Johnson’s Journey No7

The following articles were written in the Park Homes & Holiday Caravan magazine in June 1997, well before the introduction of the Park Homes Working Party meetings in London, and they were certainly well before any thought of new legislation had been talked about, yet if the reader has a copy of the 2006 Legislation to hand, and has the time to draw comparison between the articles and the content of the new legislation, they will be as astounded as I was concerning the great similarities between the two separate articles today.

It is uncanny how three separate incidences should marry up to each other with nine or so years between them. I very much doubt that anything I said at the conferences, would be taken to hand, but then I also sent to Parliament 15 copies of a prototype standard Written Statement/Agreement which somehow disappeared from sight once it had been signed for in Parliament itself. No-one ever saw sight of the document which had been intended to be used in the All Party meetings, but then out of the blue in 2006, the whole thing changed when I read what had been put into the legislation, what I had spoken about to conferences, and what was inside the document sent to Parliament by hand and signed for. I have my own thoughts about what happened to the Written Agreement but that is a another story as they say.

Mr Johnson took the view that although such a document once signed should create a partnership between park owner and resident, such partnerships were often heavily biased in favour of the park owner. “the home owners have no say in matters which affect their inherent rights, and they play no part in Annual Pitch Fee Reviews, which has never had official clarification as to whom, if anyone, should conduct them. Perhaps park owners should read their own documents more carefully, specifically Clause 7(c) and the Second Schedule, and then tell the residents how one agrees to somet6hing which one was not accorded the right to discuss and/or negotiate in the first place.

He concluded by thanking James Spencer for his co-operation in accepting complaint forms from IPHAS in cases where misdemeanours have been committed by park owners. “Hopefully with his help, we can go some way towards resolving the problems facing us”. He added, “I hope that from this beginning we can generate a feeling of trust and co-operation between the two parties for the benefit of all under the park home umbrella”.

Turning to the Statement itself, he pointed out that on the front page there was nothing to indicate that this was in fact a Legal document, nor that a park owner is a Member of either trade organisation. He would like to see both these points added. He took the other parts in order.

Mr Johnson said he found it hard to understand why the Arbitration referred to in Clauses 6, 7 & 8 should even be included in this document, especially as it is perfectly clear that once a decision has been made, no one has right to redress. IPHAS knew of no case where residents had been successful in Arbitration.

The requirement that residents should not do, or cause to be done, anything which would be in breach of the conditions of any site licence is covered in Clause3(h). Mr Johnson believes that it is not generally residents on owner/occupier parks who cause problems in this regard but rogue park owners who are either too lazy or too greedy and who breach the site licence and conditions. ”We must also remember that it is these same site owners who bring tenants onto what are supposed to be semi-full owner-occupier retirements parks purely to generate more income. ….Isn’t it about time they realise the problems caused through conflicting types of residency on one park with the Mobile Home Act and the Rents Act?”. He went on to say that such tenants do not pay huge sums of money for their homes in the hope that they can live a quiet life in a pleasant environment, but the owner/occupying resident does.

On the subject of Park Rules Clause3(i), he thought it would be simpler if every resident had similar type of Rules so that everyone was treated the same. Clause (n) which requires residents to show all notices received through the postal system to a park owner was, Mr Johnson felt, pointless and should be deleted. “I would have thought that if it did effect the park owner, the authority would write directly to him and not the resident,” he added. In Clause 4, he took issue with three sub-clauses which were (a), (b),& (f). The first concerns the park owner undertaking with the occupier to maintain the park, and he felt that some parks had become dilapidated because this sub-clause was regularly ignored. The second concerned the Park Rules and questioned whether they were the ones made by the owner or, those agreed with the resident/s. Sub-clause (f) refers to quiet enjoyment and his comment here was that this was a(complete failure).

Mr Johnson’s final comments on the Written Statement concerned Clause 6 which refers to the siting of a home. He felt that the park owners obligation to the owner of a new home whereby his obligation to site it correctly should be put into print so that the new occupier who may have a genuine complaint would have right of redress.

Moving to the subject of commission (or transfer fee), Bernard told delegates that residents had been told often and quite forcibly that this fee is as follows:-

Turning to the pitch fees, he said that at every review it seems that the park owner not only increases the amount automatically, even though there is nothing in the 1983 Act which says he can, but he also conducts the review unilaterally. “The RPI may well reflect a continual long-term downward trend, he said, “However you can bet your bottom dollar that the pitch fee won’t do the same. “Now we come to the important part of the review. Is it an improvement or is it a result of normal maintenance and upkeep which has been ignored for years, even though it has been charged to the residents at every review”.

In conclusion he said the he is proud to be a member of IPHAS (as I was in those days) which is bringing to light many anomalies and problems which beset this industry. “I’m aware that I have been severe in my criticism of park owners”, he said, “but on the issues I spoke about they are deserving of that criticism. If they are in the right, my colleagues and I have no hesitation in supporting them just as we do with home owners. I am pleased to note that just two of the anomalies are being dealt with at the highest level. These tow are: the legal implications for residents should a council have the courage to revoke a park owner’s licence to run a park; and the legal consequences to a home owner and/or park owner in concern of a property left vacant with the owner living elsewhere but6 who will not pay the pitch fee legally due to the owner”.

As I said at the very beginning, these conferences were given in the 1980 -90’s well before the onset of meetings in London, and the 2006 legislation was ever thought about. Despite what others may have said at those meetings, the legislation, in the main, clearly came about due to many of the matters that arose out of the conferences and the comments I made at those conferences. The similarity between my speeches and the resulting Legislation that followed in 2006, can not have been as the result of coincidence of the two widely separated subject matter in both cases.