|
DID YOU KNOW? For anyone thinking of buying a park home the only comprehensive source of information available ‘warts n all’ is contained on the PHRAA Website www.phraa.co.uk. DO YOUR HOMEWORK BEFORE YOU BUY. Remember BUY IN HASTE, REPENT AT LEISURE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TAKEN IN BY PARK HOME ADVERTS? SUE THE PANTS OFF EM!!!
“Oh how I wish I knew then what I know now I would never have bought a Park Home.”
I wish I had a pound for every time I hear this phrase uttered by yet another disillusioned and heartbroken park home resident contacting PHRAA for advice having realised that by buying a park home they have made the biggest mistake of their lives. The other equally uttered lament is “why did nobody warn us about what we were getting into?”
As we all know, the process of buying a park home, especially a brand new one from the park owner, is a simple process and can easily be completed within a few minutes. ( the length of time it takes to write out your extremely large cheque). Just a few minutes to become a park homeowner, but it can, and all too often does, take years of misery costing you your health, wealth, dignity and sanity leave you homeless and destitute getting out again. Remember that the moment you hand your cheque to the park owner, even though you may not have even set foot inside the door, you will have lost at least 10% of the purchase price. That is of course if the site owner allows you to sell it. (Note. When considering a home already in situ, remember that although the home may be presented as brand new, this is no guarantee that it really is brand new. All it actually means is that it has not been previously occupied. Park Homes frequently remain unsold for some years. (overpriced perhaps? ) 4 is quite common. ).
If you are one of those desperately regretting buying your park home having realised, now its too late, that you are trapped into a lifestyle that is far removed from the cheap to maintain, worry free, life of paradise you were led to expect, we would strongly advise that you think back and list all the sources of park home propaganda which directly influenced your decision to buy? Your list will almost certainly include any or all of the following……
(1)…. The glowing advertisements in the specialist Park Home publications etc., backed up by extremely complimentary write ups contained within, all extolling the virtues of park home life.
(2)…. .Pushy salespersons at any of the various park/mobile home shows and exhibitions you may have visited.
(3)……Park Owners or their representatives which may include specially groomed “brown nosed” residents
(4)…. Any residents on the park which may, usually in order to keep on the right side of the park owner, have convinced you that life on that park is perfect, you have nothing whatsoever to worry about as the park owner is great, etc etc. UPO’s usually groom very new residents for this purpose. (See Warning page 3.)
(5)….. You feel that, having followed advice, on attempting to check the credentials of a particular park owner or park with either of the two park home industry’s trade organisations, especially if they are shown to be a member of either or both organisations, you are fobbed off or given, what you now consider to be, misleading information which has contributed to your present position.
(6)….. You feel that, having followed advice, you contacted any of the National Park Home Residents Associations seeking advice regarding the potential pitfalls of park home lifestyle, the credentials of a particular park/s owner/s or any other relevant important information vital to your decision, and now consider you have been fobbed off or fed mis-leading information which you now consider has contributed to your present situation. (Note…. There are three National Park Home Residents Associations including PHRAA. It should be noted that one of these (NOT PHRAA) WORKS FOR, WELCOMES and ENCOURAGES PARK OWNERS as well as Residents as become members). PHRAA WORKS EXCLUSIVELY FOR PARK HOME OWNERS.. PHRAA IS DEFINATELY NOT A MEMBER OF THE “BROWN NOSE” CLUB!!!!!
If any of the above applies to you and you are sure that you were not given the full facts by any or all those above approached for advice, then PHRAA strongly urges you to seriously consider taking the only action open to you which is to TAKE LEGAL ACTION for MISREPRESENTATION against any or all of those listed above, or any other person or body, who you consider have knowingly withheld vital information. WHY SHOULD THEY CONTINUE TO GET AWAY WITH YOUR MONEY!!!!!. Ron.
Cautionary Warning. (From Page 2) This applies to new or nearly new occupiers of new park homes who may have only moved on to the park very recently, usually parks obviously under redevelopment, and may still be enjoying what we at PHRAA refer to as the honeymoon period. This means that the unscrupulous park owner will go to any lengths to keep them sweet in order that he can rely upon them to give his park, and himself, a glowing reference to any prospective buyers of his new homes. Unfortunately for many innocent buyers, there are very frequent incidents whereby new residents, having realised there are problems on the park, will, in the mistaken belief that they will curry favour with the UPO, will praise up the park and its owner thereby encouraging yet another innocent and vulnerable victim to fall into the trap. PHRAA would seriously advise recent occupiers to be very careful what they say when advising and encouraging prospective buyers. If as so often happens, the promised paradise turns out to be terrible nightmare for those encouraged, those responsible could well find themselves being sued. Quite rightly too. BE VERY CAREFUL WHAT YOU SAY. It may well come back to haunt you. If you have become a victim in this way, PHRAA’s ADVICE IS SUE THE PANTS OFF THOSE WHO GAVE YOU THE ADVICE THAT CAUSED YOU TO BUY!!!! Ron
DID YOU KNOW? That in the year 2010 that beautiful park home which may have cost you anything between £100,000 - £300,000 is by LEGAL DEFINITION actually a CARAVAN, therefore not classed as housing but a CHATTEL and the park it is stationed on is defined as a CARAVAN SITE. Don’t believe it? Take a look at the Site Licence which should be displayed on your park notice board or office. If not displayed, then check at your Local Authority Licensing Department. Ron.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
RECENT COURT CASES.
The first of these reports where an unscrupulous park owner has been taken to task concerns our own site owner. Reports courtesy of the “Express & Star” “Shropshire Star” and “Park Home and Holiday Caravan” magazine. (1)…. Thursday 8th May 2008 “Fine for Caravan fire man”. “A fly-tipper who set fire to a disused caravan in South Staffordshire has been ordered to pay more than £1,700. Christopher Nedic (Site Owner) deliberately set the caravan alight in Kingswood, (next to Silver Poplars Park, ) near Albrighton, after being told by a council officer that he could not dump it without a controlled waste licence, Stafford Magistrates Court heard. The 52 year- old, from Holyhead Road, (‘South Fork’ Holyhead Road, Kingswood, Albrighton, Wolverhampton) was taken to court by south Staffs Council under the Environmental Act. He was fined £1,500 and told to pay £288 costs….. “ Unfortunately, the Nedic’s do not take much notice of the law as case No. 2 committed on another of their sites confirms…… Shropshire Star & PH&HC magazine. Carry reports that Mr. Nedic’s two sons, Carl and Christopher Jnr have been ordered to pay more than £10,000 in fines and costs by Telford Magistrates Court after they admitted burning waste consisting of an old Mobile Home and caravan waste illegally on the 7th and 13th August 2009 on a park/mobile home site near Telford owned by their father Mr. C S Nedic of South Fork, Holyhead Road, Kingswood, Albrighton Wolverhampton.. “Environmental Agency chiefs visited he park, Pool View Park, Buildwas, Nr. Ironbridge, Shropshire on August 13th 2008 and came across a large pile of burnt waste and ash with various materials including glass, plastic, metal roof tiles and window frames. Surrounding trees were badly scorched and blackened to a height of 5 Metre’s the agency said”. The prosecution was brought under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Mr. Nedic owns and operates several sites in England and Wales. We also understand that prior to this prosecution Case No. 3 Mr. Nedic was fined and cautioned at an earlier prosecution Hearing at the same TELFORD Magistrates Court for threatening to throw the Environmental Officers, investigating the case above, into a pool situated on the site.
Case No. 4. Victory for a few brave residents of Pendeford Hall Park, Pendeford, Wolverhampton. This case concerned a few residents legitimately withholding the annual pitch fee increase as allowed under the Act citing reduction of site amenities and the site owners continued refusal to provide, despite many requests, the residents with a full breakdown of the reasons needed to justify the increase demanded, as the Act stipulates, , being taken to court for arrears by the site owners. In the WOLVERHAMPTON COUNTY COURT. Claim Number 9QZ21558 Date 16th February 2010
ALLENS CARAVANS (ESTATES ) LTD. 1st Claimant V Mr. G Nail. 1st Defendant
Before Deputy District Judge Harrop sitting at Wolverhampton County Court, Pipers Row, Wolverhampton, West Midlands. WV1 3LQ. Upon Hearing the Claimant and the Defendant in person, IT IS ORDERED THAT…. 1... Claim Dismissed. Judgement for the Defendant. 2...No request for permission to appeal. Dated 5th February 2010.
Congratulations to all concerned and PHRAA is proud to have assisted in a small way to their victory. Case No. 5. IN THE BLACKPOOL COUNTY COURT. Claim No. 9BC01031. Green Tree parks Ltd (Claimants) and George Chopping and 63 others (Defendants) which was heard before District Judge Buckley sitting at Blackpool County Court on Tuesday 8th December 2009. As this case is subject to a Reserved Judgement to be handed down at a date to be arranged, I had better not comment or go into details to avoid mentioning anything which may jeopardise the ongoing legal process. Full details will be published at a later date.
As you will probably know unless you are fortunate enough to qualify for Legal Aid employing the services of a Solicitor (if you can find one that knows anything about park home law) to defend yourself against a determined site owner is way beyond most park homeowners financial means as was the case here. Even though there were 64 Defendants involved they could not, even by clubbing together, possibly hope to raise the astronomical sums a solicitor would charge in fees, let alone having to pay the site owners many thousands of pounds costs should they lose. The 64 residents (Defendants) were admirably represented by resident Defendant Mr. George Chopping, the PHRAA representative for Carr Bridge Park, Blackpool owned by Green Tree Parks Ltd. Being heavily involved with many of the residents of Carr bridge Park for several years I was familiar with the problems faced by the residents of this park who were in this long standing dispute with Green Tree Parks Ltd and had written several letters to the site owner and his legal firm in an attempt to resolve the issues, but to no avail. In support of George and his fellow defendants, representing PHRAA I attended the two day hearing and was so proud of the calm and collective manner that George, who has absolutely no legal Experience whatsoever, conducted himself while presenting the case for the defendants, steadfastly undaunted by the efforts of the eminent Barrister and well known specialist law firm, employed by Mr. Burnett owner of Green Tree parks Ltd., to destroy their defence. I am sure that the residents concerned will join us at PHRAA in expressing our admiration and thanks to George who does not enjoy the best of health and also cares for his disabled wife Sadie, who supports him all the way. To all the residents of Carr Bridge Park, Blackpool, You are so fortunate to have a man of George’s calibre with his strength and determination supporting you. We at PHRAA are proud to know him
Case No. 6.… Congratulations to the Willow Park Residents Association who have recently won their court action with claim fees for costs against their park owner for the right to be recognised as a Qualifying Residents Association. PHRAA wishes you our very best wishes for the future..
Case No.. 7. HALF A MILLION FOR CARAVAN ARSON VICTIMS. You may recall that in February last year the new owners of the Glen site in Blackwell, Bromsgrove, West Midlands were jailed for 12 years each for torching the homes of three terrified residents in order to drive residents off and also coerce the original site owner to sell the site to them for a vastly reduced price. Including the 3 burned out residents over 20 people suffered financial loss. Around the 31st March 2010 Judge Allister McCreath ordered John Doherty to pay £445,000 compensation to the victims within six months or face an extra four years Jail. Detailed report on the original case available on the PHRAA website. Ron.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHRAA’s POSITION REGARDING THE NEW LEGISLATION
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT.
We at PHRAA are extremely concerned that much of the publicity including that issued by Government Officials concerning the new legislation, especially that, which until tested, appears to benefit park homeowners, states that certain changes to the legislation have been agreed with the park home industry and the National Park Home Residents Associations. This may give the impression to park homeowners that PHRAA also approves the changes. There are 3 National Park Home Residents Associations at present. One of these openly states that it offers MEMBERSHIP, advice and help to PARK OWNERS as well as residents. (Park Owners are represented by two of the most powerful trade organisations BH&HPA and NHPC supported by the top specialist law firms available, WHY WOULD THEY NEED THE HELP OF A NATIONAL PARK HOME RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION????) We are not really sure which side the other one is on? TO CLEAR UP ANY MISUNDERSTANDINGS ONCE AND FOR ALL,WE AT PHRAA WISH IT TO BE KNOWN THAT PHRAA HAS NOT AGREED TO MANY OF THE CHANGES IN THE NEW LOOPHOLE RIDDLED LEGISLATION AND CAN PROVE THAT MOST ARE DETRIMENTAL TO THE WELFARE OF PARK HOMEOWERS. THE ONLY RIGHTS THAT HAVE BEEN STRENGTHENED ARE THE RIGHTS OF UNSCRUPULOUS PARK OWNERS. PHRAA “TELLS IT AS IT IS!” Ron. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RESIDENTS ASSOCIATIONS.
A prime example of the above is a right, taken for granted by the residents of every other form of housing, being given to park home residents under the 2006 amended 1983 MHAct is the right to form a Residents Association on their park. However, as with most of the so called improvements to the legislation what appears to be given to the residents with one hand is immediately taken away again with the other, with interest, by the imposition of Park Owner biased, restrictive conditions which, you may notice, only the residents are forced to comply with before their proposed RA can be even considered for recognition by the site owner. There are four main conditions which, where a determined park owner is involved, provide him with the weapons to prevent an RA being formed. (1)… 50% of the homeowners is the minimum number stipulated to form an RA. (2)… A list of members has to be made available to the park owner at all times in order that he can verify that the 50% criteria is maintained at all times. This means that the most vulnerable residents can be, and frequently are, picked off one by one by the UPO using abusive behaviour to bring about the demise of the RA by ensuring that the required 50% cannot be maintained. (3)…. Only one vote per home is allowed when decisions are taken. This means that wives or partners are denied a say on matters concerning in their welfare (4) …If the park owner refuses to recognise and/or have any dealings with the properly constituted Association the only redress open to the residents is take the park owner to court. .Any or all of these outrageous restrictions is all that is necessary to destroy any chance of residents attempts to form an RA.
Anyone reading the statements issued by the other National Residents Associations, the industry’s trade association and the Government will have observed that they all state that this section of the new legislation, especially the restrictive conditions, was compiled and agreed between both the trade and the other two national residents association representatives. National park home residents associations agreeing to this??? WHOSE SIDE ARE THEY ON. Unlike others, PHRAA is not in bed with the industry’s trade organisations and did not or ever would agree to such oppressive rubbish, as any of our policy statements published on the PHRAA Website etc., will prove . As already stated earler PHRAA “Tells it as it is” and is not or ever will become a member of the “BROWN NOSE CLUB” Residents have no say in which, or how many, trade organisations their park owner joins. Why then should the park owner be given the right to legally veto the residents HUMAN RIGHT to join together as a residents association. PHRAA has received reports that residents on some parks have been informed by unspecified sources (NOT PHRAA) that if they are members of one National Residents Associations they are not allowed to join another. There is absolutely no legal restriction on which, or how many, residents organisations, national or otherwise, they can be members of at the same time. Is it not still a free country??? Not if you live in a Park/Mobile Home it seems!!!
Finally a note of caution regarding the operation of a Park Residents Association.
It is vital for the welfare of the residents that the right people are elected to head your association (ie Chairperson, Secretary etc.) as they will be trusted to represent the welfare of the members in any dealings with the park owner etc. Many RA’s disband in disarray because the officers, encouraged by a crafty park owner, get delusions of grandeur and act unilaterally on important issues without consulting the members. In short swapping one dictatorship for another. One example being the Chairman of a parks RA, (who has recently been promoted to high office in the only National Park Home Residents Association to welcome Park Owners as members, ) who, residents allege, not only expels any members who dare to question or disagree with his unilateral decisions also removes them from the newspaper round he operates on the park. Be very careful when electing the officers and committee members to head your parks residents association. Ron
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DID YOU KNOW? That due to the decision taken in its wisdom, by the Government some time ago to bring Gypsies and Travellers under the same legislation as Park Homeowners, namely the Mobile Homes Act 1983/2006 and Caravan Sites Licensing Legislation, each time the Government (DCLG) issues Consultation papers to interested parties, (Park Home Industry’s trade organisations, Park Owners, National and Parks Residents Associations, Local Council Officers etc etc.,) inviting them to submit their views on any Governments proposals concerning changes to the PARK HOME LEGISLATION ETC., Gypsy and Traveller organisations are included. As a example, two Consultation papers entitled “Park Home Site Licensing -- Improving the Management of Park Home Sites” and “Dispute resolution under the Mobile Homes Act 1983 (As amended) Summary of responses and further consultation” issued May 2009 out of the various 72 organisations listed for consultation, only 6 including Local Authority’s, National Park Home Residents Associations and the 2 Trade Associations are directly involved with Residential Park/Mobile Homes. 27 are organisations representing Gypsy’s and Travellers. Ron.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TRIBUNAL SERVICE. (RPTS)
Claimed by the Government, the park home industry’s two trade organisations (BH&HPA and NPHC) and the other two National Park Home Residents Association (IPHAS & NAPHR) representatives this Government proposal to take certain park home related disputes away from the jurisdiction of the County Court and move them to the Residential Property Tribunal Service (RPTS) will be a quicker and more cost effective method of dispute resolution. But the main question on PHRAA’s lips has to be, WILL IT ACTUALLY DO WHAT IT SAYS ON THE TIN???? (See also LEGAL VIEW, an atticle by Graham Watts , Park Home Legal Services, expressing his views on the proposed RPTS., published on the PHRAA Website.) Or is it just another RED HERRING designed to kid long suffering residents into believing that positive action is being taken by this Government to afford them effective protection from the ever growing exploitation practiced against them with impunity by Unscrupulous park owners.? As usual this Government in its efforts to appease the all powerful park owners are bending over backwards to promote the aspirations of the park home industry while dismissing and at times ridiculing the desperate pleas for help resulting from their practice of sacrificing the lives and welfare of the most important element without whom this industry could not survive, THE PARK HOMEOWNER. IF THOSE IN GOVERNMENT, THE PARK HOME INDUSTRY AND OTHERS CLAIMING TO REPRESENT PARK HOME RESIDENTS SPENT AS MUCH TIME AND ENERGY IN ACTUALLY TAKING THE POSITVE ACTION NEEDED TO RID THE INDUSTRY OF THE EVER GROWING NUMBER OF UPO’S, AS THEY SPEND IN DENYING THE RAPIDLY ESCALATING SCALE OF THE LEGALISED RESIDENT EXPLOITATION BY CONTINUOUSLY “DUCKING AND DIVING” THE PROBLEMS WOULD HAVE BEEN RESOLVED YEARS AGO.
The cases that are proposed to transfer to the RPTS are: *Residents right to have a written Statement (contract)
* Site owners refusal to approve the sale of a home.
*The gift of a home.
*The re-siting of park homes.
* Pitch Fee Reviews.
* The recognition of residents associations;
* Matters that may be inplied into an agreement (contract) under Part 11 of schedule 1 to the Act;
* The varying or deletion of an Express Term;
* The Government announced in December that following further consultation it had decided not to transfer to RPTS the fact finding role of courts in termination cases, other than in repair cases.
As most park homeowners will, or should, already know the Act already gives them the rights listed above, so why must park homeowners be forced to go to court or a Tribunal Service to get those rights enforced? The majority of UPO’s boast that they take no notice whatsoever of Court Orders. Are we seriously expected to believe that they will suddenly decide to comply with non- legally enforceable decisions issued by the RPTS. Unfortunately we do not live in “Cloud Cuckoo Land”.
It is claimed that transferring the jurisdiction for park home law from the County Court to the RPTS will provide the parties involved with a cheaper and simpler method of dispute resolution. Cheaper and simpler for who? Residents or Site Owners? Is it a possibility that residents may be encouraged to attempt stand up for their rights using this service believing that they will stand a better chance under this system especially as it is claimed that the resident will be able to represent himself? But what happens when that resident is confronted by a determined park owner, intent on saving many thousands of pounds, taking full advantage of the cheaper RPTS system,. The resident will be representing himself but the park owner is represented by his very experienced specialist legal company Barrister such as Tozers? What chance does the resident stand then.? We note that highlighted in the “Notice Board “ article featuring the RPTS published in the April 2010 issue of PH&HC magazine is the following statement that “Sixty Cases a year brought before the courts under the Mobile Homes Act does not reflect the well documented difficulties in the sector”. The only problem with this statement is that it omits to specify how many of these 60 cases were taken by the park owner against residents.
Those responsible for the running of the RPTS claim that specific training courses in park home law jurisdiction have been organised for members and staff of the service. Great, but who is providing the training? specially picked park owners, Park Home Industry Trade Associations or the park owners specialist legal teams ie., Tozers, Turbervilles or any other similar company‘s? It could even possibly be that certain favoured national park home residents associations, (those who work for park owners as well as residents) representatives will oversee the training? Either way, god help the residents seeking justice.
One could well be forgiven for wondering at this point that as the Government, Park owners, their Trade Organisations and official representatives of the other National Park Home Residents Associations continually claim that the UNSCRUPULOUS PARK OWNERS form only a very small MINORITY of Park Owners, why do we need this new service? The impression one gains from this statement continually issued by others that it is only PHRAA that receive such distressing reports and pleas for help from desperate park home residents? How can this be? Perhaps, unlike PHRAA, others prefer to turn a deaf ear or is it that it is only PHRAA that has the guts to “Tell it as it is”? Ron.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residents recent Petition to No. 10 concerning homeowners right to sell.
Many of you may be aware of the recent Petition instigated by Mrs. Sonia McColl a park homeowner in Dorset and posted on the No. 10 Petitions website highlighting the widespread abuse of the park home residents legal right to sell their homes commonly practiced by all too many park owners therefore robbing helpless elderly and vulnerable park homeowners of collectively Millions of pounds each year. ROB THE POOR GIVE TO THE RICH!!! You may have also questioned as to why PHRAA did not become involved in this seemingly worthwhile exercise. Although PHRAA has several issues with the content of the Petition we whole-heartily applaud and support Mrs. McColl’s initiative and her many hours of hard work necessary in her efforts, assisted by the local MP, to bring this disgraceful and ever growing practice to the governments and the publics attention.. We were also pleased to note that the park Home & Holiday Caravan magazine had helpfully published a copy of the Petition in two consecutive issues for readers to sign and return. However upon studying this professionally reproduced copy we were very disturbed to observe that nowhere within the text was there any mention of Mrs. McColl’s input, indeed the credit for drawing up this Petition is claimed by Alan Savory MBE of IPHAS the only National Park Home Residents Association to advertise for Park Owners to become members, which, as this association works for both sides, explains why, in PHRAA’s view, it is worded in such a way that if adopted as law creates even more loopholes in the selling proceedure for the UPO to exploit with impunity as the following reproduction of the Petition, as published in the November 2009 issue of PH&HC magazine confirms. We have highlighted some relevant points.
“We require an amendment to the Mobile Homes Act 1983 to improve the situation regarding the occupier’s right to sell their home. The owner is not entitled to demand an interview with the person buying the home before giving approval, but where he believes that an interview is necessary, the interveiw must be conducted office of a lawyer with a lawyer present. in an The lawyer must satisfy himself that the reasons for the interview are reasonable, that statements made by the owner are not fraudulent and references offered by the person are satisfactory. References satisfactory to the lawyer shall be acceptable to the park owner. A lawyer for the puposes of the above must be a lawyer with a registered legal practice. The lawyer chosen shall be acceptable to both parties and shall make himself aware of the content of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 and associated legislation before the interview. The charge for the lawyers services shall be met by the park owner.” Perhaps Mr. Savory and IPHAS will tell us long suffering park homeowners….(1)… where all these park home law literate lawyers are to be found? (2)… After first stating that the park owner is not entitled to demand an interview with a homeowners buyer, he then lays down a criteria for such an interview to take place?… (3)…Does he seriously suggest that the park owner will agree to conduct said interview in the presence of a solicitor especially one not employed by him and conversant with park home law? (4)…..As for the park owner being required to meet the costs of the lawyers services, to anyone living in the real world of park home life under the UPO., the phrase, CLOUD CUCKOO LAND immediately springs to mind.???? (5)… Unfortunately the interview stage is only one method open to the UPO to prevent homeowners selling. Dozens more are available including intimidation and/or abuse of prospective buyers, threatening homeowners themselves, telling buyers that the home is going to be moved, removed from the site, too old, needs all sorts of work doing, porches taken down, etc etc, even threatening local estate agents employed by the seller. (6)… Are prospective buyers going to proceed under such circumstances? Ron.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DID YOU KNOW that in addition to publishing glowing articles and glossy adverts rapturously extolling the virtues of the park home lifestyle the Park Home & Holiday Caravan magazine is also concerned about our love lives. This is in the form of a leaflet, advertising bottles of pills, regularly enclosed within its pages entitled “GIVE YOUR LOVE LIFE A BOOST” . “ Just one daily Vasolator (product name) serving will: *Give you stronger longer lasting erections * Boost sexual and muscular performance * Increase blood surges to all body parts * Dramatically improve sex for men and women” it claims. “……for the sizzling love life you and your partner deserve“ “….better long lasting lovemaking and more orgasms from just one pill a day…. You can have sex as often as you want. “ Could it be that after purchasing this product we shall all be so busy making love and /or joining in with the parks regular over sixties SWINGING PARTIES that we won’t have time or be too knackered, to fret over being robbed blind by the outrageous antics of Unscrupulous Park Owners. Mind you at the special offer of £17.99 for 1 bottle of 30, or £169. 99 for 12 the price is very much in keeping with the inflated prices demanded for everything else to do with the park home lifestyle. One last thought, perhaps the idea is that by using this product the unfortunate park home resident gets over excited and suffers a fatal heart attack, the UPO will then obtain the home for next to nothing immediately after the funeral. How long will it be before some enterprising Unscrupulous Park Owner offers prospective park home buyers 12 bottles of this product free with every home sold. As they will have to be over 55 years old to qualify what a fool proof method of ensuring a rapid, regular and lucrative turnover of innocent and gullible residents. To save any problems with the residents troublesome relatives, the UPO could call upon the services of his very “CLEVER” specialist Solicitors to draw up the residents will’s in his favour by means of a clause stipulating this inserted within the park rules. Ron.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHAT ABOUT OUR HUMAN RIGHTS ?
“Standing room only as 600 residents join protest against gypsy invasion of their village”. (Daily Mail 6th May 2010)
Our sincere congratulations go to the 50 residents of Meriden, Warwickshire who formed a human barricade to prevent gypsies setting up an illegal camp of 14 caravans on an 8 acre site. Had these brave and determined villagers not taken this action there is no doubt wharsoever that over the bank holiday weekend that site would have been transformed into a fully operational site whilst Solihull council were powerless to stop them. The Council have issued a temporary stop notice banning further development for 28 days. But the order runs out at the start of the next Bank Holiday weekend at the end of this month and planning rules prevent the authority from issuing a new one. This means that the villagers 24 hour vigils at the camp’s entrance could continue into June before the situation is resolved. “Gypsies can ignore green belt laws; Rules put their human rights above local residents.” (Daily Mail 5th May 2010) £50,000 interest free loans provided by the taxpayer for travellers to buy sites. Scheme devised by Mendip Disrtict Council to encourage travellers to buy land to develop their own sites with council help and finance. As mentioned earlier the Government have now included gypies and travellers in the legislation governing park /mobile homes. How come we Council Tax paying park homeowners do not receive the same help or enjoy the same rights and continue to be treated as SECOND CLASS CITIZENS ? Ron.
PHRAA. The only National Park Homeowners Association to“TELL IT AS IT IS”
SEE YOU SOON!
|
