We all know what unscrupulous park owners are capable of. Their psychopathic nature sees to that. But what allows them to do it? Governments, both past and present, might have tinkered about with this and that along the way, but as usual, have not reinforced their efforts with the level of enforcement needed to match the serious consequences that can, and do arise from such weakness. But it doesn’t end there, as it is compounded by numerous other factors, the worst of which is the virtual impossibility of the man in the street to get redress when members of the legal profession make “mistakes”. The fact is that very often these are not mistakes at all, but deliberate acts on behalf of their clients upon an unsuspecting, uninformed home owner. If they have engaged a solicitor, s/he is very unlikely to have the expertise- or should that read cunning - of the park owners’ solicitor and/or barrister, who seem a particular breed.

A solicitorsw role is described as “an obligation to act in the best interests of their client, and follow their instructions”. It is acknowledged by the Solicitors Regulation Authority that “when a solicitor is acting in the best interests of his client, this can often mean they’re acting contrary to the interests of others”. Understandably, of course. But the crucial point here is that that body is very unlikely to chastise a member. Even where they do, it is seen merely as a slap on the wrist in most instances. Barristers too are virtually immune from any complaint made against them. Isn’t that a temptation to stray somewhat?

So, right from the start, you are at a distinct advantage. One of the major concerns of the system is the trust placed on the businessmans version of events, as opposed to the hapless homeowner. Take a common example. The case in question is at a mildly complicated stage, where your solicitor is floundering a little. Either the barrister (if present) or opposing solicitor will jump to his “aid”, and the “saving of the courts valuable time” by offering to explain to the Judge his version of whatever it is being discussed. As previously stated, he is acting ’in the interests of his client at all times’! I have witnessed this trick more than once. Psychologically, at this point, the homeowners solicitor is seen to be somewhat inadequate for the task, so the Judge is less likely to respect future comments. Suffice to say, I have maintained the impression that, in conclusion, when in doubt, the Judge is most likely to err instead in favour of the guy who has to make a living.

But sometimes, things don’t go according to plan. The park owner doesn’t get what he feels he’s entitled to first time round. With such a rich source of money to throw at his legal advisors in the short term. (He believes he’ll win next time, and recover all his costs from the homeowner) The case then becomes a long drawn out affair. This adds not only to the stress, strain, and cost, but the uncertainty too. And what if you’re well past retirement, can you face up to another court appearance? In the following outline of a case, it goes far beyond the imagination, to a point where it becomes unbelievable….. But is in fact perfectly true.

It all started way back in 1994, when suddenly a letter arrived requesting that the home be moved to enable the generous plot to accommodate two new homes instead. The homeowners refused, quite rightly, because the terms under which this could lawfully take place, if included within the Written Statement, (contract) did not include movement for profit. Subsequent park owners have continued to try their luck, but have failed. More recently however, a simple move exercised by the homeowner to take advantage of reduced price electricity, notified to him by a leaflet through his letterbox, became part of the starting point of a further grave injustice.

The energy supplier accepted responsibility to provide electricity, proving they did so by issuing an invoice for consumption 3 months later, which was promptly paid. Simultaneously, having of course ceased payment to the previous supplier, being the park owner, who subsequently discovered the switch. He then contacted the energy company concerning the ‘tied’ arrangement he had with all the residents. The money then refunded was passed back to the park owner, thus severing a basic right given to the remaining population of the UK to be able to ’shop around’ for cheaper electricity, which is what the homeowner was exercising at the invitation of a competitor.

Throughout this period the park owner was repeating the exercise started and lost by previous park owners, but was about to go to court yet again. Even though the matter of the electricity supplier had been addressed, it was wilfully retained alongside the main issue of seeking to again terminate the agreement, in order to clear the pitch, recalling this had failed in the past.

At this stage we are leading up to an appalling “misjudgement” (putting it politely) in favour of t6he landowner, whose aim, you will recall, was to seek possession of the plot, by removing the occupants and their home. HE FAILED AGAIN, which was the correct decision. But instead of ruling that the park owner foot the bill for his and and the residents’ expenses, the Judge ruled that the HOMEOWNER paid the lot! This amounted to in excess of £30,000!

I cannot find in my heart any grounds for a misunderstanding though. Was it for spite, because the homeowner, frustrated as he was, spoke his mind on more than one occasion how he and his partner had been bullied over the years? Anyone at serious risk of losing their home is understandably angry if they hear lies being told that go against their chances of success. Was it a means by which legal advisors ’got on the right side of the Judge’ in the belief that the couple couldn’t pay? In other words, we can’t evict them, so lets see if we can make them bankrupt? Indeed, that was the outcome. But worse than that, the unquestionably wrong decision to force them to pay their enemy the typically inflated and exaggerated costs of a case known at the outset, through previous case law, was not entitled to win, is an unforgivable action by all the so called professionals within the court system responsible for the outcome.

But they each have another burden to bear. The strain placed upon the female partner, who already had a terminal illness and died soon after the decision, went to her grave as a perfectly law abiding person all her life but, “owing money” through joint bankruptcy via a corrupt legal decision to REWARD somebody that actually LOST yet again his legal challenge for something he was not legally entitled to claim under the circumstances. This was to make her and her partner homeless. How sickening! Not only was the legal profession guilty, but also the park home industry, who do nothing positve to try to resolve such issues in an amicable manner.

Whilst we will not name either the resident nor landowner, we do hold a pile of evidence which is in excess of two inches high! A rate matter is yet to be concluded. The only positive news being that the resident remains in situ, but at what price? He, like ourselves, (PHRAA) are anxious for someone reading this to be able to study this entire case, from the available evidence, and act.

It is clear that the profession in general has all the systems in place to protect their backs from their own wrong doings. Limited time scales are one such example. The powers that be should firmly ask themselves what have time limits got to do with justice? It surely matters not how long ago a major injustice took place. Only that it did, and needs rectification! How can this profession be allowed to wipe a severely tarnished slate clean after just a few years? These people have to suffer the punishment their ill founded judgement or collusion have caused for a lifetime to other fellow human beings.

What has happened to the claimed democratic society we’re supposed to be living in? It doesn’t seem to count for second class citizens; those who live in a caravan, embellished only by the preferred industry term “park home” for the very same chattel. It’s a caravan. Which reminds me of the instruction given by an uninformed Judge for the resident to “tow his vehicle off site”. That’s how much he knew or cared about the impossible task of towing a twin unit along public roads behind the residents car, after agreeing to yet another ruthless latter day Rachmanite’s demand to make someone else homeless. And all this distress over a dispute of less than £10! Again, unbelievable, but true. It was featured on television some years ago.

Do get in touch if you have genuine means to publish or otherwise expose the past 14 years of failings of the “best Justice system in the world”. As an organisation, we (PHRAA) shall continue fighting. Specialist TV channels, home & abroad, please get in touch too.

Compiled for PHRAA by Colin Packman, President. January 2009