In my 40 years’ involvememnt, I have yet to learn of a reduction in pitch fees. In that time there have been numerous occasions when, in any other situation, a reduction would be applicable. But we are talking about an industry that spells the word greed, with a capital G! Elsewhere, it is common for prices to fluctuate; from grapes to fuel, for example. But I believe there is now a case to answer for lower pitch fees. Yes, park owners and their legal advisors will argue against it, pointing to the standard agreement terms, which takes no account of a recession. But those very same advisors change their tune to suit the situation, when the boot is on the other foot. We hold correspondence from lawyers that, on the one hand, write to a homeowner who is in the process of trying to sell their home, that it is “a depreciating asset” for the purchaser, whereas on oher occasions will support the belief of the industry and its member clients that it appreciates in value in line with traditional housing when someone is buying, but offering no supportive evidence.

I exploring this issue, it is worth illustrating other links to the land are homes are upon. But firstly one needs to establish proof of the extent of the drop in land values in any current financial climate. This was achieved by contacting experts in the field from my local area, here in the South East. Naturally, values will vary across the country, and it is not an exact science. But the consensus of opinion was that current values had dropped back to those of 2005.

We all acknowledge that the home and the land upon which it stands are inextricably linked. You cannot have one without the other. The home is useless without the land. We are told broadly what the pitch fee is for, but not how it is arrived at, or divided up. We are also being misled in many instances by confusing statements relating to it. For example, it often states in your agreement an/or park rules that ‘the pitch only extends to the area covered by the home and does not extend to any ‘other portion of the park, which implies that you will be trespassing if if you attempt to cut the grass around your home or walk up the path! But the agreement contradicts that by requiring you to maintain the area, including fences, bushes, trees etc.

The pitch fee is a comprehensive payment - a sizeable element of it is sheer profit obviously. But within that figure is an element for the value of the land. Indeed, to illustrate another angle, and to prove it is a factor throughout your occupation and payment period for it, is a reference in the official Mobile Homes Study of the early 90’s. Although the topic was commissioned, where the study found wide resentment to it - and still do! - it criticised the industry for not giving a reason for it. (within paragraph 695) So, beyond their remit in my view, they suggested some. One in particular reads [the commission] “in recognition of part of the homes value attributable to the park, rather that the homes characteristics”. Reference here to “the park” implying the value of the land. Indeed, these days, when pressed, the industry will claim that this idea created for them is the real reason for the commission. (hitherto, no explanation was offered). The point of mentioning this phrase is to underline the value of the land, both during occupation of it, and absurdly, handing back 10% of the sale price for it when you leave! A classic example of double recovery.

We have on file evidence of two successful court cases in favour of the the homeowner, that the industry prefer to keep quiet about, where it was successfully argued that the park owner should pay to the seller a significant sum for the value of the land, in addition to the homes market value. Of course, in practice, the sum would have soon be recouped from a new occupier when a fresh home had replaced the former upon the same plot. In effect, no punishment at all, as always! But it does illustrate the importance courts on this occasion placed on the amount the homeowner had paid over the years to the park owner for their plot. Beyond that, their recognition that if he wanted the older home, then he had to effectively pay for his own land - the land that went with it, in accordance with its status at the time of acquisition, linked as it was to the land.

If one takes another past example, the requirement to replace timber sheds some years ago, under the terms of the Model Standards, 1989, with metal or brick versions, caused much resentment. But to escape liability for those affected, park owners suddenly “gifted” the shed to each homeowner fir them to swiftly be faced with the cost of replacement, but then notifying local authorities for them to chase up who failed to comply by the given date. However, I and a number of others, successfully proved to the court we were not liable. Without going into great detail, one of the key arguments was that, as an experienced park owner would obviously ensure that all pitch fees would reflect the various costs for a given period, there was no excuse for not including an ongoing sum for general maintenance and eventual replacement of sheds. Furthermore, I argued that the shed was a requirement ordered by the local authority within the licensing conditions, “ to be provided and maintained” to each plot. I further highlighted the fact that this then had become a “facility of the same plot of land I was already paying for”, thus it was not my duty to pay any additional sums. As with all matters of this nature, one must first ascertain what they are required to payfor within their particular agreement; in our case, repair and replacement was the park owners responsibility. Therefore, it all depends upon what you have signed up to. Blow the dust off the small print and check.

In a further example relating to land value, it again came across when I attended a park home show some years ago. A show home, destined for a park in Surrey, had a price tag well in excess of double the ex- works price. I accepted a considerable inflated figure would be for siting, but questioning the representative brought forth the reason for the above average add on was “the higher value of the land in that area”. But as one can see wide variations in pitch fees across the country, and that there is no doubt this is due to regional differences in its value, it was, yet again, another example of double recovery for the same purpose.

In trying to make a reasonable assumption of the element of land value within the pitch fee, it would surely not be less than 25%, so a 10% reduction on that element alone would appear to be justified. As in everything within this website, we welcome comments; particularly from park owners on this topic. Needless to say, one is only seeking to be treated fairly. After all, a park oiwner would not be prepared to buy land valued at £10,000 today for £12,000 would he? Why then should others be forced to do so. Let’s be fair, when land values rise again, we residents will have to accept that we are not entitled to the same reduction any more. Elsewhere on this site you will find the many reasons why pitch fees are already excessive, because these sorts of market fluctuations have been ignored and denied to us all for years. “Bleed ‘em dry before they die” is seen as the motto of this industry! Those who have studied the typical “basket of goods” used to define the annual rate of RPI soon realise that virtually nothing relates to the running of a park home site. Even if sand and cement has gone up by X% that is something to be recovered from the buyers of new homes, not us all in general.

It is time for everyone to stand up and say “enough is enough”, easier said than done? That’s what they want to hear. So hurry up and prove them wrong. Their chance of beating you rests on one single word. Proof. Do they have it? Rarely. Itsw usually down to threats and fear, sent within malicious commications by their lawyers. Feel its been daylight robbery over the years? Use your strongest weapon. Bad publicity. They don’t like that……..

It has often been said that, out there somewhere, there is legislation for every conceivable legal situation, It is the case that courts must decide what is reasonable. Is it reasonable that 250,000 people should be denied the right for their ground rent to follow the true value of it? Is it reasonable that piece of modern legislation makes no specific reference to known movable land values in an agreement that is firmly linked to the same subject? Is it reasonable to be provided with a monthly demand for payment applicable to many elements directly affecting the individual, but without notice of what such segments relate too, and by how much, either by monetary or % figures? Eg. A comparison being a £200 bill for car repairs, without specifying what parts were replaced, or materials used etc. Surely, we cannot be excluded on this scale any longer.

Compiled and researched for PHRAA by Colin Packman. President. Published January 2009.