How long before we residents feel the full impact of this ill-conceived legislation? Almost immediately, in fact many already have. For some time now during the consultation process prior to this legislation coming into force, park owners, some of whom had enlisted the help of over zealous council officers, have been ordering residents to cut down the contents of their gardens to in many cases ground level. Where some residents refused the park owner has moved onto their pitch with a JCB and ripped out every plant, bush, garden feature etc., leaving the helpless resident devastated. He can’t do that, I hear you say, that’s my property he’s destroyed I’ll get the Police and have him charged with criminal damage? Try it, Yes the Police may come, but you will usually find that they will say that because the park owner owns the land it is a CIVIL MATTER and you will have to take the park owner to Court yourself if you want any form of redress.

At the time of writing PHRAA has already received a copy of a letter sent to park residents from their park owner ordering them to cut down their garden vegetation to 1 metre, citing the new Model Standards legislation. No doubt this is only the first of many yet to come.

Besides the potentially devastating effect any heavy handed enforcement by park owners and / or local councils of this clause in Model Standards, will have on residents, it will also tarnish even further the reputation of the park home industry as a whole. But it could also result in redundancy for Professor David Bellamy, President of the BH&HPA who dishes out special Awards to parks for their contribution to Conserving the Environment. Also redundant will become the writers of the regular gardening features appearing in the Park Home magazines unless they restrict their future articles to the care of indoor pot plants and the maintenance of lawnmowers. ( if allowed that is)

The official reason is stated to be that the presence of shrubs etc between homes is that they would act as a bridge for fire to spread from one home to another. Whilst PHRAA would agree that in very rare extreme cases of excessive neglected and very dry vegetation being present against the homes this may be a feasible possibility, but otherwise in normal circumstances extremely unlikely. Most park homeowners take a pride in their gardens spending much time lavishing TLC. What park owners would do well to remember before they come down hard and force residents to clear their gardens is that the residents beautiful gardens enhance the appearance of the park and help to sell homes.

Perhaps we could have understood the thinking behind this if were not for paragraph 2, sub paragraph (g), abolishing the maximum of one car allowed to be parked between homes. There is now no restriction as to the number of cars allowed to be parked between homes, providing they are 3 metres away from the next home. So while a garden plant over 1 metre (39 inches) high is regarded as a fire hazard, 2 or more cars with full tanks of petrol parked within the separation distance between homes are not????? Obviously this has been brought in to enable park owners to do away with car parking areas and fill them with extra new homes, as is already happening on many parks. It is also worth noting that the previous clause restricting the number of homes on a site to 50 per Hectare has also been abolished. This means that now every inch of green space on a park will now be crammed with homes at 6 metres apart. Take note Prof Bellamy. Keep your grass cut short and get your saws and clippers sharpened.!!!!

Please let PHRAA know when you get your letters. Ron

BROADCASTING THE PROBLEMS AGAIN.

Mr. Richard Younger-Ross MP featured strongly in another lunchtime edition of ‘You and Yours’ on BBC Radio 4 in early April. This included clips from last years exposure of the park home industry on ‘Face the Facts’ (Available to listen to on PHRAA Website by kind permission of the BBC.) superbly handled by legendary investigator; John Waite. On this occasion, Mr. Younger- Ross focussed on the forseen failures of legislative changes, which PHRAA accurately predicted before they became law. We would like to thank him for securing the necessary debate in the House, which was outlined in the broadcast, and to the growing number of MP’s who now have personal experiences, brought to their attention via long suffering constituents. The programme boasts around 3 million listeners. Colin. (President)

WHY BELIEVE ALL YOU READ?

When you buy a specialist magazine for the purpose of buying a product or service featured within, it is rare to find anything too critical; especially so when advertising revenue accounts for a large chunk of the publishers income. The last thing they want is for a major name to pull out because the editor printed a strong criticism, however true it may have been. Yes, one can see the difficulties – nobody wants to lose their job. But neither does the reader want to lose out on the truth! The reality is that this traditional policy has a serious negative effect on the reader. For example, experience shows that the Advertising Standards Authority, by its very nature of operation, causes long delays between the complaint being made and a decision being reached…. and then only a slap on the wrist for the most part, if a complaint is upheld. As a result, advertisers are tempted to mislead, be economical with the truth, or even blatantly lie! By the time the ASA have got to grips, the advertisment has changed for another version – often equally misleading. And so the process continues. Then there are other features, including owners’ own experiences. How accurate are they? Its not unusual for journalists to be ‘led’ towards certain sources, in order to ensure the comments will be most favourable. So, what happens when a reader complains? In our case, described elsewhere, (see below) our (PHRAA’s) two written concerns did not even merit the courtesy of a reply. There was, therefore, only one remaining route open to us, the Press Complaints Commission, who rightly found in our favour. The lesson here is simple. We have the right to the truth. The moral is to rely solely upon your own unbiased judgement, or of those who have no financial connection with what is being offered. With so much money at stake when buying a park home, you can’t take risks. Colin (President)

WHO ARE THEY? WHAT DO THEY KNOW?

Regular magazine readers will no doubt be wondering who on earth are behind the numerous new company names, not just involved in new lodge and park home developments, but in the service sector too, where claims are often made of being in the particular business for many years, yet their advertisments have not been seen before. Having made some basic enquiries one has to say that individual names of directors or qualifications held etc., are loathe to trip off the tongue of polite receptionists. Why are they so evasive? I am sure you can guess. With your future happiness at stake, you need positive proof that the company, or service provider you choose matches your expectations, not just meaningless words on paper. Colin (President)

A READER ASKS…….

Spotted in a popular magazine recently. A lady wanted to know if a mobile home was a sound investment. She was already worried by the tone of the question. The magazines grey haired advisor started off positively, by reminiscing about his parents being “very happy on a well managed site”. That was then, but time had obviously changed his viewpiont – perhaps from personal or close friend experiences? Because here are some of his quotes on the subject now; “Of course it should be remembered that not everyone will have a happy experience. The main downside is that it is highly unlikely your new home will appreciate in value. Park homes have a limited life, and if you sell, you must expect a loss. There are too many issues to cover here”. Another lost customer then. (Circulation figures exceed 350,000 copies).

In a nutshell PHRAA’s role is to inform and reform. Why don’t you get on the internet and tell the world about your predicament. You must be truthful, and hold documentary evidence to support your claims. For those without a computer it shouldn’t be difficult to persuade someone to write up your story. The BBC have two excellent sites, for example, for you to have your say on a world wide scale. To do so will help to speed the process of reform. Right now, there is much to complain about still, the sort that you just couldn’t make up….but they have. To those of you similarly affected in the USA, Australia and NZ, we welcome your comments and experiences too. Colin (President)

AGE OLD PROBLEM - WITH A NEW MEANING!

In an age where age sometimes matters, and other times not, but in between, this simple three letter word can cause such controversy; none more so than in the confines of park home life. Mostly, you have to be of a certain age; past your best, with plenty of money to spare. For they don’t really want you to buy a nice mature home at a reasonable price. Even though the age of the home has been excluded from the criteria for selling an older home. Age has been reintroduced almost simultaneously under another guise. Articles and documents now abound with figures from 10 – 15 years, as being “old”! Match this with the abolition of the 5 year period. Now, more than ever, your home could be targeted any day soon, as being “unfit”, and in need of much refurbishment. (Still keen on park home living ?) Odds are that it si none of these, but being “old” yourself, they believe you will accept their “findings”, without you realising the fact they have to let a court of law decide first!

Whilst its now an offence for an employer to discriminate against an applicant on age alone, this industry’s sheer arrogance has ensured it is immune. BUT, when it suits its membership, suddenly your age is unimportant; when attacking you legally; often for spurious charges. They know the chances of you finding a solicitor able to tackle unique legislation, which might as well have been written on rice paper for the most part, is not going to frighten the most timid bookmaker taking a bet on the chances of winning.

At this point you should try and imagine what it must be like at the age of 93 to be confronted with the reality that, at this great age; having fought in the Second World War for your country; to now face; with your partner of many years, a final losing battle against this country’s entire legal system, who conspired to see the couple evicted into very basic shared temporary accommodation for eight weeks; devoid of possessions – not even a microwave or crockery! Watch this space for more facts on this ongoing case; and a similar one pending; as they unfold. Think it’ll never happen to you? Don’t bet on it. Colin (President).

UNLAWFUL ENTRY SOUGHT.

Few established park homeowners will have either heard about: or seen a copy of the new Implied Terms introduced in late 2006. That’s good news for park owners who want to exploit such ignorance. Some are writing to invite their agents or contractors into your home. As one operator puts it; “only to take end of the line earth loop readings at your consumer unit”. But new Implied Term 15 states that their lawful entry onto your pitch does “NOT extend to the mobile home”. Additionally, many will have signed Park Rules to agree in effect that the responsibility for services from the meter, or from above ground into he home; in the case of underground services; is the entire responsibility of the homeowner. It may be prudent to arrange for an entirely independent check; as past evidence is such that unwelcome and unlawful entry has marked the start of spurious claims; in order to set a detrimental process in motion against you. Surveys “to order” come to mind. Be on your guard. Please let PHRAA know of any such attempts to undermine your basic rights. Colin. (President)

Lucrative 4^th Source of Income for Park Owners.

As many park homeowners will be aware that in order to scrape a meagre living from owning a park home site the “poor” (Government Commissioned Economics Report on Park Home Sites) park owner cannot survive without his guaranteed three sources of income. (1)… The 100% plus profit he makes on the sale of new homes. (Siting Fees) (2)….Annual Inflation proof income from Pitch Fees and other charges. (3)…. The mandatory 10% of the sale price of the home paid to the park owner by the homeowner when he sells his home. But very often there is No (4)… Non- Refundable Deposits where a prospective purchaser pays a deposit either on a home or a plot and for whatever reason the sale falls through only to find out later that the park owner, knowing that it is extremely unlikely that the elderly victim has neither the knowledge or the stomach to take legal action against him, refuses to return their deposit. A foolproof ,BUT UNLAWFUL way to net himself an extra £5,000 to £10,000 + pocket money eh! . Ron.

Many of you may have seen the BBC Inside Out programme’s or listened to the excellent Radio 4 “Face the Facts” and “You and Yours” broadcasts featuring the terrible suffering of park homeowners at the hands of Unscrupulous Park Owners, due entirely to the total failure of the Mobile Homes Act 1983/2006 to provide any adequate and enforceable protection for park homeowners under the law.

Those of you who did will be wondering what happened to Mrs. Dorothy Pritchard and Sheila Masefield, featured in both programmes, who having been persistently prevented from selling their homes on Oxley Court Park, Wolverhampton by the park owner, Mr. C S Nedic, had taken Legal Action against him. The legal action against Mr. Nedic, who also owns our park, Silver Poplars, Pool View Park, Shropshire, Sunny Haven Park, Llandrindod Wells, Wales, Cosford Park, and other parks in Telford, Bridgnorth, Shropshire, and Evesham, Worcestershire, had taken some two years in preparation, finally coming before the Wolverhampton County Court, sitting at Walsall, on the 21^st April 2008, which I and colleagues in PHRAA attended in support of our members.

Although the outcome of the court hearing resulted in a victory of sorts for the homeowners, in that they won the right to sell their homes, which they had already under the Act, certain conditions regarding the sale were allowed which should not have been. The site owner was ordered to pay the costs set at £30, 000 plus of course his own costs. The homeowners claims for compensation were dismissed.

Although as already said the above court case resulted in a victory of sorts for the homeowners in other recent cases devastated homeowners have lost everything.

(1)…. A 93 year old couple were taken to court by their park owner for daring to challenge outrageous extra charges imposed on top of the pitch fees. The helpless couple found it impossible to obtain the services of a knowledgeable Solicitor to represent them. The result was that not only have the couple been evicted from their home valued at £90,000, as from the 19^th March 2008 their home is now the property of the park owner and if it were not for the intervention of SSAFA, who stepped in and placed the couples personal belongings and effects into storage, the park owner would have obtained these as well. Part 3 of the Court Order states “To enable the claimant (Park Owner) to carry out the sale, legal ownership of the mobile home and its contents be transferred to the claimant on and after 4pm on 19/03/08.) On top of this the couple were ordered to pay the park owners costs and disbursements within 14 days. After being evicted from their home by force, this 93 year old couple were housed for 8 weeks in one room temporary accommodation with shared facilities without even kettle or crockery to even make a cup of tea. This is just a brief summary of this tragic case. A comprehensive report is being prepared by PHRAA and will appear on the PHRAA website ASAP.

(2)…. After many years of a long running battle concerning disputed pitch fees and other charges, 79 year old Mr. Francis Triplow was taken to court by the park owner. Mr. Triplow won the battle not to be evicted but were later dealt a crippling blow when ordered to pay the park owners legal costs totaling some £32,000. As Mr. Triplow did not have the financial resources to pay he was made bankrupt and the park owner is now again taking steps to obtain his home. A defiant Mr. Triplow said during an interview with a local newspaper when referring to the £32,000 costs bill, “I am not worried. I tell you that when I die I will leave a forwarding address and they can collect it from there”.

WHAT CHANCE OF OBTAINING JUSTICE HAS A PARK HOMEOWNER GOT????. More on PHRAA Website. Ron.

If you don’t have a computer you will be able to access the PHRAA website at your local Library. Just ask the staff to access it for you. Best wishes to all. Ron