Johnson’s Journey No 3
Office of Fair Trading Our Ref/ OFT 1
Fleetbank House
2 - 6 Salisbury Square
LONDON
EC4Y 8JX
17th November 2009
Dear Sir/Madam, Re: Unfair Contract Terms
As the Vice President of the above organisation, I am writing to you in concern of Legislation which was brought into force 1st October 2006 to completely replace the Implied Terms in the Mobile Homes Act 1983. In the legislation a number of paragraphs/clauses have begun causing park home owners problems with the legal interpretations, including the way in which park owners, and their respective legal advisors, are using the Terms for matters other than intended by the Act.
Paragraphs 12 to 14 inclusive, and paragraph 15(page 9) make what park home owners feel is a very clear statement in clear, precise wording which points out to both parties, ie; park and home owners alike what their respective rights are. However, the way that park owners (or more especially) their legal advisors are interpreting paragraph 14, is to our Members, a complete reversal of what is stated in paragraph 15. Paragraph 15 clearly makes it known to both parties that the rights conferred in paragraphs 12 to 14 inclusive, do NOT extend to the mobile home. Because of this statement, we are of the opinion that legal advisors are encouraging their clients to manipulate the content of this part of the Terms.
If I may respectfully state what the problem is, perhaps I should detail the paragraphs as they are written into the Terms. They are as follows:-
Owners Right of Entry To The Pitch:
12. The owner may enter the pitch without prior notice between the hours of 9am and 6pm;
a) to deliver written communications, including post and notices, to the occupier; and,
b) to read any meters for gas, electricity, sewage or any other services supplied by the owner to the occupier.
13. The owner may enter the pitch to carry out essential repair or emergency works on giving as much notice (whether in writing or otherwise) as is reasonably practicable in the circumstances.
14. Unless the occupier has agreed otherwise, the owner may enter the pitch for a reason other than one specified in paragraphs 12 or 13 only if he has given at least 14 clear days written
2.
notice of the date, time and reason for his visit.
Insofar as the paragraphs read, there is no argument, however home owners have taken this last paragraph as NOT legal for a park owner to twist it around to imply that he can manipulate the intention in order to tell home owners that he intends to have their home Surveyed/Inspected against their wishes, after all, it is their home not the park owners. But this is where the confusion reigns. In both the 1983 Act, and the latest legislation, there is no interpretation, nor clarification anywhere which can provide a legal answer to this problem. We are of the opinion that legal advisors are acting in blatant contravention of paragraph 15 by allowing their clients to interpret paragraph 14 in this way.
Our reasons are quite easy to understand when one reads paragraphs 4, 5 & 6, (page 7) of the very same legislation whereby the park owner can, if he feels that the home is having a detrimental affect on the rest of the homes on the park, apply to the courts for removal of the home from the park on those grounds. This is the legal, and correct, approach which a park owner can use as is his legal right. We as a homeowners representative organisation accept the law and have no arguments of this nature but we are very concerned at the way park owners are practicing the methods given in other paragraphs by breaching an act which the home owners detest. We are not asking for legal clarification in order to cause more problems for other party in this issue, we only want to be treated in the correct, legal manner without being manipulated purely because of greed.
We know why they are doing this and it has nothing to do with the residents home being detrimental to the rest of the homes on a park, but more to do with trying to get older style homes off their parks so that they can put new homes in place for an extremely high profit margin. This has been going on for many years and they have got away with it due to inept legislation which doesn’t tie up the loopholes and preclusions so that they can’t do it. Innocent people are losing their homes to greed and pure avarice by one party towards the other.
Conclusion.
It is our submission that paragraphs 12 to 14 have nothing whatsoever to do with the actual home, with very clear endorsement in paragraph 15 to support them. This being so, we are convinced that park owners, ably abetted by their legal advisors, are manipulating the two paragraphs due only to the fact that there is no clear interpretation so as you will appreciate, home owners are bound into having to contend with strangers messing around their homes for no other purpose than to do a park owners bidding for a handsome financial return for their troubles.
As has been stated, park owners already have their course of complaint through other paragraphs in the legislation, those being paragraphs 4, 5 & 6 inclusive, so why should they be manipulating other paragraphs unjustly for the sake of showing off their power over the innocent residents in this industry? For many years park home residents have had to suffer at the hands of the legal advisors to park owners, who are only in the business of taking home owners for every penny they can get regardless whether or not it is legal. This cannot be allowed to continue unabated for much longer.
Qualifying Resident Associations:
When Government informed us that we were to be allowed to set up Resident Associations on our respective parks, and that park owners would be obliged to acknowledge and recognise our position, plus that they would have to negotiate and cooperate with our officers, again we thought that at last commonsense had finally prevailed to solve the problem. No such luck. Because the legal advisors to th trade organisations received their copies of the new legislation three months prior to us, the home owners representatives. Plenty of time to manipulate the content, and that is exactly what they have done.
3
Paragraph 28: (page 16) lays down the criteria for the formation of a residents association, this being the following instructions:-
28.1. A residents QRA is a qualifying RA in relation to a protected site if;
1a) it is an association representing the occupiers of mobile homes on that site;
b) at least 50% of the occupiers are members of the association;
c) it is independent from the owner, who together with any agent or employee of his, is excluded from membership;
d) subject to sub-paragraph c) above, the membership is open to all occupiers who own a mobile home on that site;
e) it maintains a list of Members which is open to public Inspection together with the Rules and Constitution of the RA;
f) it has a Chairperson, Secretary, and Treasurer who are elected by and from among the members;
g) with the exception of the Administrative decisions taken by the Chair, Secretary, and Treasurer acting in their respective official capacities, decisions are taken by voting and there is only ONE vote each mobile home; and,
h) the owner has acknowledged in writing to the Secretary that the association is a QRA, or in default of this, the court has so ordered;
2 When calculating the percentage of occupiers for the purposes of sub-paragraph 1b) above, each mobile home will be taken to have only ONE occupier and in the event of there being more than ONE occupier of mobile home, it’s occupier is to be taken to be the occupier whose name appears on the Agreement.
The above paragraph 28 at first glance would appear to be satisfactory until one slows down and reads it more carefully, then the cracks will begin to appear to make poor reading and showing disturbing interpretation of the paragraph as a whole, but it is blatantly obvious to park home owners who actually wrote this paragraph by the way it speaks volumes of bias towards one party in detriment to the other.
Now we have to question the QRA in how it reads to the home owner. How it reads is that it smells of the trades legal advisors intervention behind closed doors which means that they had the final say in the content, but not the home owners representatives. They may not have attended in person but their trade mark stamp is definitely part of the way in which this subject has been written. We only had the consultation papers with which to supply our answers and send back to Government, full stop.
This particular sub-paragraph gives cause to the worries of it’s intentions, and it is this alone which convinces us the trade organisations were involved in it’s make-up. It must be clearly stated here that the 50% figure has nothing to do with the fact that park owners felt it was an easy number to remember, but more the fact that they can look at the membership list of 50% resident members to choose the one person who they can manipulate. It is a well known fact throughout the industry that when park owners are on the prowl, they aim for the easiest target, the little old lady/gentleman living on her/his own in a corner of the park.
4
This is the person they are after so that they can threaten - bully - intimidate and harass her, or him as the case may be, into leaving the association, which in turn means that because the Resident Association no longer has the 50% membership they require to be a QRA, the park owner has done what he set out to do, brought to the RA to it’s knees whereby it has to disband because of this deceit. No RA, no more has he the need to abide by the legislation so can do what he likes once more and no-one can do anything about it. It is their way of telling home owners on their parks that, no matter what new legislation is brought into force, they will find a loophole to retain their authority over the innocent, and no-one can stop them.
There is no doubting that this particular paragraph is heavily biased in favour of the park owners but is totally in detriment to the home owners. Why couldn’t Government have seen this and had open discussion instead of dealing with the matter behind closed doors. None of the home owners representatives are happy with the way in which this legislation has been written into law and our only hope is that your department can resolve the matter on our behalf perhaps then we might be able to hold our heads up high and deal with all financial matters concerning us having to pay out for the rest of our lives, apart from the so-called commission rate, but that is another matter.
On looking at the sub-paragraphs in turn one can see the chinks in the armour with the first one being 1b).
1b) Please notice the membership figure of 50% and think carefully. Once you do that the reason becomes patently clear to understand it’s intention. Ever since the inception of the park home industry, park owners have ruled with an iron rod happily ignoring all requests for parity, equal rights negotiation on park matters, and so the list goes on and on. All of a sudden new legislation comes into force to help residents obtain those rights.
1e) A list of membership must be open to Public Inspection????
Q. What public inspection would this be??? A QRA on a park home estate has nothing to do with the public. Through the eyes of those who live outside the park home industry, this is an alien lifestyle and has nothing to do with the public. Why is there such a sub-paragraph as this in the Legislation??
1g) Only the first name on the Agreement is eligible to vote.
Q. Under British Law, all persons over 18yrs (we think it is 18yrs)of age are allowed to vote. It is our contention that this sub-paragraph is blatantly being discriminate towards the second person in the home, bearing in mind that most of them are the ladies of the house. In one way it could be classed as sex discrimination but we must reserve judgement on that, because that is the way it looks through our eyes. This industry is fully aware of the fact that almost all Agreements are signed by the man of the house, unless one is a single occupant We are further convinced that this paragraph in the legislation was also discussed behind closed doors at the same time because whichever way we look at it, it smells of park owners legal advisors intervention, and the fact that only they could think up the total disparity which is consistent in the content.
1h) Insofar as park owners recognising and acknowledging, this is an absolute farce simply because they have never listened to what home owner have to say anyhow. As previously stated, they rule with an iron rod to maintain the ‘Status Quo’ in this industry. In other words, “this is my property and I do what I like. If you don’t like it get off my land”, and “I do what I want and no law is going to get in my way. Stick you’re laws”
5.
Conclusion:
It is an unfortunate circumstance that the words written on the previous pages tend to paint a very poor picture of what the park home lifestyle is like, but unfortunately it is no use fabricating something just to pacify others when they need to know the truth. This is why this organisation is not liked, nor welcomed, to attend meetings up in London, because we categorically refuse to bow down to go with the flow as it is termed by others. In other words it is a case of “listen to what we have to say but nothing goes beyond these doors“. It happens all the time.
There are any of a number of other questions relating to this new legislation that need attention but we know that if they were all put forward for clarification by your department in one go, we would not get the answers to those questions. Not because you don’t want to respond, but because they would take up too much of ones time to deal with all at once, and this why we will be extremely grateful if your department can clarify those which we have sent to you.
It should be pointed out that the park home lifestyle, on the surface, should and could, be a terrific way for the residents to see out their last few years, but this is not the problem. The problem is the park owner who, for some unknown logical reason, are determined to get every single penny they can, by whatever method they can, regardless of whether or not someone else suffers financial ruin because of their actions. Before anyone questions this statement, allow me to assure you that this is not a figment of our imagination but hard facts and we have the evidence to support these claims which is a great shame because without the greed and avarice in the industry, the park home lifestyle could and should be the most idyllic, and fantastic, way for people to spend they final years on this earth.
I thank you in anticipation for your response to our two problems in the hope that your clarification will ease the burden on home owners shoulders.
Yours faithfully
Bernard J Johnson (Dip Crim)
Vice President PHRAA
Park Home Residents Action Alliance
Copies To: Mr C. Packman (Pres PHRAA)
Mr R. Joyce (Sec PHRAA)
Mr M. Samways (Chair PHRAA)
Files.
Encl: Copy of BH&HPA - NPHC Implied Terms referred to in this letter.
