again or at best made extremely difficult by this same legislation to actually form or continue operating an already established, (prior to the legislation) R.A., especially when a park changes hands. WHY? Because in their wisdom the persons responsible for drawing up this legislation have, as usual in park home legislation, given the park owners the power through numerous clauses and loopholes with which to obstruct or as in many cases actively prevent Residents Associations operating on their parks.
The idea for creating a R.A. usually comes from a few like minded residents. Providing that these initial few resists the threats and intimidation directed at the so called ring leaders, which often follows once the park owner gets wind of what is being proposed and is determined to stamp out before it starts, a meeting of all interested residents will take place and Officers and Committee members will be democratically elected, a Constitution agreed and a Residents Association is born.
However difficult it may have been to set an R.A. up so far, that was in fact the easy bit. It is now that you come up against the conditiond imposed by the new legislation governing its operation. Before the park owner is required to recognise an R.A. the legislation requires that it has to conform to a strict criteria in order to become a "Qualifying Association". This means that at least 50% of homeowners have to be members at all times. It has to have a Constitution approved by the park owner and/or his "clever" solicitors, a list of members has to be provided to the park owner and to be available for his inspection at all times. But to cap it all the right to vote on issues which concern their lifestyle is strictly restricted to one vote per home by law. This means that wives, partners etc., are denied the right to have any say in their own destiny. Are they not residents also? Shouldn't they be entitled to their own opinions? Emily Pankhurst and her supporters went through hell fighting to achieve voting rights for women. We are sure that they will be turning in their graves knowing that this hard won victory has now been overturned in order to satisfy the aspirations of park owners. This is still a free country. Every citizen outside the park home industry has the right to express their opinion on matters, which concern them and their lifestyle including the right to form or belong to a Residents Association, union, political party or any other organisation they chose. But once you buy a park home all those rights have gone. You now come under teh archaic Mobile Homes Act 1983/2006 and the only law is that dictated by the park owner.
Residents are finding that when applying to the park owner for his formal recognition of their R.A. as per the new Implied Terms (law) the park owner is either not responding or by using the loopholes in the Act is deliberately creating obstructions ie: (a full stop is in the wrong place in the constitution or other equally ridiculous excuses for why the RA does not comply with the criteria set out in the Act). In this case the residents, if they have not given up by now, are left in the ludricrous position of having to apply to a court, involving much time and expense, just to obtain, what is actually their basic Human Right, to have an RA.
In PHRAA's opinion the restrictions on residents wishing to form an RA, imposed by the Act severly limit, (a) their right to form an RA, and (b) its ability to function as an effective RA. PHRAA maintains that residents have the basic Human Right to form a RA and recommend that if residents encounter opposition, obstruction or refusal to recognise it from thr park owner, they should go ahead and form it anyway. The park owner may not like it, and will at first, refuse point blank to acknowledge its existence, but stand firm and if you make it clear, in writing, to the park owner, that in future all business will only be carried out through the RA and individual residents refuse to accept ant communications except via the RA, the park owner will soon realise that he has no option, but to conform. One final word of caution to residents concerning the operation of their RA. Make sure that all decisions are taken only by democratic vote of all members, not just committee or individual members of. To act otherwise is to risk swapping one dictatorship for another which is certainaly in nobodies interests and renders the RA vulnerable to a legal attack. Ron.
HUMAN RIGHTS FOR PARK HOMEOWNERS?
PHRAA's stated manifesto is, strictly no involvement with politics. But like many other things in life that is not always possible. Disturbing issues recently have brought a new dimension unto the problems of life on a park home site. This, I regret to sy is the human rights law. Many people have so many views on its interpretation, but as I have said, certain issues have arisen on this subject which compel me to write a piece on this situation and how it affects us.
There are many clauses in the Mobile Homes Act which, we have been assured, offer us park homeowners protection on paper but not in practice. For example, one Implied Term(law) in the Act gives us the right to "Quiet Enjoyment of our Home" and the way we live. The Human Rights Act endorses this. But as all too many disillusioned park homeowners have found, once you have sold up your bricks and mortar and entered into the world of park home life, the Human Rights Act ceases to apply to you. For a start the Human Rights Act ARTICLE 8 states your "Right to respect for private and family life", ARTICLE 10 states your right of FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION " You have the right to hold opinions and express your views on your own or in a group" ARTICLE 11 FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY. This gives you the right to assemble with other people in a peaceful way and includes the right to form a Trade Union and Residents Association. ARTICLE 14 PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION You have the right not to be treated differently because of your race, religion, sex, political views or any other status. Note. Only one vote per home MHA???? ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY. You have the right to the peaceful enjoyment of your possessions. Note. A park home is a chattel therefore a possession. ARTICLE 3 OF PROTOCOL 1 RIGHT TO FREE ELECTION. Note..... No mention of only one vote per home.
So what exactly does all this mean to the park homeowner? In my humble opinion this Human Rights Act applies outside the site you chose to live on, but once you step on to the hallowed ground of your site owner, everything changes because as they say "its my land and I can do as I like". But there is the 1983 MH Act, which was ammended in 2006 with so little publicity that not many park homeowners know about it, which claims to give us more security of tenure and the right to sell our homes without interference from the park owner. Sorry but the reports coming through and the pending Court Cases tell avery different story. Yes, of course its the park owners land, but without the homeowners they may have the land, but they wouldn't have a business.
Let me try and explain a little of the Human Rights Act. Freedom of Association and the right to belong to an association. The criteria imposed by the MH Act governing the formation of a RA virtually denies this right to park homeowners, compounding this by stating that only the first name on the agreement (contract) is allowed a vote, which discriminates against wives or partners. What happened to "Prohibition of Discrimination" on the grounds of Sex, religion, and political views and status. Now status is a very good word used in this Act. Just what is the status of us park homeowners? According to the Official Classification by Government we are Caravan Dwellers living in Caravans on Caravan Sites and as such are excluded from the Housing Act and it seems the Human Rights Act also. Malcolm
WHO IS THE CRIMINAL????? WATCH OUT IT COULD BE YOU
!!!!!!!
Leading on from the above article on Human Rights, or rather lack of, for park homeowners, Article 10 "Freedom of Expression" states You have the right to hold opinions and express your views on your ownor in a group." But be very careful expressing your views and opinions on a park home site as it can lead you int deep trouble with the police as two residents on seperate parks found out recently. The most recent case occured whilst this newsletter was being compiled and concerns a PHRAA member who has endured years of continuous threats and harass ment from a park owner determined to get both him and his beautifully maintained home off the park to make way for his development plans. (Sounds familiar doesn't it). Obviously in view of the constant worry, uncertainty for the future is having a devastating effect on the health and wellbeing of the resident and particularly his wife, so it is hardly surprising if he should let off steam occasionally to his fellow residents who are in the same boat. (Don't we all?) However, on this occasion, following suffering another serious bout of intimidation from his park owner, the resident made his feelings known, regarding the park owners actions to a fellow resident, who it appears kindly relayed his comments straight back to the park owner. A short time later the resident was horrified to receive a visit from the Police who promptly arrested him and carted him off to the Local Police Station where he was finger printed, photographed and a DNA sample taken. It appears that the park owner had reported him to the police alleging that the resident possessed a sawn off shotgun and was planning to shoot the park owner. Having endured several hours of intensive interrogation in the presence of a duty solicitor, which satisfied the investigating officers that the obviously distressed resident, a disabled pensioner, was totally innocent, he was finally released without charge. There are two lessons to be learned from this incident. One, mind what you say and who you say it to. Two, note how quickly the police responded when a park owner makes a complaint against a resident, then ask yourself if the resident being threatened would get the same reponse to his complaint against the park owner. Experience proves, not likely. So much for our Human Rights. RON
WATCH OUT FOR THE " COWBOYS"
PHRAA is currently investigating a case where two elderly residents paid out over £1700 each to a refurbishing company before work was completed. To avoid this happening to you, only employ firms by personal recommendation or those who are members of the GUILD OF PARK HOME SERVICES. Tel: 0800 781 3462 Ron
WHY SHOULD I SUFFER.
That simple question was on one side of a card, part of an information pack available at a function I attended recently. On the reverse it simply stated: "Tell us about hate crime..... call anonymously.." It was issued by Crimestoppers, and it set me thinking. Many of you suffer a form of hate crime too.
We're constantly being informed of cases where unscrupulous landowners in essence, "hate" certain residentswho, for example, just lawfully adhere to their right to occupy an older home, so preventing the governing Baron from greedily redeveloping that pitch. This links with current media reporting of certain crime figures, particularly highlighting comments from church leaders. head teachers, and those involved in trying to deal with whoever is causing anti social behavior, without thought for the victims they select.
To clarify such behaviour, does this description fit someone affecting your life on the park? "A person afflicted with a personality disorder characterised by a tendency to commit antisocial, and sometimes violent acts, and a failure to feel guilt for such acts" That being the dictionary definition of a psychopath! We would be interested to know whether your call to Crimestoppers on 0800 556 111 referring to this fact, has any positive effect on achieving justice. Colin
|
