THE FOLLOWING PAPER IS PRODUCED BY THE PARK HOME RESIDENTS ACTION ALLIANCE (PHRAA) AS OUR RESPONSE TO THE RECENTLY PUBLISHED FACT SHEET ON PARK HOMES LAW REFORM, ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER.

Before commencing we feel that it is well worth emphasising to our members and all other park home owners who may not be aware of the existence of PHRAA that PHRAA is THE ONLY VOLUNTARY NATIONAL ORGANISATION that works “EXCLUSIVELY” for PARK HOME OWNERS. Unlike others PHRAA does not offer help and advice to PARK OWNERS as well. Park Owners, especially the “UNSCRUPULOUS” variety have access to unlimited funds, adequate assistance from their own POWERFUL Trade Organisations, access to the best Solicitors and Barristers in the country, including the top Advisory Companies, all ready, willing and certainly well able to look after the best interests of their Clients, the Park Owners. Park Home Owners are very unlikely to even obtain LEGAL AID in their efforts to obtain JUSTICE. In addition, the Park Owners, through their Trade Organisations have the constant ear of Government, are automatically consulted on and given prior warning of any changes likely to affect the park home industry. To illustrate this point we have reproduced the following extract from the largest of the Trade Organisations, BH&HPA, “PRINCIPAL ACTIVITIES” as lodged with COMPANIES HOUSE. Main points have been highlighted in block letters.

“ The Association is the nationally recognised body of the Park homes Industry. BH&HPA IS AUTOMATICALLY CONSULTED BY GOVERNMENT ON ALL CHANGES TO LEGISLATION AFFECTING PARK BUSINESS and works proactively to bring about beneficial change.
The burden of Legislation and its impact on the industry remains the central issue of the association lobby on behalf of members. WHERE IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO AVOID THE INTRODUCTION OF REGULATION, BH&HPA ENDEAVORS TO ENSURE THAT IT IS PRACTICAL IN ITS APPLICATION AND THAT ITS ENFORCEMENT IS WITH THE LIGHTEST POSSIBLE TOUCH and that guidance is easy to understand.
Since THE BH&HPA IS THERE, INFLUENCING THE FORMATION OF NEW LAW, the association is well placed to advise their members on how to go about complying with any new legal obligations.
The provision of advice and information is core to BH&HPA’s work and OFTEN THE ASSOCIATION ISSUES GUIDANCE AND ADVICE LONG BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES GIVING MEMBERS VITAL TIME FOR PLANNING AND PREPARATION.
THE ASSOCIATION MAINTAINS SUFFICIENT RESERVES (£1,288,505) 2002 TO PERMIT AN EFFECTIVE RESPONSE TO ANY THREAT TO THE INDUSTRY and to ensure recourses are available should restructuring become necessary through any sudden loss of income”.

As can clearly be seen from the above extracts, park home residents who only have a limited income and usually cannot get Legal Aid certainly do not enjoy a level playing field when attempting to obtain justice.

When PHRAA attended the first meetings, held at the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister as one of the national park home residents associations, we felt that at long last the government were going to take positive action by bringing in new, and enforceable law to protect us, the park home owners from the ever growing abuse and exploitation we continue to suffer at the hands of the “UNSCRUPULOUS PARK OWNERS”. However as the meetings progressed it became obvious to PHRAA that this may not be the final outcome where improvements to the rights of long suffering park home owners are concerned. The whole exercise appears, in our view, to have been turned into a promotional campaign for the park home industry, with the majority of any changes in park home law being to the benefit of park owners, with maybe one or two minor concessions given to the residents which will not be detrimental or in any way burdensome to the park owners and which unscrupulous park owners will totally ignore just as they ignore the present Mobile Homes Act. As most of the park home owners reading this will know only to well, unscrupulous park owners regard themselves as above the law. Does the Government seriously believe that they are going to take any notice of any new laws, when the only way an elderly, vulnerable and distressed resident can seek redress against an injustice perpetrated against him by the park owner is through the courts, that is of course if the resident can cope with the stress and has access to the thousands of pounds needed to take Court Action .

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM)
Factsheet : Park Homes.

For the purposes of this report, the new changes will be covered in the order they appear in this factsheet starting with those which became law on the 18th January 2005. The wording of the Factsheet is reproduced in Italics, with PHRAA’s comments below.

Where a park home is to be sold by the park owner, they must give a Written Statement (contract) to a prospective homeowner 28 days before the sale.
The Act requires a Written Statement of terms to be given to a prospective homeowner 28 days before the agreement for the sale of the park home is made. The parties can agree a shorter period than 28 days if the prospective homeowner indicates their consent in writing to the time-scale. This measure ensures prospective homeowners are aware of the terms of agreement before purchasing a park home.

The fact that this, what should have been a fundamental right, has to be inserted as a new regulation into park home law, has to be a classic example of how the laws governing park homes have been deliberately written to favour the park owner to the detriment of the homeowner. Where else within any industry would you invest thousands of pounds buying a product, especially one which is to become your home, for probably the rest of your days, without first obtaining prior knowledge of, or being afforded ample time to examine carefully, exactly what were the terms of the contract you were entering into.

Prior to January 18th 2005 the site owner was only required to issue the homeowner his contract up to three months after the homeowner had taken up residence on the park. It was then, and only then, that the homeowner became aware of the rules and regulations governing their occupation of the home he, and any future owner of the home, are obliged to conform to. Receiving the contract 3 months after taking up residence meant that if they did not agree with the terms of that contract, it really was too late to do much about it and were trapped. Unlike any other chattel such as a car or TV, yes chattel, park homes are not classed as housing but as chattel, when found to be unsatisfactory following purchase, the park home cannot be returned to the seller, (park owner ) and a full refund obtained.

This new provision will only be really meaningful if it is clearly written into this clause that, (a) The Written Agreement (Contract) you are given, prior to sale, is the actual agreement you will be entering into, and not just a sample copy. This would prevent the purchaser being later presented with the real thing, which may contain further hitherto unmentioned clauses added. (b)…. It is clearly stated that you are to be given this agreement before you pay any monies to the park owner in the way of a deposit on the home. (Deposits are usually non-returnable so if you pay a deposit before you have examined the agreement and decide not to proceed with the purchase, you will lose several thousand pounds) (c)… The Agreement is accompanied by a detailed breakdown of what is included in the final purchase price of the home. For example, Siting of the home, erection of the brick skirt round the base, the provision of car parking space and storage shed, the landscaping of the pitch and a plan of the pitch area.
It is noted that none of the above provisions are included in this new regulation, which has already become law, leaving it wide open to abuse by unscrupulous park owners and will have little or no effect as regards to preventing the present widespread malpractice, in its present form. Neither is any provision provided to ensure that the Written Agreement (Contract) is signed by both parties, and the signatures witnessed as in normal contracts.

Where a homeowner sells his home, the park owner must not unreasonably withhold approval of a prospective homeowner.
If a homeowner wishes to sell their home and assign their agreement, they must give notice in writing of the prospective homeowner to the park owner. When this has been served, the Act requires the park owner to respond in writing, giving or withholding approval of the prospective homeowner within 28 days. If the approval is withheld, the reasons must be given in writing.

If the site owner does not issue a decision in writing within 28 days, or withholds approval unreasonably, then the homeowner can apply to the court and seek damages for breach of contract. The homeowner can also seek an order from the court declaring that the prospective homeowner is approved.

The fact that the site owner has to respond in writing when a request for approval of a prospective buyer is sought is certainly a step forward, but unfortunately as far as the park home resident wishing to sell their home is concerned, this added clause will make

very little difference in practice, as it does absolutely nothing to prevent the widespread practice used by unscrupulous park owners of “Blocking Residents Selling their Homes” so that they can acquire the home for themselves for a pittance, in order to replace that home with a brand new one on which they make a fantastic profit thereby depriving the homeowner of the many thousands of pounds true value of the home, leaving them destitute at the most vulnerable time of their lives.

There are many dubious ways currently in use by unscrupulous park owners to prevent the homeowner from selling their home, none of which will be in writing or affected in the slightest by the new laws in their present form. A few examples are listed below….
1…. Telling homeowners that before they can sell they have to have a full survey carried out on their home by a surveyor engaged by the site owner.
2….Telling prospective buyers that, “I wouldn’t buy it because” the home has to come off the park or be moved to another pitch, has to have a new roof, windows, new walls etc etc.
3….Telling homeowners that they can only sell it to the site owner or the site owner has to be given first refusal.
4….The prospective buyers are not married so they are not suitable to come on the park.
5….Asking prospective buyers very personal questions designed to put them off.
6….Impose a number of outrageous restrictions and conditions which the site owner will state that the prospective buyer will have to comply with should they purchase the home.
7….If all the above and many more methods, far too numerous to mention here, used to put prospective buyers off buying the home, fail, then the site owner will resort to threats, intimidation and abuse, guaranteed to make the prospective buyer run a mile.
The above listed illegal methods, widely used by the unscrupulous park owner are usually conducted by means of a telephone call to the prospective buyer, having obtained the telephone number or address from the details concerning the prospective purchaser you are obliged to supply to the site owner when requesting his approval.

This situation could go on for months, frequently years, with the obvious intention that the seller will become so desperate at not being able to sell, that they will eventually be left with no option to sell or give their home to the site owner for a pittance, especially if they have already moved out into perhaps sheltered housing and still have to continue paying pitch fees and all other charges for a home they cannot sell. Does the government seriously expect that unscrupulous park owners will suddenly change their ways overnight and comply with any new laws that may benefit homeowners? PHRAA knows that the government is living in cloud cuckoo land if they believe that.

One has to question why the site owner has to be given the right to approve the buyer of your home? If a prospective buyer fulfills the possible age criteria (over 50’s for example) and perhaps no pets, then they should be allowed to purchase the home without any interference from the site owner. There is already ample provision in the Written Agreement (contract) entered into on purchase, whereby an occupier who proves to be unsuitable can have their agreement terminated, so should that occupier fail to pay the pitch fees and other charges levied by the site owner, or prove to be disruptive for any reason, the site owner can apply to the court to have that occupiers agreement terminated.

For this reason the residents right to sell should be made absolute. There should also be a provision inserted into the agreement, whereby the site owner is bound by his own criteria to the effect that if the site rules state that the park is only for residents over 50 years of age for example which residents have to comply with when selling, then the site owner also should be bound by this rule when selling his own new homes. The same applies to the no pets rule or any other rules enforced by the site owner against residents. In short, if the site owner imposes conditions on his residents, he should also be bound by these same conditions.

One further condition should be inserted into this section which is, if the site owner has the right to vet a prospective buyer of a residents home, then equally the residents should be given the right to vet any prospective buyer of the park, before the park is sold.

Finally, it cannot help be noticed that this new law, concerning the residents right to sell procedure, relies entirely on the fact that residents wishing to sell their homes, who believe that the site owner has unreasonably withheld his approval to their prospective buyer, has to take the site owner to court in order to effect the sale. This is a totally impractical solution for several very valid reasons.

1….Has the resident got at their disposal the many thousands of pounds necessary to take such Court Action against their site owner, because they are very unlikely to be able to obtain Legal Aid.
2….Bearing in mind that the majority of park homeowners are elderly, many in their eighties and nineties and not in the best of health. Does the government seriously expect them to be in a fit state to instigate Court Proceedings, which could drag on for months or even years, in order to be awarded the right to sell their home to a prospective buyer, and also do the government seriously expect that same prospective buyer to wait until the Court grants them the permission to buy the home, knowing that by the fact that homeowner has had to take such action in order to sell their home, that the same fate could await them at a later date, should they still decide to buy.?
3…Are prospective buyers going to be prepared to have their private life dragged through the courts in order to prove to an unscrupulous park owner that they are suitable people to take up residence in that park home on his park?.
4…In the event that the prospective buyer should for any of the reasons outlined above, decide to withdraw from the sale, the resident would have to go through the whole unpleasant procedure again, perhaps many times. If that resident is not bankrupt after the first attempt, they will be soon.

The “age” of a home as a criterion for ending an agreement is no longer relevant.
The “age” of a home is no longer a relevant criterion for ending an agreement. Previously, under the Mobile Homes Act 1983, the Court could terminate an agreement on the grounds of the “age and condition” of the home.
This provision enables Courts to consider the condition of the home and allow time for appropriate repairs if reasonably practical, and if the homeowner indicates that they intend that they intend to carry out the repairs.

Although at first glance this amendment appears to be a significant move forward, closer examination reveals potential problems for owners of older park homes (over 10 years as stated by an official of one of the trade organisations in a recent article in the Park & Holiday Home magazine.)
1….There is no mention of what is exactly meant by “condition” which could cover a wide definition ranging from falling down to minor blemishes to the exterior paint work on the walls of the park home. It could also mean that the home has the flat roof commonly used on all park homes in earlier designs, making it slightly different in appearance to the more recent designs, which have pitched roofs. Many homes still have the original wooden windows and doors, does this mean they are in poor condition?
2…It is noted that this new regulation gives the park owner the right to apply to the Court for immediate termination of the homeowners agreement, immediately HE DECIDES that IN HIS OPINION the park home has become detrimental to the park and he wishes it removed. The new regulation does state that the Court has the power to allow the homeowner time to carry out remedial work. This of course presumes that the homeowner concerned has (a), the necessary substantial funds available to be in the position to defend the Action for termination against him by the site owner, and (b) is, due to age, mentally and physically fit and able to stand the stress such an action brought against them would have, and (c), stand up to an unscrupulous site owner continually subjecting them to intimidation and threatening them with Court Action as usually happens.

There is also no mention of the fact that written into many agreements is a clause stating that if the homeowner wishes to carry out any work on their home, they first have to obtain the permission of the site owner. Many site owners especially the unscrupulous variety will actively prevent the homeowner from carrying out any repairs, even repainting, therefore causing the home to fall into disrepair. This law will not stop that, unless the homeowner takes Court Action. It’s a viscous circle, with no way out for the helpless homeowner.

The protection of park homeowners from unlawful eviction and harassment is on a level with that for tenants of houses.
We have increased the protection of homeowners against harassment and illegal eviction by amending the Caravan Sites Act 1968. A brand new offence has been introduced which does not require “intent” with regard to the harassing actions – it is sufficient if the park owner or agent knows (or has reasonable cause to believe) that his conduct is likely to result in a homeowner leaving their home.

Park Home owners are not tenants, they own their own homes.

Unless the Local Council who are responsible for issuing and enforcing Site Licence Conditions are placed under a strict duty to take action under the Caravan Sites Act 1968 this will make no difference whatsoever. The Local Councils have the power at present to take action for harassment, but if approached for help by a resident suffering harassment from his site owner, they usually state that there is nothing they can do “it’s a civil matter” you will have to take the site owner to Court. This same excuse is often used by

the Police. The next thing to happen is that the helpless resident, having failed to obtain any help from authority, finds he is now ostracised by his fellow residents, who are too terrified to support him in case the site owner turns on them, is branded a trouble maker and subjected to even more intimidating behaviour by the site owner until he cannot stand the pressure anymore and either sells or abandons his home to the site owner.

The power for the Secretary of State to change terms implied in the Mobile Homes Act 1983.
The implied terms are contractual terms which are implied by law into the agreement between a homeowner and park owner. They permit the homeowner to station a mobile home on the park and occupy it as their main residence.

The act created a power that enables the government to add additional terms to be implied into the agreement and repeal and vary those in the Mobile Homes Act 1983.

Because existing agreements are of infinite duration, the first use of the power under the Act can amend the statutory implied terms in existing agreements. Future exercises of this power will not be retrospective.

The first use of this power has not yet taken place. The legislation that will amend the statutory implied terms needs to be debated in both Houses of Parliament. Subject to any changes as a result of those debates we hope to bring the following into force by April 2006.

The agreement continues for replacement homes.
This will clarify that the provisions of the agreement continue to apply if a home is replaced.

The key issue to remember here is that the occupier rents only the pitch from the site owner, the home is the property of the occupier, therefore in theory, the occupier should be free to change, at his own expense, the home stationed on that pitch. In practice however, the site owner will not permit this unless he is given the right to supply and site the new home himself and pocket an enormous profit.

This means that in the unlikely event that the site owner will permit the homeowner to remove his present home, and replace it with another of his choice on the same pitch, the site owner will not be able to take this opportunity to issue the homeowner with a new agreement.

The agreement can be terminated for fewer reasons.
This will mean that the agreement can be terminated under the ‘only or main residence’ clause, only if the Court is satisfied that it is reasonable for the agreement to be terminated. This change will enable the Court to examine the reasons for the absence and introduce a degree of flexibility.

In theory this should mean, that if the homeowner has a prolonged stay in hospital, or has, through changed circumstances, been obliged to enter sheltered housing, and/or perhaps has put his home on the market having obtained other accommodation, and been prevented from selling by the unscrupulous park owner, using some the methods outlined earlier in this report, (selling your home) leaving his park home unoccupied for a long period, the site owner has to satisfy the Court, that the home is no longer the homeowners main residence, in order to be granted leave to terminate the homeowners agreement. Again the onus is placed on the homeowners to defend themselves against the site owners action for termination that is if the homeowner is in the position financially, physically and mentally to be able to defend such an action, which he very rarely is.

Removes the 5 year “relevant period” rule.
This will provide that the Courts can only consider whether the current condition of the home is detrimental to the park in termination proceedings. It also allows time for appropriate repairs to be undertaken if practicable, and if the homeowner indicates that they intend to carry out repairs.

This clause, if adopted, will stop the widespread practice, currently used by many unscrupulous park owners, whereby they write a letter to the homeowner stating that in the park owners opinion, in 5 years time, the condition of their home will be detrimental to the park and that he, the park owner, will be applying to the court for termination of their agreement on those grounds. Receipt of such a letter effectively stops any hopes the homeowner has of selling his home, except to the site owner. It does however mean that the site owner could apply to the court for the termination of the agreement ‘forthwith” instead of having to give 5 years warning. Again this clause can only be of benefit to the homeowner if the means are available to defend such an action. (More on this in selling your home covered earlier in this report).

The re-siting of a park home.
This will change the circumstances in which an owner can require a home to be stationed on another pitch and specifies the terms on which this can be done. The provision balances the owners right to re-site the home so that he can redevelop the site, or carry out essential repairs / emergency works with the home owners right to peaceably enjoy the home.

The wording of this proposal does not bode well for the park homeowner, and certainly implies that if adopted as planned by the government, that the park owners will be handed the absolute right to move the homes on their parks to other pitches at any time they find that by doing so they can gain the extra few feet needed to cram on more homes, especially if the proposed revision of the ‘Model Standards’ accompanying this park home reform result in a reduction of the 6 metre separation distance currently specified between homes, which is favoured by site owners.

At present many agreements state that the park owner can only move the home for essential works. Redevelopment of the park in order to cram in more homes would not qualify as essential works. Should the right to move homes be inserted into the implied

terms of agreements it will be used by park owners, especially the unscrupulous, as an opportunity to remove older homes and their occupants from the site simply by making sure that homes suffer “IRREPAIRABLE ACCIDENTAL DAMAGE” whilst being moved around the site with a JCB, the favourite tool of the unscrupulous park owner rendering the distraught homeowner homeless. But if the quote from a submission by an award winning site owner to the ODPM, obtained by PHRAA under the Freedom of Information Act which states that he wants included the definition of ‘essential / emergency works’ to include….”AS YET UNFORESEEN SITUATIONS”, were to be included then homes will be moved at will.

Imagine the scene, a typical park owner being in their eighties who have lived happily in their beautifully maintained park home for many years is suddenly confronted by the park owner who has just purchased the park. He tells them he is going to redevelop the park and is going to move their home in the next few days to another plot as it is in his way, and they will have to pack up all their belongings and move out while he does it. Devastated by this news the elderly resident pleads with him not to move them, only to be told, “you have no choice, if you don’t like it, tough, you can get off the park, its my land and I’ll do as I like”. The resident then faces the trauma of having to pack up all their treasured belongings, put them into store and find temporary accommodation. The situation is made even more traumatic for the resident by the site owner constantly harassing them to hurry up and get out as they are holding up his redevelopment work. As the resident is leaving the park with the last of their belongings, the site owner immediately sets about smashing up everything round the home that is in his way and proceeds with the aid of his JCB, to drag the home off its concrete base and across the park. The fact that the tyres are flat and the chassis of the home is dragging on the floor causing major damage will not bother him in the slightest. The site owner will then inform the resident that the home has suffered “ACCIDENTAL TERMINAL DAMAGE” during the move and is now scrap, going on to say, “I’ll give you a couple of hundred pounds compensation”. If the trauma of having to move hasn’t caused the death of the unfortunate resident, the news that their home is gone forever, certainly will. Of course, as stated throughout this Government Fact Sheet, the resident, providing they have survived, can take the site owner to Court and claim compensation for the loss of their home, providing they have the funds, (the £200 pounds compensation they received would just about pay a solicitors fee for about one hours work), and are still fit enough to stand the stress. It would also be interesting to know whether the Insurance Cover on the home would pay out for the loss in these circumstances. No doubt that will open another can of worms.

This is a very dangerous clause and if it should be in site owners favour then park homes sites will become like chess boards with the park homes being used as the pieces, to be moved round at will by the park owners, and homeowners being the helpless pawns in the game. The homeowner will probably be given the right to peaceably enjoy the home in between moves. The term mobile home will be apt as occupiers will need to ensure that the tyres are kept blown up at all times, and the axles greased, in fact this requirement will probably be inserted in the Written Agreements in future with the termination of agreements as a penalty for failure to comply. To illustrate this point the following is a

quote from a well known award winning site owner contained within his submission to the ODPM on Park Home Law Reform. Wants…” a mechanism to permit park owners to move homes in order to redevelop”.

The pitch fee and review.
This will outline the provisions for reviewing and determining the new pitch fee, which are intended to make this process transparent, clarify what the pitch fee covers and ensure that a fair balance is struck between the interests of the home and park owners.
The intentions of this clause appear on face value to be an improvement on the present system, as this is part of the revision of the Implied Terms, but because the government has insisted that the contents are to be kept confidential, a fact that PHRAA does not agree with as we feel that all park homeowners should be kept fully informed and be given the opportunity to contribute their views to, we are unable to comment further on this matter. PHRAA is however concerned that any revision of this review process does not afford site owners more scope to increase pitch fees, with less opportunity being given to homeowners to challenge increases, than at present. Should this happen then there is a very real danger that pitch fees charged will soon resemble the size of Mortgage repayments in a very short time. To give a couple of examples, here are three quotes submitted to the ODPM by a well known award winning park owner, obtained by PHRAA under the Freedom of Information Act. (1)…”the RPI should be the starting point for pitch fee reviews”. (2)….Wants a new implied term, “to allow for an increase in pitch fee where it can be shown the current fee has fallen behind market values”…..(3)….Suggests that…”may be worth considering that, should the base rate rise above, say 5%, the rate of return should be raised pro rata”.

Residents Associations.
This will outline the criteria that a Residents Association must meet if it is to be recognised as a qualifying Residents association with rights to consultation.

This is a subject that PHRAA has very strong views on and has consistently and forcefully voiced these views at every opportunity during these consultations.
First it has to be said that park owners, especially the unscrupulous variety, do not want the residents of their parks to form a Residents Association. Residents that are united by having a residents association on their parks strikes fear into the hearts of the unscrupulous park owner. A strong residents association has strength and puts an end to the “divide and rule” whereby site owners pick off the most vulnerable residents one by one in order to enforce their absolute domination of the residents on the park. One only has to quote from a submission containing his proposals concerning Park Home law Reform to the ODPM on Residents Associations, by a well known award winning park owner, obtained by PHRAA under the Freedom of Information Act, which states that “ Most Residents Associations are set up after a handful of disgruntled residents have a disagreement with the park owner, after invariably having broken the park rules, and become aggrieved when they are unable to get their own way”….. “I have found that generally Residents associations are not formed for the benefit of residents, but are in fact a personal tool for a chosen few who take control by taking on the role of committee members, and use it as a weapon to attack the park owner.” This very same park owner,

who has on his own admission been heavily involved in formulating this new legislation, along with his big friend an MP, who was also until recently the Chairman of the All Party Working Group on Park Home Reform, also states that in his view Residents of a park should only be allowed to have a Residents Association if over 60% of the residents are members. In the real world, where we the park home residents live, especially under the regime imposed by the unscrupulous park owner, forming a Residents Association in itself, is an achievement, faced with a site owner stomping round the park threatening dire consequences for every resident that dares to join, let alone starting out with a minimum membership of 60%. Every street, block of flats, or any community of residents have the right to form a residents association, why is it then that park home owners are the only members of society who are required to obtain permission and conform to a set criteria dictated by a park owner in order to set up an association, which is after all a basic Human Right? Not only is the 60% rule imposed, but they also want it to be made a condition that, only one vote per household is allowed, thus discriminating against the wives or partners, (as it is very often the male who signs the agreement), by denying them the right to vote on vital issues affecting their lives. The government appear to condone the park owners stance on one home one vote. Have park owners managed to turn the clock back a hundred years and taken away the park home Residents democratic rights?

Residents Associations very often start with just a few likeminded members and slowly build in strength over a period of time. There must be a clause inserted into the implied terms of all agreements past, present and future, clearly stating that the residents of a park have the right to form or join a Residents Association, regardless of numbers involved. To reiterate, to form an association is a basic Human Right. Article 10, Freedom of Expression, Article 11, Freedom of Association and Assembly, Article 8, right to respect for private and family life, Article 14, Prohibition of Discrimination and Protocol 1, Article 1, Protection of Property. PHRAA believes that many of these government reforms in their present form will effectively deprive park homeowners of the above Human Rights.

Park Homeowners pay vastly inflated prices for park homes, very often on a par with conventional housing. They also pay high fees (Pitch Fees) which rise every year, for the right to station their home on a very small patch of land which, without the park homes stationed on it would probably be worthless, owned by the park owner. On top of this many park homeowners have to pay for the services, (electricity, water, gas, sewage etc) to the site owner, who very often adds inflated charges to provide those services. Council Tax is also payable on Park Homes as with conventional housing. Then there is the fact that if you sell your home, you are obliged by law to pay the site owner up to 10% of the price you receive for the home. Yet park homeowners are denied the right to form a Residents Association or have the right to be consulted on matters that can have a direct affect on their lives unless 60% of the elderly and vulnerable residents, many of whom are so terrified of the unscrupulous park owner that they are afraid to join, are members.

Additional rights and responsibilities.

1…Homeowners right to peaceably enjoy their pitch will be added.
Most unscrupulous park owners claim that the homeowner has no rights to the pitch, only the concrete base the home actually stands on, so perhaps this addition to the law will give the homeowner the right to peaceably enjoy the 2 inches of concrete which protrudes from the brick skirt around the base of the home. We know of one multiple park owner who is already inserting a new clause into his agreements, stating that if the pitch presently enjoyed by the homeowner exceeds the minimum 3 metres all round the home then, whilst the homeowner is obliged to maintain the whole of his pitch, the site owner retains the right to reclaim the extra at any time he feels fit. This clause is obviously being inserted to circumvent any rights to the pitch under new legislation.

2….Park owners right of entry to the pitch will be clarified.
Dangerous one this. Keep an eye on the site notice board as some site owners are inserting new park rules in an effort to circumvent any future restrictions on their access rights. How does the resident stop the site owner from entering their pitch whenever he feels like it, take him to court perhaps?

3…Homeowners obligations to pay reasonable charges and maintain the park home and pitch will be explained.
As 2 above, as some park owners are already inserting new park rules that require the resident to obtain the park owners permission in writing, before any form of work, including improvement grant work, (extra insulation, new roof, windows etc.) can be carried out on the home. If permission is not granted, court action is required.

4…Park owners obligations to consult, show transparency, give their addresses and maintain communal areas of the park will be outlined.
Will it be only residents who are lucky enough to have a residents association with over a 60% membership that are eligible to be consulted and be shown transparency. As for the park maintenance and names and addresses, this should be done anyway.

Park home site licensing.
Recommendations….

1….A duty on Local Authorities to attach and monitor conditions to Site Licenses.
Agreed. The government should also ensure or allocate sufficient funds to the Local Authorities to cover the cost of administering this requirement, together with the duty to strictly enforce breaches of Site Licence.

2…Larger fines for breaches of Site Licence Conditions.
Agreed, Providing the Local Authorities are placed under a duty to take enforcement action including the duty to carry out, or engage an outside contractor to do all the work needed on the site in order that it conforms to the Site Licence Conditions as specified. Costs of this work to also include administration charges will be met by the site owner.

3…Wide ranging and more detailed guidance for Local Authorities.
Issuing guidance only is of no use, as this will enable Local Authorities to ignore this guidance if they chose to do so, or do not have the recourses, Local Authorities should be placed under a duty to take enforcement action, and also have the power and duty to revoke the site owners Licence to operate the site in the absence of compliance by the site owner within the time scale set by the Authorities. This to include the power to appoint a manager independent of the site owner, to take over the running of the site, including collecting pitch fees, which will be paid for by the site owner. The income from the pitch fees would be used to defray the costs of appointing a manager incurred by the Local Authority.

Mention is also made in this section that the government is investigating possible ARBITRATION SCHEMES as an alternative to Court Action.

Arbitration means that the two sides involved pay a sum of £500 each and an arbitrator is appointed to consider both sides of the dispute and reach a decision, which is binding, with no appeal. There are several reasons why PHRAA firmly believes that this is not a viable proposition.
(1)….How are park homeowners going to get a park owner who will not speak, except to give them verbal abuse, let alone discuss anything with them, to agree to sit round a table to arbitrate.?
(2)…Who is going to be appointed as the Arbitrator ?
(3)….How are park homeowners to be sure that the Arbitrator is truly independent of the park home industry?
(4)….Will the appointed Arbitrator have the necessary knowledge of the complex park home law to be in a position to reach a fair and unbiased decision?
(5)…What happens if the site owner refuses to abide by a decision that goes against him?
(6)…. Residents will still have to resort to Court Action should the site owner refuse to abide by any Arbitration decision, which goes against him.
(7)….Unscrupulous Park Owners show a total disregard for the law now, does the Government seriously expect that they will take any notice of an arbitrator’s decision?

Caravan Definition.
Additionally, we issued a consultation paper in August 2005, which examines changes to the maximum dimensions of a caravan.

The reason that the definition of a caravan is being revised is due to grants being made available to park homeowners by government to help make existing usually older park homes more energy efficient, by installing insulated cladding to the exterior walls of the home. Also available under the shceme are new roofs, double glazed windows, doors, modern energy efficient boilers and central heating systems, etc.etc. The addition of insulated cladding boards to the exterior side of the walls of the park home, results in the overall dimensions of the home being increased by a few inches, which would mean that the overall dimensions of the home would exceed by approximately 6 inches, the maximum dimensions allowed for the home to remain classed as a mobile home under the law, currently in force. Park owners and their trade associations seized on this stating that existing homes fitted with this cladding would, because they would exceed the maximum dimensions of 20 feet in width and 60 feet in length, no longer conform to the mobile home regulations. It was also stated that existing homes fitted with this cladding, because of the additional overall dimensions, would now contravene the minimum separation distance of 6 metres between homes, specified by the Site Licence Conditions.

PHRAA has evidence that unscrupulous park owners are totally against the existing homes on their sites being upgraded and modernised in this way, and will refuse the homeowner permission to have the work carried out, because once the improvements have been done to the home, it removes any chance the site owner had previously of attempting to terminate the agreement on the grounds of the condition of the home. To illustrate this point, because of the trouble experienced by the Powys Authorities recently whilst carrying out this upgrading of homes on a site in Mid Wales where the site owner tried to prevent “Care and Repair” appointed contractors from carrying out the work, using abuse and threats. However the workmen stood firm and in this instance, the work was completed. Following this one of the residents concerned wished to sell, but was informed by the site owner that before they could sell, the recently installed cladding was to be removed from the home.

Residents of this same site have just received further Application Forms from the Powys Authorities offering grants for further homes on the site to be upgraded and made energy efficient. Attached to these forms is a short note, advising claimants that before the work can be undertaken, they must obtain the full permission, in writing, from the site owner. In view of the site owners attempts to prevent the work being carried out on the previous occasions, it is obvious that these residents are going to be denied, unlike residents of conventional housing, the opportunity to improve the energy efficiency of their park homes, and in most cases the resultant improvement to the overall appearance and condition of the home.

PHRAA would remind homeowners, that under the terms of their agreements they have a duty to keep their home in good repair, as failure to do so, may result in the site owner applying to the court for termination of their agreement on the grounds that the condition of the home has become detrimental to the site. How can the homeowner improve their home when the site owner actively prevents them from carrying out the improvement work.? Site owners and their trade organisations have it both ways.

“This work will help to reinforce the progress that has been made in the Housing Act 2004. We expect these work streams to have a significant impact on the ground and help to prevent the worst abuses by a MINORITY of park owners. Also, this work will help to ensure that park homes add to the diversity in housing choice.”

It is obvious to all park home owners, who unfortunately have to live and suffer in the real world of park home life, that from the comments made in the above final paragraph of this Fact Sheet, that the Government have only been listening to, believing and acting on, the propaganda produced by the mighty park owners and their powerful trade organisations. A Government who, in spite of the masses of evidence to the contrary, continue to insist that it is only a MINORITY of park owners who are unscrupulous. Does the Government seriously believe that the unscrupulous park owner, who totally ignores and ridicules the law now, will suddenly overnight change his ruthless behaviour towards his mainly elderly and vulnerable residents, whatever new regulations are brought into force?

The effectiveness of park home law, new or existing, as stated throughout this Fact Sheet, depends entirely on the fact that the only way for the resident to obtain justice is to take the site owner to court, which, for reasons already explained earlier in this report is that unless any of the affected residents have thousands of pounds to spare or are lucky enough to obtain Legal Aid, taking Court Action is impossible, and the unscrupulous park owner knows this. Also it must be remembered that the site owner has the crucial advantage of having access to the best lawyers, barristers and specialist advisory firms, all of whom have vast experience of manipulating park home law in favour of their clients, together with unlimited funds and the full backing of site owners powerful trade organisations. Does the Government seriously expect the little old lady who because she can no longer manage for herself, has to go into sheltered housing and is prevented from selling her home by the site owner, to be in a position to take court action against the site owner? The same would apply to the majority of the mainly elderly residents of park homes and site owners and the Government know it. Why should the Government insist that park home residents have to face the trauma of having to take court action, just to obtain the basic Human Right enjoyed by every other part of the housing sector, including Gypsies and Travelers, but denied to park home owners, that of peace and quiet, and Article 8, Right to Respect for Private and family Life, which includes their homes, when they know it will not work in practice.

PHRAA firmly believes that there should be a Government Body similar to OFGEM, OFWAT or OFTEL but with powers to take instant and positive action, together with the power to impose severe penalties against site owners found to be abusing park home law. This to include payment of compensation for distress caused.
This Government Body should be set up and operated totally independent of the park home industry and made easily accessible to park homeowners, free of charge, to seek justice. If this were not possible, Local Authorities could be placed under a duty to operate such a scheme.

It could well be argued, that the treatment received by park home owners at the hands of unscrupulous park owners also breaches Article 3, of the Human Rights Act, which clearly states “that no one should be tortured and also forbids punishing or treating people in a way which is inhuman or degrading”. It also goes on to mention “Humiliation” The constant abuse, bullying, harassment, threats and intimidation suffered by the mainly elderly park homeowners in such circumstances, certainly amounts to torture especially

when the victim (homeowner) is in their eighties or nineties and in ill health. It could also be argued that Article 5, the Right to Liberty and Security is also breached as when the unscrupulous park owner successfully blocks every attempt the homeowner makes to sell their home by illegally putting off every prospective buyer they find, which leaves them with no alternative but to stay on the park, because by leaving, they would lose both their home and all the capital they have tied up in it, would amount to their being detained against their will and having their freedom taken away.

Why should park homeowners have to endure such treatment especially in their Autumn years? They believed all the adverts, sold their bricks and mortar, purchased a park home, on the promise that by buying and living in a park home they were guaranteed a life of peace with no more worries for the rest of their lives. They are also assured that their park home is an appreciating asset, (BH&HPA article, “Daltons Weekly) and could be left for their nearest and dearest to inherit in the future. Too late many have found that once that charming site owner had got their money, he quickly changed into a tyrant and park home life was very different to what they had been promised. They had become “Second Class Citizens”, the promised life of paradise had become a prison and the home had become worthless because the site owner has the absolute power to prevent the home being sold on the open market.

In any business the supplier of a commodity, in this case the site owner who supplies the plot for the homeowner, ( customer) to station the park home, for which the homeowner pays a fee, (rent). The supplier should provide the commodity or service paid for by the customer, which meets the requirements to the customers satisfaction. The park home industry has to be the only industry where this principle does not apply. The customer (homeowner) has to comply with the conditions set by the site owner with no redress, except by embarking on very expensive and traumatic court action. In any other walk of life if the customer is not happy with the product or a service provided, they can return that product and obtain a full refund. Not possible with park homes. If the homeowner dares to complain to an unscrupulous park owner, he will be answered with foul mouthed abuse, and told, “if you don’t like it, tough”. “Get off my park”.

It is entirely due to the abuse of the inadequate laws governing park homes that the park owner has been able to assume absolute control over the lives of his residents just because he owns the tiny bit of land the home is stationed on. What all park homeowners should realise is that the home belongs to them, and they are the customer without whom, the park owner has no income. It is the park owner who should provide the service the customer requires and has the right to expect, not the other way round. In practice the Park Homes Industry has become the only industry where it pays the supplier (park owner) to make his customers (homeowners) UNHAPPY.

The Government is stating that park homes are a form of AFFORDABLE HOUSING while at the same time insisting that they remain classed as CARAVANS, therefore not a dwelling but a CHATTEL, the same as a TV or a car. If they wish park homes to be regarded as housing, then the government should remove them from being classified as caravans and include park homes in the Housing Act proper. As residential caravans,

park homes are governed by the Mobile Homes Act 1983. This Act with all its faults, if used as it was intended was not to bad, and was operated reasonably well by the good park owner, but PHRAA believes that by tinkering with the existing Act in the ways proposed it will result in what little protection park homeowners have at present under the existing Act, being eroded even further by the unscrupulous who will, and are already, using the opportunity presented by these changes to add more clauses which will be even more detrimental to park home owners. This is already happening, new park rules are appearing on site notice boards clearly designed to circumvent the new legislation, before it has even been approved by the government. I am reminded of a statement made some time ago by our own site owner and I quote, “there will be new laws coming out in the near future and they will all be in my favour”. From what we have seen so far with this proposed new legislation, he will be proved right.

If you as a park home owner are victims of unscrupulous park owners and share PHRAA’s very real concern regarding the effectiveness of these new laws, then we urge you to write to the ODPM Policy Advisor John Connell with your own experiences of park home life as soon as possible, or if you prefer send them to PHRAA and we will gladly forward them to him. The more dissatisfied park homeowners who write to him with their horror stories the better. Perhaps then the government will take our problems seriously and realise that it is not, as they keep insisting just a minority of site owners that are unscrupulous, and stop just listening to what the site owners, supported by their trade organisations, want. When will the government, park owners and their trade organisations wake up to the fact that without people buying park homes there will be no park home industry, certainly not in its present form. Too many park home owners are being exploited and abused, and it should be realised by all concerned that each disillusioned and exploited park homeowner, who has left a park home either by choice, or as more often the case, been forced to leave by an unscrupulous park owner, tells anyone else they meet who may be considering this way of life, not to buy a park home under any circumstances. One only has to look at the 20 or so pages of adverts for private park home sales in the Park Home Magazines every month to realise something is wrong. Happy park homeowners do not normally sell their homes, certainly not in that quantity. Surely alarm bells should be ringing.?

It is hoped that the Minister concerned was able to view the “Inside Out” program broadcast by BBC South, Series 8 Episode 1, on 5th September 2005 which showed a classic and increasingly common example of the horrifying side of park home life as suffered on a regular basis by all too many park home residents. No mention of this type of behaviour by a park owner towards his residents is contained in the glowing terms of the park home adverts.

Please address your complaints to….
Mr. John Connell.
2/H10 Eland House,
Bressenden Place,
London.
SW1E 5DU. Tel. 020 7944 3465.
Email. This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

PHRAA is fighting hard for your rights to a fair deal, but we need your help. PHRAA is a national voluntary organisation and certainly does not have the unlimited funds, access to the best Barristers, lobbyists and powerful Trade Organisations that the park owners have. What we do have though is PEOPLE POWER and that means you. Make your voice heard before its too late.

The 250,000 plus occupiers of Park Homes are mainly the elderly and vulnerable members of our society. Add to this figure the hidden thousands of similar folk who are residing in homes stationed on Holiday Home Sites, (Lodges, Caravans, Park Homes) as their main and permanent residence, all of whom have absolutely no protection whatsoever from present laws which the government are not including in the proposed new legislation, and this results in a large number of the aged population who are being exploited by, and living in fear of unscrupulous park owners. The Government should remember that the average park homeowners have worked hard all their lives, and paid their taxes and all other dues and demands, many have also fought for the freedom of this country in the last war and for this sacrifice they should be able to live out there well earned retirement years in peace and quiet, not a living hell and certainly don’t deserve to be having to fight all over again against a ruthless bullying dictator (UPO) when they are at the most vulnerable time of their lives.
Most of the suffering endured everyday by park homeowners is in silence, the unscrupulous park owner makes sure of this. Any resident brave enough to complain about their treatment immediately gets a bang on their door late at night from the unscrupulous park owner, accompanied by a number of large, rough looking henchmen, threatening the terrified resident with eviction or other dire consequences if they don’t keep their mouths shut and toe the line in future. This is the real world of park home life under the regime of the unscrupulous park owner.

Finally we will end this report with a quote from an article on park home living, which appeared in the “Guardian” in 2003 by Philip Kenny, Professor of Law at the University of Northumbria who has been involved in the Legal Aspects of park home law for many years when referring to buying park homes, “My general advice would be “don’t do it”. If you can afford bricks and mortar then stick to that.” We would strongly urge Government Ministers, Policy Advisors, Members of Parliament in both Houses to consider this when discussing these proposed changes to park home law. How would they react if their elderly parents were living in constant fear, too afraid to venture out of their home because they have a 98% chance of being threatened or verbally abused if the unscrupulous park owner happens to see them. How also would they react to the fact that that park home, now being heralded as “Affordable Housing” costing anything up to £250, 000 is not even classed as a dwelling, but a caravan, therefore chattel, except for Council Tax purposes. What about the fact that the park home is stationed on land owned

by the park owner, who charge the homeowner high rents and other charges, which can rise by large amounts every year, for the right to have their home on his land. The maximum allowed 3metres of land (pitch) surrounding the home, is not the homeowners to do as he likes with because the park owner can enter that pitch without any warning whatsoever and remove any plants, bushes, fences, sheds etc., the property of the homeowner, whether the homeowner has permission for them or not. The park home, having reached 10 years old is regarded as too old by the park owner who then uses various dubious methods to get that home and its occupiers off his park in order to replace it with a new one. Should the homeowner wish to sell, the unscrupulous park owner will usually prevent the sale in order to force the homeowner to sell to him for practically nothing. Unlike Bricks and Mortar house sales, the homeowner has to pay to the park owner 10% of any money he receives from the sale of his home. The only law that operates on a park home site is the park owners. All the residents rights which they had previously enjoyed with their bricks and mortar homes have now gone for ever. PHRAA is sure that if it were their relations who were suffering in this manner, action would soon be taken. The policy makers should stop listening only to the park owners and their trade organisations, telling them that there are very few problems. It is noted that whilst preaching to all and sundry what a wonderful way of life park homes are, none of the Trade Associations Executives live in park homes. WHY?