The content of this paper is word for word what the two trade organisation were have purportedly said in their view of the 1982 Legislation. It is a great shame for them that they chose to ensure that the residents representatives had no sighting of these so-called suggestions to Government either during talks and/or consultations.
Some of the sentences have been shortened or left out of this paper as being of no consequence to the reader.
The Act as we now have it achieves what was originally introduced into the House of Lords back in November last year but the methods of operation are different.
Comment: No1. We now have to live with the system of Implied Terms rather than the Agreement system as practiced under the 1975 Act.
Response: This is because the 75’ Act was a red herring and had no solid foundation, but suited the operators who at the time had absolute power over one and all residents under their full control.
Comment: No 2. Whilst the reasons for wanting this type of system are clear, very similar protection could have been achieved by minor alterations to the Agreement as the National Caravan Council suggested at the time.
Response: a) There is no doubting that any suggestions put forward put to Government by either or both parties would have been manipulated had they been given the opportunity to do so. And there is also no doubting that park home residents would be in a far worse situation than they are at present.
b) We would suggest that had the suggestions put forward by the NCC, been of a satisfactory nature, then surely Government would have accepted them in order to save unnecessary time and effort. Or was this just wishful thinking on their behalf?
Comment: No 3. However, the Government has opted for what can only be a confusing and complicated method of providing residents with a high degree of protection and making clear the rights and responsibilities of both owners and occupiers.
Response: We must ask the question as to whom they refer their comment of confusing and complicated to? Us as home owners, or themselves as operators who have to continually ask others to write letters on their behalf because they are two £pounds short of a penny?
The residents representatives have never had the slightest problems with the Implied Terms, it is the other party who continually require manipulation from their eggheads, because many of these operators can’t read nor write. So who does have problems understanding what should be simple Contracts????
Comment: No 4. Apart from that major change, the details with a few exceptions, are very much in line with the views submitted by the NCC at the consultation stage.
Response: Again the answer is that the NCC had been very busy, busy bees to have done so much of what no-one saw during the important stages of the drafting of the 1983 legislation so that being the case in question, we have to ask why their efforts failed so abysmally at the time?
Comment: No 5. The loss of the “First Refusal” element will cause some difficulty and could lead to transactions taking place without the park operators knowledge and therefore, perhaps, jeopardising the validity of any Agreement.
Response: What arrogance that such rogues as these could even contemplate that innocent park home owners could be as devious, avaricious, nasty, despicable and downright low as themselves so that they can pass on the blame for the “first refusal” deletion from the legislation. All this due to their own greed for nothing more than money, but it is people like themselves who will be ultimately responsible for this industry when it starts to decline because of what they have done over the many years since it’s inception, but we will not offer help to them because they don’t deserve our help
Comment: No 6. It is regrettable that this has been brought about by an apparent misunderstanding of the situation by the Government.
Response: Isn’t it clear that these two organisations are prepared to apportion the blame everybody other than their own greed and avarice to get as much money as they can from those who have to live under the umbrella of this industry. They just can’t help themselves for the way by which they set their own standards.
Comment: No 7. We do not support the idea of the park operator ‘buying in’ at his price regardless of any market considerations. This happened where Agreements under the 1975 Act did not exist and not where ‘first refusal’ rights at the occupiers price existed.
Response: We have never heard of such utter garbage as is written above by these despicable people when they already know that it is utter lies on their part to hide their shame. Their words are written to make Government, and other readers believe that they are totally innocent of such crimes. IT IS NOT THE TRUTH, this attitude began on the inception of the park home industry and is STILL being occasioned today.
Just ask about a man called Wenman, ask his past and present residents if you want the truth. Many park operators are from the itinerant following who are buying up parks and making their captive audience ill with worry at what is going happening those parks.
Comment: No8. To remove “First Refusal” as an answer to this problem was an over-reaction and will be regretted, we believe, by all sites.
Response: The only regret about anything to do with this disgraceful act is that the home owners are suffering even more by way of aggression, bullying, intimidation, and blatant harassment by the very people pleading their innocence in this matter. It is still rife and if they can’t get your home they will try everything they can to get YOU off the park by whatever means they can, and most of them are not legal. No more needs to be said. didn’t expect anything else as these vultures have to earn their keep.
Comment: No 9. The reduction of maximum commission to 10% could have an effect on the level of pitch fees, but it is probably a reasonable compromise.
Response: Of course it could as it has made absolutely no difference whatsoever to the increase of pitch fees every single year and they will still continue to find things other than what they normally put down in Agreements. It’s a great shame to them that they didn’t tell the truth for once and admit that even if it hadn’t been decreased from 15% down to 10%, increases would go up anyway.
This farcical issue of decreases in the Commission rate never made any difference because year in, year out, they have continually increased the fee in total disregard to any commission figure.
Comment: No 10. Park operators should have no difficulty in working within the framework of the Act, but the Implied Terms system will make it much more confusing than it might have been, particularly for the occupiers.
Response: It has, but only because these operators eggheads received the legislation three months in advance of the home owners own representatives, however we were prepared for what happened because this pathetic Government has been doing it throughout the consultation periods on each paper, which gave them enough time to manipulate Paragraphs/Clauses in order to carry out their bosses wishes to maintain their power over residents. We had no problems recognising the content of the new legislation, and we knew exactly what to expect from the legal beagles once they had finished their work for their masters, and we weren’t disappointed in them. It would seem to be somewhat similar to the Bilderberg Group in the way that they deal with everything. We’re sure that the Government can explain that Group.
Comment: No 11. It is difficult to say what effect the legislation will have on park home manufacturers but units may well stay longer on sites and therefore new sales may not be as great.
Response: The final cog in the wheel. Difficult to know what effects will occur. Well, how about bullying residents into deserting their homes so that the operator can rip it up in order to replace it with a much bigger and newer home for a fantastically high profit margin, And how this be done? We would suggest that one reads Comments NO 5 & 8, plus the responses thereto.
Conclusion: For anyone who either has a copy of the new legislation, or has read it, the responses to the aforementioned comments read very clearly to those of us who work in this industry for the direct benefit of park home owners. However, we do find it very hard to understand why others choose to represent the interests of operators when they have their own organisations to represent them if they are so concerned that they have to seek advice.
The responses to the comments do not require too much studying because over the years since 1975 up to the present date, nothing g has actually changed for the better as far as wee can determine, certainly not the equality between the parties, nor the respect of the operators for their residents, only respect for the financial gain they can deceitfully extort from those residents. This is their only interest and they don’t care how they get it for as long as they DO get it off us.
National Federation Of Site Owners (BH&HPA)
Comment: No1. In broad terms, the 1983 Mobile Homes Act, like the Act before it, it is about security the of tenure for park home occupants.
Response: The very first step of the statement in and we see for ourselves exactly what operators think of their residents. Not home owners but the word occupants. Now this may, on the surface, well appear not to be somewhat derogatory but in reality, how much more demeaning can it get. They could have replaced the word with owners, after all, on these parks we own our own property with the unacceptable thought that it is on someone else’s land. Just one simple word yet it sticks in the craw.
Comment: No 2. The Federation has upheld a policy to support the principles of providing security to occupiers and it is an aspect specifically contained in the NFSO Code of Conduct. We therefore made strong recommendations to the DOE for continuing secure residential Agreements, when the Terms for the new Act were originally deliberated following the Governments consultation document of February 1982.
Response: So honest of them to look after our interests wasn’t it Never have a bigger pack of lies been told by one organisation. They were so genuine in their report to Government after the 83. Act came into force that many of them carried on bullying, harassing, intimidating and even threatening, residents on their parks all over the country, and it still goes on today.
They claim that they uphold a policy to support the principles of providing security to occupiers, and that it is an aspect contained in their Codes of Conduct. If this is the case,
why has no-one ever seen these Codes of Conduct?
why is it that many of them are still behaving disgracefully against their residents?,
why is it that they are still trying to get residents off their parks?
why is there still bullying, harassment, intimidation and threats?
why is it they still want our homes off their parks so they can make extortionate profits on new home?
why will they not recognise resident associations despite the fact that the Implied Terms instruct them to?
why is it they still won’t discuss the pitch fee review with their residents?
why is that they still won’t show all invoices/bills for any increase in payments for whatever purpose they decide at our expense?
why do they still think that we have to pay for their failure to maintain their own property (the land) even though they have been paid for every single year via pitch fee increases of any fictional amount?
Why is it that anytime residents want to talk matters over with them, instead of sitting round a table with us, they go running to big daddy advisor screaming that they are being harassed? They don’t know the meaning of the word but they certainly know how to do it. IT IS NOT THE MINORITY, IT IS THE MAJORITY.
Comment: No 3. We therefore made strong recommendations to the DoE for continuing secure residential Agreements, when the Terms for the new Act were originally deliberated following the Government’s Consultation document of February 1982.
Response: We are not in a position to prove otherwise, the veracity of this particular comment however, we have learnt over the many years not to believe anything which comes out of the mouths, or on paper, from these people and their legal eagles. From the many serious complaints we have read, sent to us by park home residents country wide, we have to take such comments as this one, with a big pinch of salt simply because such statements as this do not fit into the remit of the vast majority of operators in this country. Obviously they are free to make what statements they like, but the other side of the coin says out loud that we don’t have to believe them, more especially as we know better.
Comment: No 4. As evidence of this policy, it should be noted that in a great many cases, occupiers on NFSO member parks enjoyed long term security, in excess of the eight years required by the 1975 Act.
Response: If the 1975 Act was so comprehensive, why did Government bring in via The Explanatory Memorandum which introduced the original Bill summarised the Clause as follows?
Clause 1. Established the duty of park operators to offer Agreements to all occupiers of mobile homes.
Clause 2. Provided the means fore occupiers to enforce this duty an d to challenge the Terms of Agreements offered.
Clause 3. Provided for Agreements under the Bill to be binding on any successor in title of the site owner, and to be passed on to any member of the occupiers family living with him at the time of his death.
Clause 4. Dealt with the jurisdiction of the Courts.
Schedule 1. Set out the requirements with which an Agreement must comply, and listed the matters for which an Agreement must make provision.
It would seem to us that the trade thought they could get away with everything they put forward to Government via their Lobbyists in the corridors of power whereby everything would be done and dusted and nobody would be aware of what had gone on. Unfortunately for them, they didn’t get their own way, thank goodness, otherwise there would be utter chaos, which still exists, but not on the scale that it could have been had Government not stepped in.
Comment: No 5. In that the new Act provides for the long term future, we look forward to seeing it’s Terms equitably put to effect so that the continuance of confidence and a sense of wellbeing may be maintained between the occupiers and operators.
Response: It is impossible to make any decent comment of the content of this particular part of their statement to Government because it, along with the rest of this section, was designed for one purpose and one purpose only. It was designed to pacify Government into believing that the industry side were honest, upright business people. Nothing could be further from the truth. They are despicable, detestable hypocrites
Who wanted their own way from the very start, and got it.
Comment: No 6. The Federation sees park home as offering a high standard way of living and if the 1983 Act brings added status to these homes, which we all hope it does, then that will be a bonus we shall applaud.
Response: This comment can only be placed in the same category as the comment before it because there ids no change in attitude from them, there is nothing more worthy of being stated in their favour because they are not worthy of being put in the same class as the rest of British industry in general.
Comment: No 7. But generally, it is preferable to have a ‘run in’ period, giving time to both park operators and occupiers to introduce the new Terms with minimum stress. As it is, we wish to see the new provisions taken up as a continuous process, with the Express Terms and privileges of the original Agreements being incorporated into new statements.
Response: The only reason for this purported ‘run in’ period was so that their minions, sorry, advisors, could make sure that all the loopholes and/or preclusions were tied up tightly with a ribbon so that they wouldn’t be pestered with problems from home owners. Minimum Stress? They wouldn’t know the meaning of the word but they certainly know how to work on innocent home owners countrywide. After all, it is their favourite pastime. This comment, like to two before it, is as deceitful and hypocritical as they are.
Comment: No 8.It is also a pity that Government has withdrawn the right of ‘first refusal’ to the park operator on the sale of a sited park home. Because this principle made a significant contribution towards the balanced and smooth execution of sales, and the assignment of Agreements on a park.
It never gave the park operator sole right of purchase, as has been alleged. The Implied Terms of the Act, and the change of system from Agreements to Statements were aspects introduced to the legislation at a stage in it’s passage through Parliament.
While the Federation recognises the aims of these new measures, it is strongly felt that there was much more straight-forward method to achieve the same ends. As it is the Implied Terms tend to complicate.
Response: As it is, to use their phrase, we are getting sick and tired of hearing, or reading, the same old garbage by these people who only have one thing in common with the outside world. Their interpretation of business is to steal as much as they can out of the home owners bank balance, whereas the true businessman or woman only takes what has been agreed on paper between the two parties not by devious and under-handed means, and that is the very clear difference between the two.
Again we are drawn into this façade of the ‘first refusal’ by these hypocrites, you know the act, the plea of abject poverty if they can’t realise at least a 6% mark-up of other peoples homes sole each and every year so that they can feed their habit of grab, grab, grab, at all costs. This is not six homes, but six percent of the homes on every park they own, plus it is every year top infinity. How disgusting is that???
As far as the Implied Terms are concerned, they are not complicated, however, if they are stating that they cannot understand them, them we concede. We all know that many of them are two £pounds short of a penny as we have previously stated but they shouldn’t tar us with the same brush as themselves because none of us could get anywhere near to being as devious as them. Not by a long way. The trouble with operators is that they firmly believe that as they have paid out one hell of a lot of money to these legal eagles, or whatever they should be called, that they cannot come unstuck, well we can tell you that they can.
Comment: No 9. The NFSO (BH&HPA) also regrets the Minister’s decision to reduce the maximum level of commission on sales from 15% to 10%. Since the introduction of the 75’ Act the industry and it’s customers have adjusted to operate with commission set at 15% with the pitch fees at a corresponding level, dependent upon the type of home and park.
It is established that there is no great element of profit for residential operators. This is supported by the fact that over the years, the courts have upheld the 15% as being a fair and reasonable commission discount.
It must also be appreciated that the courts had put before them the detailed evidence of the incomes derived by park operators, and in many cases detailed accounts. So the court decisions in support of the 15% were founded on facts.
Response: For the last time, if Government hadn’t decided that the 15% was too much then they wouldn’t have reduced the figure down to 10%, and as has been proven, operators would not have accepted it. Therein lies the answer because regardless of what it was, they still continue to increase pitch fees unilaterally every single year since the inception of the industry, so they have no argument.
They claim that there is no great element of profit, would that be4 because of the ’first refusal’ being taken away from them? It never stopped them all from forcing home owners to sell to them first on this so-called ’first refusal’ clause in the Agreements, for those lucky enough to have one in their possession. And the seller had also to pay them 15% or 10% on top of the derisory figure that was offered.
The courts only saw what the industry side chose them to see. Anyone can fiddle the books, it happen all over the country and more so in Government circles, we only have to read it in the press every day. We refute the statement that the courts saw the true figures that these people put forward, they play too close to the chest for anyone to see anything. The 15% was founded on facts???? We doubt it very much.
Overall Observations:
Whilst we have no wish to deny the trade organisations the right to make their own representations to Governments over such important issues as new Acts of Parliament, or variations thereto, it must be said on our part that we are not convinced with some of their arguments on certain matters in their response to Government’s request for valid, constructive, information if only because they sound anything but sincere and genuine. How very disappointing that both organisations appear to be blaming anyone and everyone but themselves for the depth of problems facing the industry. It is called ‘passing the buck‘.
They both implied that they had put forward better suggestions than those which Government used for dealing the matter of Implied Terms and Express Terms in documents issued, yet it seems that neither produced this literature for others to see. Add to this the fact between the period of the 75’ and it’s successor the 83’ Act, coming into force, they had ample time and opportunity to put into action man y of these so-called suggestions instead of waiting until the last minute, when they were actually required to supply some sort of response, yet they did absolutely nothing.
Perhaps if they had, then possibly have of the existing problems could have been resolved amicably and taken out of the Government’s hands to deal with. Their unwarranted arguments that the Terms would be confusing and awkward for home owners to digest and understand showed quite clearly the levels they will stoop to in order to get their own way in matters of importance. At no time were they interested in meetings and discussions at Government level, what they did want was to be left alone to run the industry under their rules, but not by the laws of this industry. This is why they paid lobbyists to speak on their behalf in the corridors of power and in some instances it would certainly appear that their efforts paid off, but how much did it cost them??
When we consider that we are now some twenty six years further down the line, they are still lying to themselves and anyone who will listen to their deplorable lies, that they can grind the home owners into the soil in order to get their own way despite what the law states, however they are very ably assisted by their minions who will give them anything so long as the £pounds keep on flying into their coffers. Perhaps they should give serious thought to the future because they had their chance and did nothing with it, well now it is ours but we WILL do something positive with it. It is a very sad travesty of justice which has led to the present situation in that park operators will never concede to the laws of this industry and nor will they work together with their residents to provide a level playing field for both parties. What we can state categorically is that we will not surrender our lives for their benefit any longer because ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
