As many avid readers of this website will already know, the British Holiday & Home Parks Association Limited (H&HPA) has a lot to answer for concerning the continuing dire state of their industry. Will they never learn? In 2002 , its Director General boasted of its power and “achievements” in a document I uncovered at Companies House, and later exposed by BBC Radio 4’s ‘Face the Facts’. But I’ll let the BH&HPA speak for itself for a start:

You are now left in absolutely no doubt who is dominating the proceedings. That was compiled around the time when so-called consultations were taking place on revisions to the Mobile Homes Act; the reason why the 2006 amendments favour the industry more than ever before, and took away some good points for us from the original Act.

Graham Watts rightly criticises the MP’s and Ministers lack of understanding of the law, and how it avoids Holiday homes altogether. There is a good reason for this, created by, would you believe, the government itself. Whilst today, the department responsible is that of Communities and Local Government, the previous titles over the relevant period have been the Department of the Environment, Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions,, and then the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, who were responsible for the 2006 changes to the Mobile Homes Act. Many of you will recall booklet 30, a handy sized information for buyers and occupiers of mobile homes, as they were more generally termed then. Then there followed a series of larger format publications, the cover of which was altered each time a change of name was introduced. But here is the crucial part. It was observed from the outset , that a serious “error” in legal terms was inserted. Despite our best efforts, and by others of equal knowledge, who repeatedly wrote to the top brass, and spoke face to face with those who had the power to correct the wording, which was set out in a question and answer format, but they wouldn’t budge. The forgoing ‘BH&HPA speak’ tends to offer the sole reason why.

What this “mistake” caused amounted to the fact that government made it clear that it was lawful to occupy a holiday home as your “only or main residence”, where you would automatically have the same rights, including security of tenure, as those living in residential specification mobile homes, later to be more commonly termed ‘park homes’, ( an industry creation to try to disguise the fact that customers were still buying a wooden box on wheels. Legally known as a caravan.)

Naturally, this was seen as an answer to a prayer for those who count afford the higher cost of a “proper” residential mobile home. All the government booklet said they needed to do was ask the site owners permission. So was he going to say no, when he stood to lose thousands of pounds if he told them the truth- that they had no legal rights whatsoever? And that he could chuck them off in a few short years if they couldn’t, or wouldn’t buy a new model, or pay the unregulated hike in pitch fees: not forgetting the higher (15%) commission payable on exit? You couldn’t be blamed for reading this “reassuring advice” from the government, unaware of their compliant nature towards the every wish of a multi billion £ combined parks and leisure industry, with 2,100 members.

This victim trap remained in force for many years until the revisions of 2006 introduced a new batch of misery and worry for everyone, contained in no less than 4 information booklets on different subjects (not related to holiday homes) that few people have either heard of or been able to obtain. The present day continues to bring forth a never ending line of victims who were welcomed with open arms in the latter part of the last century, and to the present day even, as was proven at the latest gathering of the All Party Group for the so-called Welfare of Park Home Owners. There, Gordon Henderson, MP for the Isle of Sheppey, which weighs heavy with holiday parks, said he has many constituents sick with worry who face homelessness, thanks to the “sound advice” given within those earlier government information booklets. The most pitiful “reason” I was given was that they were not intended to be a guide to the law. Instead, they were a guide to disaster!

Yet, the answers Mr. Henderson was given by the two representatives from the government present, was disgusting to hear; so much so, that I was compelled to write advising them of the truth; that the problem was created in their own grubby back yard, helped no doubt by those ‘nice people’ “who will be there influencing the formation of new law”. That wasn’t a “burden” at all for them, was it? Nice to be able to sleep peacefully, knowing that you’ve done the best you can for those lining your pockets. For this is an industry that really cares about the things that matter most (to them that is!) When questioned by John Waite for the Face the Facts Programme, Mrs. Pritchard Director General of the BH&HPA (OBE for “services to the industry”) was quick to respond as to what legislation, in her belief, would be treated with “the lightest possible touch”, if her Association was unable to prevent it from becoming law. Quick as a flash she said: “We’re talking about taxation legislation, health and safety legislation, employment legislation”. For those contemplating the park home lifestyle, you’re now assured they couldn’t care less about such crucial matters of law.

The industry were therefore given a large green light. Predictably, a gang of site owners got together, and created their own version of a legal document, the Written Statement, with appropriate demands that included a fail safe clause, so that even if you offered it for sale at a lower price, you still had to give the site owner ‘first refusal’. In essence, a pittance was offered, with a lorry load of other threats on hand if need be. The largest group consisted of BH&HPA members who instructed a printer in Hindhead, Surrey. Many were ‘winners’ of the National Park Homes Council’s “Quality award” scheme. The revised wording sought to override Implied Term 8 (1) that gave absolute right to the occupier to sell privately. There are bound to be examples of this Agreement (contract) in the hands of countless residents to this day. Other operators ‘doctored’ theirs to suit. So BEWARE!!!!!!!!

As always, we hold written proof to fully support the claims made.

Compiled for the PHRAA website by Colin Packman, President PHRAA April 2011.