Re: PARK HOME LAW REFORM.An OPEN LETTER by the PARK HOME RESIDENTS ACTION ALLIANCE (PHRAA) bringing to the attention of Government and Park Homeowners the adverse impact  much of the new Legislation, which came into force on October 1^st 2006, is proving to have on most Park Homeowners Nationally. 

“New Legislation, what new Legislation?” This is the usual question PHRAA is asked when answering calls from the hundreds of distressed park homeowners who contact this association pleading for help with the ever growing number of problems they are suffering daily at the hands of ruthless, greedy and power crazy Unscrupulous Park Owners (UPO’s) who, far from being in the minority as claimed by Government, Park Owners, the Industries Trade Organisations and others,  now almost completely dominate the park homes industry and continue to buy up parks at an ever increasing rate very often three, four or more at a time. During a conversation with two of our colleagues at the recent Parliamentary Reception, a BH&HPA member who is a multiple park owner, stated that when he retires he will have no choice, but to sell his parks to UPO’s,  as they are now the only people in the market for buying. Within weeks of taking over a park, because of the lack of any real protection from park home law, and using parts of the new legislation,  the UPO,  by using terror tactics, typical examples of which were highlighted by several excellent BBC “Inside Out” programmes broadcast recently, embarks on a programme of clearing the park of all older homes, (over 10 years as stated by Alicia Dunne, Director of Policy for the National Park Homes Council (NHPC) one of the two industries governing bodies, in her Legal Column published in the Park and Holiday Homes magazine last year) causing the owners of those homes to abandon their homes therefore devastating the lives of the mainly elderly (70,80, 90 years old) and the most vulnerable members of our society, which mainly occupy park homes, at the most vulnerable time of their lives. Besides being made homeless and losing every penny of the capital tied up in the value of their homes , most are forced to accept Sheltered Housing or other Council accommodation through absolutely no fault of their own.

How is it that the majority of park homeowners are not aware of the recent changes to park home legislation?  The answer is obvious. Except for limited publicity in both of the Park Home Magazines,  and the efforts of the three voluntary National Park Home Residents Associations, whose combined membership only amounts to a small fraction of the 250,000 plus park homeowners nationwide, there has been no publicity or official announcements whatsoever produced by the Government informing park homeowners of the changes. In fact the only real source of information on Park Homes,  freely available to the public is contained on the PHRAA website, which, unlike the other National Park Home Residents Associations or the Industries two powerful Trade Organisations websites, is not restricted to members only and fully open to all to view, including this letter, on www.phraa.co.uk. One thing is certain judging from the rapid increase in complaints and pleas for help from desperate Park Homeowners received by PHRAA and others,  most of which are as a direct result of much of this new legislation, which has vastly increased the power of the park owners over residents, being used against them, received by PHRAA and other National Residents Associations.

There are many reasons why the Mobile Homes Act 1983 offered little protection in practice to park homeowners and why also that the new 2006 amendments, however well meaning, have made the situation for homeowners much worse. For the purpose of this letter we will use a few of the major problems as examples.

Park Homes or Mobile Homes as they are otherwise known are being promoted by Government and the Industry as “Affordable and/or Alternative Housing” and yet in the year 2007 these pre-manufactured bungalow type homes which once delivered by low loader, assembled on site and bricked in are practically identical in appearance to a conventional bungalow,  are still classed as Caravans in the same bracket as Holiday Caravans, Caravans towed behind a car (touring caravans) motor homes etc., and regulated by the Caravan Sites Control of Development Act 1960. A Park Home is constructed on a chassis with wheels which are used to manoeuvre the usually two sections onto its permanent position on the previously constructed concrete base, where it is bolted together to form a whole home measuring anything up to 20 feet x 60 feet. It is also a requirement of this outdated Act that because it is classed as a mobile home (caravan) that the home must remain mobile (capable of being towed) at all times. The fact that park homes are classed as caravans and the parks as caravan sites means also that the owners of these homes costing anything up to £300,000 are classed as “Caravan Dwellers”  who in common with owners of conventional housing are expected to pay Council Tax, but do not come under the Housing Act   therefore are denied the protection and the rights afforded to owners of conventional properties. (Second Class Citizens) We note that no mention of the above facts appear in the Government or the Industries promotional material. The Government and the Industry cannot have it both ways. If the Government wish to promote Park Homes as a valuable addition to the Housing Sector as they claim it is, then Park Homes should be included in the Housing Act, or failing that a new Park Homes Act, accompanied by proper ENFORCEABLE BY LAW protection for homeowners be created as a matter of urgency. At present there are two sets of laws ruling this country, one set applies to the majority of this countries citizens, the other set are laws outside normal juristiction dictated by park owners which are set in the Dark Ages where the ruthless Local Baron (Park Owner),  with the aid of his henchmen, rules with a rod of iron giving him  total power over the lives of his oppressed 70,80 and 90  year old subjects (Park Homeowners) with the confiscation of their homes and life savings the penalty for any of his subjects (residents) who fail to comply.

The most serious failing of this new legislation from the park homeowners point of view is that the Government has placed the entire responsibility for its enforcement on the homeowners themselves,  who for many reasons including their age, physical ability and financial circumstances are the least able to defend themselves against the all powerful and ruthless UPO supported by his very powerful Trade Organisations. Does the Government seriously expect that the average 70,80 or 90 year old park homeowner,  who may well be disabled or frail and surviving on a pension, who has, for example, repeatedly been prevented from selling their home or is continually being harassed by the UPO because he wants them and their home off his park because he wants their plot for a new home, being in the position or even having the will to take Legal Action against the site owner. Which beside costing thousands of pounds will take months or even years to even get to Court. Please consider the traumatic effect that would have on the resident concerned,  especially when they have to endure daily intimidation and abuse from their park owner and his “bully Boys” before, during and after the case comes to Court together with the very real possibility of facing Bankruptcy, as has already happened, should they lose or be forced to withdraw the case because they can no longer afford the cost of continuing, resulting in their being liable for the UPO’s costs.  Whilst the park owner has unlimited funds available to employ the best specialist Solicitors firms,  the resident will be very fortunate to find a solicitor who possesses any knowledge of park home law or is even willing or able take on such a case owing to the ambiguity of park home law. As an example, a 78 year old resident on a park took his UPO to Court for taking away a large section of his plot that he had tended for some twenty years and also stole and destroyed the residents property namely storage sheds together with contents. The resident took the UPO to court and was lucky enough to win his case, but it cost him £12,000 and took nearly 4 years. The resident was aged 78 when the case started and 81 when it finished. I should add that over one year later, the park owner has still not, or has any intention of doing, complied with the Court Order to return the residents plot and property within 42 days,  which means that should the park owner chose to ignore a Court Order the resident is faced with taking further Court Action at further considerable expense to obtain justice. In common with all UPO’s this UPO openly brags that he is above the law. Our experience is that they are.

The 2005 Amendment to the Mobile Homes Act requires that the prospective purchaser of a park home from the park owner is given a copy of the Agreement (contract) at least 28 days before purchase which is certainly an improvement on the previous requirement of issuing the Agreement up to three months after purchase, but from evidence PHRAA is receiving nationally, many Park Owners are totally ignoring this requirement to the detriment of the innocent purchaser,  who mainly due to the Governments failure to publicise the changes compounded by the absence of information produced to the public by the Industry, are not aware that this requirement exists. Many Park Owners especially UPO’s, supported by their trade organisations actively discourage prospective purchasers from having the purchase overseen by a Solicitor.  Buying a Park Home is just the same as buying a car, TV or any other “CHATTEL”, but unfortunately for the innocent purchaser, who having paid the £150,000 plus for the home and moved in,  once they are eventually presented with the Agreement and find to their horror it contains outrageously restrictive clauses, it is too late. Unlike buying something from M&S they cannot take it back when they find they have made a terrible mistake. The only form of redress open to them is to take very stressful, costly and lengthy Court Action, sell it back to the park owner at a considerable loss, or stay put. Another widespread practice used by the UPO having received full agreed payment for the home, knowing that the incoming resident has no where else to live,  having sold their conventional home, is to descend unexpectedly on the innocent new homeowner either just as they are moving in or collecting the keys and demanding an extra £5,000 - £10,000 claiming that the price of the home as gone up.  He refuses to let them move in until this extra money is paid, the helpless victim is left with no option but to pay up.

This has to be the most widely abused (by UPO’s) clause in the Mobile Homes Act and the one that causes more financial loss and the feeling of helplessness and absolute desperation to Park Homeowners nationwide. The Act clearly states that the homeowner has the right to sell their home and assign the Agreement (contract) to a person approved of by the Park Owner who must not withhold his approval unreasonably. APPROVAL OF THE PERSON.  The new 2005 Amendment, now included in the 2006 Implied Terms, states that the park owners right to impose conditions on the sale has now been removed. This is a totally false statement as the park owners self- assumed right to impose conditions, such as age and condition of the home, although widely used, or I should say abused, throughout the industry by UPO’s, was not a requirement of the 1983 Act prior to 2005.  Then as now, approval was limited to the suitability of the person. The addition to the Act requiring that the park owner responds in writing to a written request from the homeowner for approval of a prospective buyer within 28 days may appear on paper to be a useful addition, but in practice is proving to have made no difference whatsoever. UPO’s are still imposing unlawful conditions, telephoning prospective buyers, making untrue statements regarding the home and/or its future on the park. Even,  if all else fails resorting to being abusive to prospective buyers knowing full well that they will refuse to buy under such circumstances. This leaving the helpless homeowner, who may through ill health be forced to leave the park and enter Sheltered Housing, with no option,  but to sell their home to the park owner for a pittance, (a few hundred pounds for a home worth perhaps a £100, 000,) or just abandon it leaving them destitute, deprived of the nest egg tied up in the value of the home. Because of this many are forced on to State Benefits. Although the new Amendment states that the deprived park homeowner can now take Court Action, again a right that has always existed, against the park owner who blocks his right to sell. In practice however,  should the homeowner take this course of action it will take many months and cost thousands. A typical example of just how ineffective against the UPO the present law is amply illustrated by two separate ongoing cases concerning two elderly disabled widows both living alone who have been forced by ill health to move into sheltered accommodation. They both placed their park homes, professionally valued by a national reputable estate Agent at over £100,000 each. One over a period of months and the other for over two years have obtained several interested buyers and each time followed the sales procedure, using a Solicitor, to the letter as the Act requires, but every time the UPO failed to respond within the 28 day period, but did contact the prospective buyers by meetings and telephone calls, using the prospective buyers details the seller is obliged to reveal when seeking approval,  actively blocked each sale by illegal means. Both widows have instigated Court proceedings against the UPO in accordance with the Act several months ago, one obtaining Legal Aid, but the other having to pay herself. Both have got firm buyers who having sold their bricks and mortar homes are desperate to buy and have been willing to wait. The UPO has been able by using loopholes in the law and employing the services of a “Struck Off Solicitor” acting as a McKenzie Friend, to deliberately delay proceedings and the cases have only reached Direction Hearings and it will still be many months before they reach Court. Besides having already costing several thousands of pounds both widows are having to pay the pitch fees, Council Tax and other charges on their park homes, they have also to pay rents etc on the sheltered housing. The case has now reached the stage where the widow paying her own way,  has already spent several thousand pounds taking the UPO to Court so far, is in the position of having to spend even more of her rapidly dwindling savings, as should she withdraw now, she will also be liable for the UPO’s Costs also. As it is highly probable the prospective buyers will be unable or willing to wait until the case is eventually heard and will withdraw, then the helpless seller will have to commence the whole process all over again each time a buyer is found, or as is more likely, because they have suffered a nervous breakdown, stroke or a heart attack brought on by stress,  just abandon the home to the UPO. The UPO knows he will win and this new legislation is useless against him.      Does the Government seriously expect any prospective buyer, who will be required to give evidence to support the homeowners case, to be prepared to wait or even buy, knowing that there are problems with the park owner. It should be also mentioned that resale of park homes by residents situation, described by a Solicitor with whom PHRAA works closely, as CRUEL,  is so bad now that many Estate Agents are refusing to have anything to do with selling park homes.

It was proposed in the early stages of the consultations with the Policy Advisor held at the then ODPM,  that should the park owner refuse approval of a sale unreasonably or fail to respond to the sellers (Homeowners) written request for approval within the specified time, then the seller could go ahead and sell the home and Assign the Agreement and if necessary apply to the Court for the Assignment to be made legal.  Due to pressure from the Industry this proposal was rejected.

 It is PHRAA’s opinion that either this clause is reinstated or the Homeowners Right To Sell Their Park Home Should Be Made ABSOLUTE BY LAW. The Park Owner has ample means of redress contained within the Act against an incoming homeowner who may prove to be unsuitable. The Park owner has the right to sell to whom he likes, so should the homeowner.

Unless or until the Homeowners Absolute Right to Sell Clause is added to the Act, given the increasing rate at which UPO’s are buying up parks it will become impossible for everyone of the 250,000 plus Park Homeowners to sell their homes. Especially those over 10 years. The new homes of today are the older homes of tomorrow.

Moving the procedure governing the Annual Pitch Fee Review from the Express Terms of the Agreement to the Implied Terms was an improvement and should have prevented the widespread annual exploitation of Park Homeowners by park owners imposing exorbitant Pitch Fee increases and other charges. The 2006 Amendment clarifies, indeed emphasises, that the Park Owners Annual request for an increase in the Pitch Fee is to be negotiated in the case of a dispute. However, every notice for an increase issued to residents by a park owner copied to PHRAA from all over the country is in the form of a demand ie., From the 1^st of month year the new Pitch Fee WILL BE…X number of pounds.  Any attempt by residents to question the demanded increase brings forth threats of Court Action and/or eviction, which bearing in mind that most park homeowners are elderly, usually strikes fear into their hearts forcing submission. This is yet another example of Park Owners deliberately flouting the law with impunity compounded by the absence of Government publicity of the new law or powers of enforcement.

7…. THE RIGHT TO FORM A PARK RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION.

  All rights, including Democratic Rights, Park Homeowners previously enjoyed in conventional housing have now, because of this Act, been denied park home residents, including the freedom to form a Residents Association except by permission of the Park Owner and the 2006 amendment to the Act,  which has imposed a strict criteria to which a Residents Association must comply to be recognised by the park owner.  As a direct result of the Governments imposition of this criteria PHRAA is receiving complaints from residents that attempts to form Residents Associations on parks is proving to be almost impossible on UPO parks as intimidation of individuals is rife. It is also a fact that many established Residents Associations are now collapsing,  either through not meeting the 50% of members required by Government to qualify as a Residents Association or as a result of intimidation and threats to terminate their Agreement (contract) by the UPO using the Not to cause a nuisance to the park owner clause increasingly being used against residents proposing to set up or be involved in a Residents Association. Even the democratic right to a vote on park issues of direct effect on their lives has been removed from wives and partners and all joint occupiers of park homes under the ONE VOTE PER HOME criteria imposed by government which is disgraceful. The Act states that membership of the Residents Association must be open to ALL RESIDENTS but then stipulates that only one from each home (the first name on the Agreement ) is entitled to a vote.

(8.. 1 )…. Fit and Proper Person.   Proposed by PHRAA and other National Residents Representatives, but dismissed by Government. Under present law when an owner of a Protected Park Home Site applies to the Local Council for the necessary Licence needed to operate, the Council involved has no option but to grant that Licence. No checks whatsoever as to the suitability of the proposed Licence holder are required. As a result Licenses are being issued to proven UPO’s giving them, due to the lack of any enforceable law, absolute control over the lives of the most vulnerable members of our society, the elderly Park Homeowner. It is vitally important that the Government empower local councils Licensing Authorities to vet prospective park owners or managers before they buy a park home site, as is required for the operators of Care Homes, Taxi drivers, care workers and anyone else having a responsibility and a  DUTY OF CARE over peoples lives.

Before any Site Owner can redevelop a park home site or replace existing homes it has to be made mandatory that he informs the council and provides for approval detailed plans of his proposals. The council must have the duty to inspect those plans before any approval paying particular attention to measurements to ensure that they correspond exactly with the submitted plans. Also before a redevelopment plan is approved,  the council must be placed under a duty to consider the effect redevelopment would have on (a)… existing homeowners (b)… what methods are being, or have been employed by the site owner to “pursuade” existing residents to leave their homes to make way for the new homes and (c)… Ensure that displaced residents have been awarded fair compensation for their homes.

Councils should also ensure by regular monitoring that where a park is being redeveloped for residential use it is actually licensed as a residential protected site and not a holiday Licensed park being filled with residential homes and being sold as such without the knowledge of prospective buyers. Councils must also ensure, again by regular monitoring, that development of the park only takes place within the boundaries of the site for which planning permission has been granted. This regular monitoring of sites is essential to prevent park homes being sold to innocent buyers on land outside the authorised boundaries of sites and/or on holiday only licensed sites, as is happening all to often with disastrous consequences for homeowners who face eviction, homelessness, and many years of stressful Legal Action against the offending park owner,  as all too many park homeowners are finding today.

We have attempted to keep this already very long letter as brief as possible,  so have only covered a few issues concerning the ineffectiveness of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 including the 2006 amendments, which as we have shown have in most cases made the untenable situation for park homeowners far worse than it was before as they have now bestowed even greater control to the UPO and the industry over the helpless vulnerable aged park homeowner. Unfortunately for the industry who have also expressed grave concerns over the effects the new legislation is having on their businesses, the remaining diminishing number of good park owners are being tarred with the same brush. In comments to PHRAA officers by a leading multiple park owner and BH&HPA member and the Chief Executive of the largest park home manufacturer at the recent Parliamentary Reception,  which you attended and spoke, they agree with PHRAA that the ever growing problem of the UPO is having a detrimental effect on residents, park owners, manufacturers and others connected with the industry. It is also worth mentioning, to illustrate the seriousness of the UPO problem, that the same multiple park owner also stated that should he wish to retire he would only be able to sell his parks to UPO’s,  as they were the only ones now in the market for buying parks.

May we respectfully remind the Government Policy Makers, Park Owners, their Trade Associations and yourself as Minister that the most important element of the Park Homes Industry is the PARK HOMEOWNER without whom there would be no Park Home Industry. Owning a Park Home Site is a business and like any other business. If it is to survive, prosper and be sustainable it must supply the goods and services to satisfy the customers  requirements and above all ensure that the customer is satisfied at all times with the product and/or service provided. The exception to this rule is without doubt the Park Home Industry where normal business practice has been reversed. It is the customer (park homeowner) who has to comply with the requirements, extremely restrictive rules and regulations imposed on them by the supplier (park owner) which unfortunately for the innocent homeowner is only revealed once they have completed their purchase and it is too late. The fact that a park home is a CHATTEL and therefore is purchased in exactly the same way as a car or TV etc, but unlike any other CHATTEL  purchased it falls outside the control of normal Trading Standards or Consumer Control Regulations because it is used as a residential dwelling, as PHRAA has proved on many occasions. “Up the creek without a paddle” is a phrase often quoted to PHRAA by Trading Standards Officers when describing the plight of desperate park homeowners seeking their help.

One final point that the Government, Park Owners and their Trade Associations would do well to consider when dismissing the untenable plight of park homeowners left at the mercy of the UPO as a very minor problem affecting only a few. For every disillusioned park homeowner leaving their park home, the industry will lose possibly 20 potential home sales. News of bad experiences travels fast. Mainly through the work of PHRAA, the only National Residents Association continually researching, reporting and publishing,  the wide ranging instances of abuse and exploitation of residents by the UPO’s who now monopolize this industry, the public are becoming aware at last. Again,  due to the work of PHRAA, who also assist the BBC with their excellent “Inside Out” and “Watchdog” programmes, which are exposing the widespread abuse of park home owners by the UPO’s, many more potential park homeowners are in a position to see behind the glossy adverts and glowing write ups, all of which carefully omit any mention of the many pitfalls. Pitfalls which include the 10% commission rate,  the seller is forced to pay the park owner on the sale price of their home. The fact that their home cannot be sold without obtaining the permission of the park owner or even that they have to pay rent for the plot of land their home is on, and many more facts to numerous to mention here.

PHRAA respectfully suggest to the Government that it is imperative that before continuing the promotion of park homes as “so called” Affordable Housing or Alternative Housing they take immediate steps to revise the whole of the 1983/2006 Mobile Homes Act paying particular attention to the need for PROPER ENFORCEABLE LAW to ensure the full PROTECTION of the rights, needs and expectations of  the key element of the industry, the park homeowner. All PHRAA on behalf of the 250,000 plus park homeowners is asking Government for is a fair deal. Nothing more, and certainly nothing less. Abuse of the elderly is rife throughout this industry. The Government owes a DUTY OF CARE to the park homeowner members of our society who being the mainly retired have earned the right to enjoy their chosen way of life in peace and quiet,  having served their country by working hard throughout their working lives also fought in wars for the freedom of this country not now be expected, at the most vulnerable time of their lives, to have to fight all over again against a UPO dictatorship. As mentioned earlier the public are becoming aware of the widespread and carefully hidden (by the industry) problems caused by the UPO,  and this is already having a marked effect on sales, amply illustrated by the rapidly growing number of new homes remaining unsold on parks for months often 2-4 years. The UPO encouraged by the continued absence of any enforceable law is destroying this industry for personal short term financial gain.

It may be well worth mentioning that experience tell us that UPO’s conduct much of their business transactions in cash. It would certainly be in the Countries interest if the relevant Government Revenue Authorities instigated thorough investigations.

The information contained in this letter is supported by concrete evidence. PHRAA respectfully requests that,  in view of the gravity of this issue, in particular the serious consequences the park homes legislation in its present form is having on park homeowners nationwide, that the Minister meets with PHRAA representatives as a matter of urgency in order to present our case, discuss what action is needed and a way forward to improve the Welfare of Park Homeowners. 

                                                                             Yours Sincerely,

                                                                Ron Joyce. General Secretary PHRAA.

A copy of this letter and any response will be published on the PHRAA Website, the PHRAA newsletter.

CC  Lord Graham of Edmonton,  Members of Parliament and all other interested parties including the BBC Etc.