VICTORY OVER ADVERSITY.
The Advantage of a Strong Residents Association.

PHRAA cannot emphasise enough the advantages to the welfare of all Park Home Owners to form an active and strong Residents Association on their park, especially where the Park Owner is one of the Unscrupulous variety. This gives residents strength and protection, not only when dealing with an Unscrupulous Park Owner, but also in any dealings concerning matters on their park, they may have with the Local Council who will find it more difficult to ignore the collective voice of the whole park rather than one or two individuals as is usually the case. A strong Residents Association is feared by the Unscrupulous Park Owner as it removes his favourite weapon, that is, “DIVIDE AND RULE”, picking on the most elderly and vulnerable first instilling fear and trepidation in the remaining until he achieves his aim of clearing the park of all the older homes. (Over 10 Years old as stated by Alicia Dunne of the NHPC in an article in a Park Home magazine recently). One outstanding example of the power of a Residents Association occurred recently on a park in the south of England, when a park was purchased by a well known unscrupulous Park Owner and residents were faced with this new owner, armed with a JCB digger arrived on the park unannounced stating that he was going to remove all gardens and fences etc., also visiting many of the residents with older homes stating he was going to redevelop and that they had to get off his park. The Residents, led by a very brave Spokesperson immediately sprang into action and stopped this wanton destruction of their property dead. The net result was that entirely due to this united action by the residents, the park owner sold the park to a much more reasonable owner. This same brave spokesperson also contacted residents of two other parks this same unscrupulous park owner had purchased and as a result, he has sold these parks also. PHRAA is very proud to be associated with these residents and their fellow residents on all of those parks.
Another shining example of victory over adversity concerns a park in Oxfordshire, which many of you may have seen as it was featured in a very disturbing BBC “Inside Out” programme broadcast on the 5th September 2005, and later “Watchdog” in January where again the park had been purchased by an unscrupulous Park Owner who immediately began terrorizing residents into leaving their homes which he immediately smashed up with a JCB leaving the remains on their plots. The residents, actively supported by their neighbours in the local village banded together and took this park owner to Court and won, resulting in the park owner having to pay out substantial sums to affected residents in compensation and costs. PHRAA sends its congratulations to all concerned.
The two examples given above show what can be done when residents unite and say NO to the ruthless park owner. If you are lucky enough to have a few residents willing to stand up against oppression, support them. When you witness your vulnerable neighbour being terrorized just because their home is in the park owners way or is a few years old, don’t just keep your heads down hoping it wont happen to you, it will. Many park homeowners fought for the freedom of this country in world wars, don’t let their sacrifice be in vain. Remember these unscrupulous park owners are bully’s, big and brave when they are terrorizing elderly residents, stand up to them and they are cowards.

ODPM ROADSHOWS

You may be aware that a series of Roadshows are currently being staged around the country by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) which are, they say, to inform park homeowners, park owners, and local council officers on the proposed new Park Home Legislation. Before giving PHRAA’s report I will point out that this so called reform stemmed from recommendations of the ALL PARTY WORKING GROUP FOR THE WELFARE OF PARK HOMEOWNERS remember this title, THE WELFARE OF PARK HOMEOWNERS. The reason for placing the emphasis on this phrase is because the majority of these Roadshows are hosted and mainly financed by park owners, and held on or in venues very close to parks. (Watch out, if your park owner has been a host, the cost is sure to be included in your next pitch fee increase demand) If park owners are volunteering to sponsor and more importantly spending their money to hold Roadshows to publicise the proposed changes to Park Home Law it can onlymean that they have prior knowledge of the new laws and are absolutely safe in the knowledge that these new laws will mainly benefit park owners, certainly not long suffering park homeowners. As the ODPM and our fellow National Residents Association representatives had taken it upon themselves not to invite PHRAA to take part in these Roadshows, or even inform us that the first one was taking place at Garstang, (we only found out from a chance remark from a third party), (IT APPEARS THAT TELLING THE TRUTH AND EXPOSING THE EXPLOITATION OF PARK HOMEOWNERS DOES NOT MAKE PHRAA FLAVOUR OF THE MONTH WITH ALL CONCERNED) three colleagues and myself attended, but as park home residents to act as observers. This first Roadshow was staged and financed by Michael Ward, (Park Owner of the year three years running) in the function room of an hotel next to his park. On arriving, having traveled up from the Midlands, we could not help but notice that the car park already contained many large and expensive cars obviously park owners from all over the county. Also there was a new park home stationed in a prominent position on the car park and open to view. The first session at 10am, was designated for the park homeowners to be informed of the new proposals, but we were concerned to see that many of the park owners, including Mr. Ward, were also present, in spite of the fact that they had been allocated their own session immediately after the residents session. We could not help but notice that many of these park owners were standing against the wall right behind the four of us, they did know who we were.
Mr. John Connell, Policy Advisor for the ODPM gave a short talk on the forthcoming reform and handed out a fact sheet on current progress. (A full report compiled by PHRAA on this Fact Sheet and the Garstang Roadshow is available from head Office on request at £1-50 to cover post and packing) The session was then thrown open to residents questions limited to the reform referred to in the Fact Sheet. Residents were not allowed to mention specific problems. No doubt many residents were bound to feel intimidated knowing that their park owner was present in the room.
After 40 minutes the residents session was brought to a halt and they were hurriedly ushered out of a side door having been invited to view the show home on the car park, and have a conducted tour around Mr. Wards Park, with the park owners crowding in through the main door for their exclusive session.
The ODPM claim that they operate an open door policy with these Roadshow sessions, but no residents would have dared attend the park owners only sessions I;m sure. The evidence we gained from attending this Roadshow and the evidence Colin obtained from another Roadshow he attended in Sussex recently proves beyond doubt that the REAL PURPOSE OF THESE ODPM ROADSHOWS IS TO PROMOTE THE PARK HOME INDUSTRY, NOT TO BENEFIT PARK HOMEOWNERS.
Ron

TRADE ORGANISATIONS HOST MEETING OF MP’S
At a recent meeting of the All Party Working Group for the WELFARE OF PARK HOME OWNERS, (Remember that title?), it was proposed that an invitation be given to all MP’s to attend a gathering at the Houses of Parliament, in order that they could be made aware of the progress of Park Home Law Reform etc. This at first seemed a good opportunity for PHRAA and the other residents representatives to present our case on a level playing field, but alas, we soon found out that this would not be the case. It was announced that, in order to get MP’s to attend, refreshments would have to be provided, and that the Government were not prepared to provide the necessary funding for such an event, so it is now being funded to the tune of £1,000 by the BH&HPA and NPHC, the two park home trade organisations who have plans to erect a park home at the Houses of Parliament for MP’s to view as part of the meeting. PHRAA feels that it is highly unlikely that the Park Homeowners will be afforded a fair hearing at a function, scheduled for the 28th February 2006, where MP’s are wined and dined by the Trade Organisations and wealthy Park Owners, sucking up to them, persuading them how “squeaky clean” the Park Home Industry is, and that “UNSCRUPULOUS PARK OWNERS” ARE IN THE MINORITY. IS THE GOVERNMENT REALLY INTERESTED IN THE “WELFARE OF PARK HOMEOWNERS????? WHAT ALL PARK HOMEOWNERS MUST REMEMBER IS THAT ALL THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO PARK HOME LAW HAS TO BE PASSED BY BOTH HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT BEFORE BECOMING LAW. IF THE GOVERNMENT PROVIDE THE OPORTUNITY FOR TRADE ORGANISATIONS AND PARK OWNERS TO INFUENCE MP’s IN THIS ONE SIDED MANNER . WHAT CHANCE OF OBTAINING A FAIR DEAL HAVE THE RESIDENTS? Ron.

WHAT BENEFIT SO FAR?
As most Park Homeowners will be aware the first five Amendments to Park Home Law came into force on January 18th 2005, but have they been of any real benefit to residents.? For the purpose of this article I will concentrate on the one which causes the most concern for Park Homeowners especially if their home is a few years old, the amendment concerning the residents right to sell their home contained in the ODPM Fact Sheet as follows……”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 park 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”.
At first glance this appears to be an improvement, but in practice it has not made a blind bit of difference for the helpless homeowner trying to sell their home if their home is on a park owned by an Unscrupulous Park Owner, (UPO). Usually as soon as a UPO finds that the home is up for sale, he will visit the resident concerned and tell them that he will not allow them to sell, or impose illegal conditions such as requiring a survey, the home has to be moved, new windows, doors, roof, the list is endless, all to be carried out before he will approve the sale, obviously designed to put off any prospective buyers and certainly not put in writing. The new Act will not stop this, neither will it prevent the park owner contacting your buyer without your knowledge to put them off, even resorting to verbal abuse and threats if all else fails. Each time you obtain a new buyer the 28 day period starts again and can and does go on for years, in the meantime, if you have already moved out, you will have to continue to pay pitch fees, council tax etc for your home until you become so desperate that you have no alternative but to accept a derisory offer of a few hundred pounds ,from the park owner. On reading this you will say yes, but the Act states that we can now take the park owner to court for preventing the sale and sue for breach of contract. Yes, you do have that right, but unless you can spend £10, 000 + in Solicitors, Barristers and Court Fees in an Action that can take over a year to even come to Court together with all the stress involved, plus the fact that as the park owner is in the position to employ specialist Law Firms meaning that you could well be faced with having to pay his costs should your Action fail, Court Action is hardly a practical proposition for most park homeowners, and the park owner knows it. Does the Government seriously suggest that prospective buyers are going to buy a residents park home knowing they face problems with the Park Owner should they buy, let alone wait for months or even years, while the seller takes the site owner to court to enable him to sell his own property.
It should also be pointed out that the first version of this clause contained the right of the homeowner where the site owner did not comply with the provision for approval or otherwise to be given in writing within 28 days of the request to sell, or withheld approval unreasonably, then the homeowner could go ahead and sell the home, and if required by the new occupier,(for their peace of mind) an application could be made to the Court for the sale to be made lawful. THIS PROVISO, the only part of this clause which would have benefited the seller, HAS BEEN REMOVED. WHY???
An example of this occurred recently where the site owner took the homeowner to Court for selling his home, after the Site owner had repeatedly blocked all attempts to sell unreasonably for over two years, eventually sold it and was taken to Court by the Site owner and lost, which resulted in the homeowner being left practically bankrupt and the buyers having to leave the home. So much for trying to obtain justice by going to Court. Where else could you be taken to Court for selling your own property except the Park Home Industry.

PHRAA firmly believes that the residents right to sell should be made ABSOLUTE, and providing that a prospective buyer fulfills any age restriction in force on the park the park owner other than the right to be notified of the sale, should not have the right to be involved the sale of what is the residents property. Should the incoming occupier for any reason prove to be unsuitable, (Fails to pay Pitch Fees or maintain the home or pitch, etc) the park owner has ample remedies available to him, under the terms of the agreement, to take Court Action against that occupier to terminate their agreement. This would place the onus on the park owner to take Court Action instead of the outgoing resident. Ron.

ENFORCING THE NEW PROPOSALS.

Whatever the benefit of any changes to Park Home Law may bestow on Park Homeowners it will make no difference in practice to those park homeowners, present and future, who like ourselves are trapped on parks owned by Unscrupulous Park Owners. As we have all found to our cost, the Unscrupulous Park Owner regards himself as above the law and completely ignores Park Home Law except when it benefits him. Park Homeowners have also found that little or no help is obtainable from Local Authorities or the Police when seeking even the basic protection from the everyday abuse, exploitation, harassment practiced against residents by the Unscrupulous Park Owner. When studying the proposed reform one cannot help but notice the absence of any concrete method of enforcement. In fact the responsibility for enforcement has been placed firmly on the shoulders of the park homeowner alone by taking the park owner to Court. How many of us can afford that or even stand the stress involved in such actions let alone stand up to the harassment and intimidation likely to be carried out by the unscrupulous park owner against the resident prior to the case being heard. It takes a brave person to take court action against an unscrupulous park owner.
What is needed is a specialist regulatory body completely independent of the park homes industry with powers of enforcement to be set up by Government to which park home owners can easily and quickly access with any problems they have with their park owner at minimal or no cost and as stress free as possible, but above all obtain a fair hearing. If the Government is really serious about improving the laws to protect park homeowners from the exploitation practiced by unscrupulous park owners then setting up such a body would be a priority. Perhaps Local Authorities could be used in this capacity provided they are given firm directives by Government, not just issued with guidelines with no duty to enforce as at present with the current Site Licence Conditions. We already have Ofwat, Ofgem, Ofcom, etc, why not an Of…something or other for park home owners, but with powers of enforcement?
Ron.

“SHOULD or MUST”
Ever been frustrated by the lack of action to your repeated complaints by your Local Authority to obvious breaches of the Site Licence Conditions by the owner of your park? Park roads full of potholes, inadequate parking, lighting, electricity or water supply, etc etc? The answer, as I am sure many of you will have already found out to your cost, is that Local Authorities have the power to enforce Site Licence Conditions, which incidentally must by law be displayed in the notice board, but not a duty, which means in effect, that they can please themselves whether they enforce them or not. I am sure many of you will have noticed that if a resident, usually through no fault of their own, breaches Site Licence Conditions, for example, they have a wooden shed between homes, or their porch is a few inches too close to the next home, etc etc, then the Local Authority will use all their powers against the resident, but totally ignore serious breaches by the park owner. PHRAA is at present dealing with a case in Wales where the park owner had installed a brand new double home on a concrete base constructed for a single home which meant that some of the supporting jacks underneath the home were placed on soil. As this was contrary to Site Licence Conditions which state that every home should be on a concrete base that extends over the whole area covered by the home, we met with the Local Council Licensing Officer on site, who after inspection stated that she was going to instruct the site owner to complete the base to acceptable standards. Shortly afterwards PHRAA received a letter from that officer stating that as the wording of the Site Licence Conditions contained the words “SHOULD HAVE” instead of “MUST HAVE” when referring to the construction of the base, then the Council need not enforce that condition and therefore were not taking any further action on the matter. When taking up this matter with the ODPM we received a letter stating that the word “SHOULD” instead of “MUST” was used in Site Licence Conditions to allow Local Councils “Flexibility” when deciding whether to take enforcement action. Maybe this explains why Local Councils crack down hard on the resident with a wooden shed or a small porch, but turn a blind eye to the site owners breaches.
Ron.

PHRAA SPONSORS ODPM SHROPSHIRE ROADSHOW
Buildwas (Ironbridge) Village Hall, 26th January 2006. BEST ONE TO DATE.

The reason this Newsletter is delayed is because we wanted to bring you the very latest report on the Roadshows staged by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, (ODPM) currently traveling the country to inform Park Owners, Residents etc, on the progress of the proposed Park Home Law Reform.
Late last year we noticed an appeal published in the Park Homes Magazine for Site Owners to provide venues for Roadshows to be staged. Having already attended two of the previous events described earlier in this newsletter it was decided that PHRAA, THE ONLY NATIONAL PARK HOME RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION TO DO SO, would offer to host a Roadshow in Shropshire, but only on the condition That NO PARK OWNERS were to attend. By imposing this condition PHRAA felt that this would give all Park Home owners attending the freedom to ask their questions and air their views without having their park owners present, a unique opportunity not afforded to Park Home Owners at other Roadshow venues. We also felt that by imposing a residents only condition would prevent this particular Roadshow being used as a promotional exercise for the Park Home Industry as at previous shows. There was no Park Home erected for show on the car park, the whole day was devoted entirely to park home residents.
The day was scheduled for three sessions the first starting at 10-30 am – 11-40 am with a thirty minute break. The second session scheduled for 12-10 pm – 1-20 pm followed by a thirty minute break. The third and final session 2-20 – 3-30pm . Each session began with the issue of a Fact Sheet setting out the first of the amendments to the present park home law which came into force on January 18th 2005 using the Housing Act and also outlining the proposed changes to the Implied Terms of the Written Statement (Contract) due to become law in 2006, followed by set speeches by Mr. John Connell, the Policy Advisor for the ODPM who is responsible for drawing up the new legislation and Alan Savory of IPHAS explaining the contents of the Fact Sheet and future plans for amending the Written Statement, the 1960-68 Caravan Control of Development Acts, Model Standards, etc. One of the most important changes proposed is to place Local Councils under a DUTY to enforce Site Licence Conditions to replace the present POWER which at present means that Local Councils need not take action against a site owner for breaches of Site Licence Conditions if they so wish. When this will actually be implemented is at present unknown as it depends on Parliament.
There then followed a question and answer session where park homeowners had the chance to put their questions to John Connell, and as already mentioned that because PHRAA had insisted that this Roadshow was for residents only they were free to ask their questions and air their views without fear as no park owners were sitting in the audience. Also, unlike other Roadshows, residents were able to openly raise their individual problems and relate individual experiences of life on their particular parks. Again, without fear of later repercussions. The widespread practice of park owners blocking residents right to sell their homes was raised several times and it seems that the only avenue open to homeowners who find themselves in this distressing situation is to take the site owner to Court. (See what benefit so far, earlier in this newsletter) In fact John Connell did state that in order to enforce the new changes it would need residents to take many cases to Court as test cases. Why should the residents have to foot the bill for the Government just to obtain the right to live their lives free from exploitation. Any changes to the present law should be made watertight from the start, not full of loopholes or double meanings.
Due to the enormous number of questions from the audience of approximately 100 residents throughout the day, each of the scheduled sessions over ran, so much so that the three sessions merged into one long all day meeting. We are sure that John Connell really had his eyes opened and learned more about the real problems suffered by park homeowners trapped on parks owned by unscrupulous park owners and the lack of action by Local Councils than he did from all previous Roadshows where park owners were present. We hope that having gained this knowledge, which only PHRAA has been hammering home, the Government will now pay more attention to the plight of park homeowners and stop pandering to the park owners and their trade organisations. Out of the three National Residents Associations, PHRAA is the only one to undertake arranging, hosting, advertising and sponsoring a Roadshow, not dominated by park owners, their Trade Organisations or park home manufacturers and used as a promotional exercise for the industry, but purely for park home owners to have their say to the Government Officer. The ODPM had also invited representatives from Local Councils to attend, but unfortunately, for one reason or another they were unable to attend, which is a shame as they too would have learned a lot. The time to promote the park home industry is after new and enforceable laws are in force to protect Park Homeowners from exploitation and get rid of the unscrupulous park owners infesting the industry, AND NOT BEFORE.
Our sincere thanks go to John Connell from the ODPM and Alan Savory from IPHAS for attending and listening to residents problems. Special thanks also to the officers of PHRAA for their hard work hosting the Roadshow including Joan who besides being a key officer of PHRAA, provided welcome refreshments.
We must also thank Radio WM, and Radio Shropshire, for kindly giving PHRAA Officers interviews on air to publicise the event, and the Shropshire Star for including a mention in their newspaper, but most of all thanks to all the park home residents who attended and presented their questions and views.
Thanks to you all. Ron.

If you need any further information on Park Home Law Reform. Please contact Mark Coram ODPM 0207 944 6226. Or Email This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it Web Site. www.odpm.gov.uk.
Or contact PHRAA.

PHRAA IS THE ONLY NATIONAL RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION WORKING EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE WELFARE OF PARK HOMEOWNERS.

PHRAA DOES NOT AND WILL NOT ACCEPT SPONSORSHIP FROM ANY PERSON OR COMPANY CONNECTED WITH THE PARK HOMES INDUSTRY.