i) That the QRA would have to abide by certain criteria (no problems); we can live with that.
ii) That we had to have a properly written Constitution., acceptable to scrutiny. (No problem).
iii) That the Association must have officers duly elected by the membership. (No problem so far).
iv) That the officers must include, a Chair - Secretary and Treasurer, plus any other member/s if required at some future date. Fair enough, if you gain more members then you may have to spread the workload of your committee.
v) According to Paragraph 28 (1)(a & b) in the new legislation it clearly states that (a) it is an Association representing the occupiers of mobile homes on the park, (note the words occupiers and mobile homes, both are in the plural not in the singular.) As one can read, it clearly indicates by the plural inference that in the case of occupiers, it would imply we are dealing with ALL occupiers of ALL homes, and insofar as we are concerned, it also infers that all homes are to be included in the equation. Not a bit of it because here comes the scam and what a devious one it is.
**(b) at least 50% of the occupiers of mobile homes that site are members of the Association.
Note: This means that there may be quite a reduction of membership if there are quite a significant number of tenants instead of home owning residents residing on one park. Not only does this reduce the strength of the Association but then the paragraph goes on to stipulate that only homes owners are entitled to become a
member, and herein lies the biggest scam of them all.
It doesn’t state who, or how many home owners can become members, therefore we assume, and we believe quite rightly, that all members of that home over the age of 18yrs can be a member. If this is so, then the next statement is totally unacceptable. We move on to Paragraph 28(2).
28 (2): When calculating the percentage of occupiers for the purpose of paragraph 1(b) above, each mobile home shall be taken to have only one occupier whose name first appears on the Agreement
**Despite the fact that there is no statement on how many people can live in the home, and that it doesn’t make any claim in light of that same subject insofar as residency restrictions for the homes, it now in 28(2) puts the squeeze on honesty, integrity and parity. This, in effect, means that the Association can have for, arguments sake, upwards of some 120 homes on your park, all owner/occupier but, for all intents and purposes you can only have 1 vote at most because they demand only one vote per home.
Taking this point a little further, it raises one very, very serious question. As the most obvious person to sign their Agreement first is the man of the home, where does this leave the wife and/or mother in this deplorable situation??. It doesn’t state that you can only have one member per home, just that only one is eligible to vote./ In our book, this is tantamount to blatant and despicable discrimination against one party per home. In effect, the lady of the home is barred. We know of no other form of full time residency where this disgusting practice is in operation.
The One Person Scam:
I will try to enlighten you on the situation but first I would ask you why you think that the industry, with whomever, opted for at least a 50% membership and then ask yourself why they demanded that only one person per home could vote???
The 50% minimum is very easy to understand. They firmly believe that most parks will go for the 50% figure because it means that when they see the membership list it provides them with their target. ONE PERSON. Yes, one person, that’s all it takes to ruin a Qualifying Residents Association. How does it happen?? They pick the lonely old lady or man living on their own in some hidden corner of the park, either send them a letter or even knock on the door to speak to them, then they either bully - intimidate - threaten with eviction - or harass them into lapsing or ending their membership of the Association, thus you now have an organisation which has been crushed by one person. Don’t say it doesn’t happen because it does. Every day of the week on parks all over the country. We know it, they know it, and now you know it.
The Folly Of The One Person Per Home Vote:
We have no idea who the brainstorm was who thought this one out, but if brains were diamonds that person would be at the end of the queue just for sight of a diamond. The industry attitude of the industry reps is that if more residents were allowed the vote in each home, then they, the park owners, would never get a fair deal through the voting system. This from someone who doesn’t care one iota what happens to his residents just as long as he can get their money off them as easy and as quickly as he can.. That’s all he wants.
It makes no difference whatsoever how many members an Association has for so long as it is run in the correct manner at all times during it’s tenure. If an Association has a sixty eight person membership, a 52% vote in favour or against a motion is exactly the same as if it had 168 membership. The ratio of home owner members makes not the slightest difference if the 50% is five or five hundred, the votes taken will still be 51% of those voting, which will sway a motion for or against a matter of importance. Maybe the industry knows something we don’t, or is it just easier for them to harass one person via the 50% rule???
Conclusion: Park owners don’t, and never have wanted, to work with the residents because they don’t want to show facts and figures in order to justify their exorbitant claims over the RPI. By having to prove their expenses, etc; it means that they need to find some avenue to avoid showing the genuine figures and that means crawling to someone to do the dirty work for them. The less you about them the better they feel that they can dominate you.
They are not interested in you knowing that they can’t charge you for remedial works on your park because they have been found out by the local issuing authority, otherwise they will not be able to charge you for purported improvement works. This is where much of their money comes from, by them illegally charging you for their own laziness and greed.
They don’t want you to know that they cannot demand pitch fee increases on whatever pretext, because they are legally bound, under the Act, to sit down and discuss all the matters involved in the pitch fee review. They don’t want you to know that the now cannot demand a pitch fee increase to be backdated to the review date if they have refused to discuss the matter. If the owner refuses to speak or discuss the review, then you do not have to pay the increase until such times as he does discuss them, and only then must you pay if agreed. However even if it takes 6 to 7 months to get round the table, he can only demand back payment from the date he sits at that table but not before.
