Once into the document, you will need to scroll down where the sub-heading, PARK HOMES’ starts at column ‘1079’.
It is not my role to criticise MP’s going about their Parliamentary business and in particular, when they are justifiable endeavouring to highlight the plight of many thousands of residential park home occupiers the length and breadth of the country. However, criticism must be levied in relation to the MP’s very apparent lack of understanding of the subject matter.
In this article, I will endeavour to correct a number of assertions and misrepresentations made by the MP’s contributing to the debate. My overall observation must be that it would have been time well spent had most of the MP’s actually taken the time to read the Mobile Homes Act 1983 (the “1983 Act”) and its recent amendments before speaking. After all, it is not a massive document. Familiarity with the residential classification of the parks and what constitutes a ‘protected site’ would have been particularly useful as the debate is riddled with references to holiday caravan sites (which are not ‘protected‘) and do not fall under the 1983 Act) and their rogue owners. These direct references to people unlawfully living all year round in holiday park homes and the abuse they suffer is simply a reflection of the sad state of the industry generally and local authority control but they have no connection with the residential homes sector.
I must firstly put some flesh on the bones of the oft cited expression in relation to the rogues who own many of the residential sites being, “….. only a minority of site owners”. Indeed, Dr. Sarah Wollaston MP claimed it was ‘evident’ that the minority was “….probably fewer that 10 owners who commit these crimes across the country” (Column 1109). The ‘minority’ expression is regularly trotted out, presumably in an attempt to conceal the massive number of complaints that a large proportion of park owners operate their businesses in an unlawful or illegal manner. Either that or the object is to demean the complainants. When I hear the expression used, it automatically raises doubts in my mind as to whether the user has any real familiarity with this industry. This debate is no exception, use of the expression is prolific.
Let’s take a quick look at the ’minority’. I have taken time to carry out what in effect, is a straw poll from a perusal of both my company archive files of completed cases and those which we are currently working on. I have also taken a brief overview of the thousands of ’Questions of Law’ letters received since 2004. Without effort, I can easily compile a list of 51 rogue site owners who, so far as it is possible to determine, own and /or have a direct involvement in the operation of roughly 262 residential parks. Many of the rogues are co-directors of numerous other park owning companies so it would be a mammoth task to determine precisely how many parks fall under their control or influence either fully or partially. As an example, one record at Companies House names one character as a director of fourteen companies directly involved in the ownership of caravan sites. I have no doubt that the National Residents Associations would be able to add names to my ‘Rogues Gallery’ if called upon to do so.
( Too darned right we at PHRAA could Graham. It is mainly the antics of the power crazed bully boy, rogue park owners who ruthlessly enforce their total domination over their vulnerable elderly, usually terrified residents, by the regular use of strong arm tactics which would not be out of place in concentration camps which make the news. ( IN FACT IT IS INCREASINGLY COMMON THESE DAYS FOR THE RESIDENTS OF AFFECTED PARK HOME SITES TO REFER TO THEM AS “PRISON CAMPS FOR PENSIONERS”. ) But it should be pointed out that there are varying degrees of rogue park owners. Some use more subtle methods to achieve their objectives. But the end result is the same where their helpless residents on the receiving end are concerned. It is they who lose their homes and their life savings tied up in their homes, not the site owners, the MP’s or Government Ministers. ) Ron PHRAA.
Taking the number of permanent residential sites at roughly 1800 as correctly cited by Annette Brooke MP (opening sentence of the debate), then the rogue “minority” will represent at the very least 14.55% of all known residential parks ***. This percentage of itself is highly misleading as the rogue element own or control most of the largest parks in the UK. It would be a useful exercise to delve deeper and calculate the number of pitches the rogue owners control. From the estimated 79.000 of homes/pitches in total, I would venture at a guess, they control 40-50%. Certainly not a ’minority’. As we know, a common attribute of the rogue element is that they have no regard whatever for the law, or indeed the occupiers age or health. They will treat the Residential Property Tribunal with equally as much contempt as they do the law and the courts. Perhaps more. We shall see. (Hear Hear Graham. Ron PHRAA.)
( With regard to Grahams guess that rogue owners control 40-50% of homes/ pitches in the UK, it is perhaps worth mentioning that at 7pm on a Sunday evening some 4 or 5 years ago I as General Secretary of PHRAA received a very threatening phone call from what I can only assume, by the viscous nature of his threats and his refusal to give his name and number, was a particularly nasty version of one of the so-called ’MINORITY’ During this very disturbing tirade of threats which mainly consisted of describing what he and his cronies were going to do to me if we (PHRAA) did not stop exposing the rackets, rip offs and abuse etc., widely practiced against vulnerable park home owners throughout the UK, which included threats to come and burn me out, he went on to brag that Rogue Park Owners already owned 90% of sites and growing. Possibly this was an exaggeration designed to frighten me, but this was some time ago. If it is not fact now, unless the Government starts to listen to the likes of PHRAA, Graham Watts and the endless stream of letters from devastated park home owners relating their own distressing accounts of the horrific treatment they receive at the hands of these rogue owners and take the plight of Park Owners seriously. It will not be very long before it really is 100%. PHRAA ’TELLS IT AS IT IS’) Ron. PHRAA.
Turning to the debate, it is my understanding that it has a two- fold objective.
(1) To promote the need for a statutory mechanism to deal with the ubiquitous abuse of site owners blocking residential home sales and,
(2) To coerce the current Government into pushing through the ‘fit and proper person’ test for park owners.
Pity the last Government didn’t listen to what I had to say via Lord Graham in the Lords and Eleanor Laing MP in the Commons when the 2006 Order was literally ‘pushed’ through. The nature of that Order meant that unlike other types of legislation which is thoroughly scrutinised and amended through debate, the 2006 Order was simply, ‘nodded’ through. The will of what was then the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister prevailed.
( As General Secretary of PHRAA I also wrote a long letter to 65 MP’s in a bid to draw their attention to the detrimental effect on park homeowners of this legislation also pointing out the total lack of any accompanying enforcement provisions. Although various parts of my letter were read out in the so called debate, such is the nature of this method of pushing through legislation, all MP’s objections and opinions cannot be considered. Colin Packman, PHRAA’s President actually attended the so called ‘farce’. Sorry I should have said ‘debate’ and was very fearful of the detrimental effect this 2006 legislation would have on the welfare of park home owners How right we are.) Ron PHRAA.
Annette Brooke’s opening speech referred to ‘sad stories’ from all over the country. In support she cited the emotive comments made by John Gummer MP in 2009, presumably little realising that the site Mr. Gummer had wrongly referred to under the heading “Mobile Home Parks”, was indeed a holiday caravan park which his constituents were occupying unlawfully as their only or main residence. I did email Mr. Gummer at the time pointing this out but he failed to reply. (Unfortunately this is the typical response from all too many MP’s. It appears that like the Government where park home owners are involved, they only wish to hear what they want to hear, and turn a deaf ear to the real suffering occurring every day.) Ron PHRAA.
It is interesting to note that many holiday caravan site owners equally operate their businesses as modern day ‘Dick Turpin’s’ and yes, guess what, many of the holiday park owners are owners of permanent residential mobile home parks as well.
Many of the speeches discreetly slide into and out of references to issues clearly involving the permanent occupation of holiday caravans which are matters best suited to the Office of Fair Trading, local Trading Standards or the local planning enforcement officer. However, from a professional perspective, I wholeheartedly support the MP’s who were referring to the serious abuses occurring on residential parks. notably, Mr. Ian Liddel- Grainger MP (Column1080). Interestingly, the site Mr. Liddel- Grainger referred to is one where one homeowner, subject to a complicated claim for possession of his pitch by the park owner, decided to defend the matter with the assistance of Park Home Legal Services Ltd. By lunch time, the site owner had thrown in the towel at court and their case collapsed. That Residents Association had previously decided to disengage that company’s services in bring the site owner to account (on their behalf) because it was, I was informed by the secretary, “….upsetting the owner…” Oh dear what a shame! That person has since literally abandoned their home and vacated the site in absolute desperation. I wonder now how she feels about ’upsetting the owner’ now having lost any monetary value in her mobile home.
(Oh, how I wish I could have a pound for every time this has happened. Even on our own site a resident who happened to be a retired Police Officer who in full knowledge that the site owner was a rogue nevertheless thought he was so far up the backside of our own rogue site owner, he could do no wrong. He even went as a witness for the owner in a prosecution brought by the local authority for repeated breaches of the site licence. Unfortunately for him, although he constantly spied on his fellow residents, reporting their every move they made to his lord and master, he got his comeuppance when, because of ill health, he came to sell his nearly new home worth at least £90.000, his sale was blocked as usual, and he was forced to sell to the owner for a pittance. He then left the site a broken man with no money. Why oh why will these people never learn. Time and time again instead of sticking together, they stand by and watch terrible things happen to their devastated neighbours, thinking that if they keep quiet and obey the rogue site owners every outrageous command and/ or demand, the same thing wont happen to them. Surprise surprise, It can and does. FOR GODS SAKE WILL RESIDENTS NEVER LEARN?????) Ron PHRAA.
One MP suggested that residential occupiers simply, “…..want to have sensible rules about their ground rent and maintenance requirements….” and another, called for controls when a site owner puts up the pitch fee by 20% a year. I could have screamed as I listened equally as I could when another suggested that the residential occupiers have a need for ’quiet enjoyment’ protection to be introduced irrespective of the fact all these matters are already covered in the 1983 Act. Then we hear there is apparently no control over the resale of water and electricity to park home occupiers. I imagine OFWAT and OFGEM would have something to say about that. And so the list of errors of fact and law went on. What a sorry state of affairs.
(Although as Graham correctly states above Water, Electricity and MAINS GAS are subject to resale price control governed by OFGEM and OFWAT, the supply of LPG Gas relied upon by many residents for heating and cooking etc., when supplied by the park owner ie., Bulk Tanks, is completely unregulated leading to outrageous overcharging and severe hardship. These residents have no regulatory body to turn to. It’s a case of either pay up or freeze and if you cant afford it then you will freeze and to make matters worse NOBODY IN AUTHORITY IS LIKELY TO CARE.
It is also worth mentioning that should a supplier of Electricity, water or mains Gas cut off the supply to a customer for example not paying a bill, they would be prosecuted. However if recent events at a park in the North of England the park owner cut off the LPG gas supply to residents on the 5th January 2011 , leaving them without heating or hot water, during the worst winter for many years, just because they requested to have sight of his bill from his supplier. Even though they eventually took him to court and obtained an Injunction ordering the reconnection of the gas, to date only one resident has been reconnected. We have just heard that he remainder have now been reconnected after 75 days. IF any other type of landlord were to do this to his occupiers, he would be heavily penalised. It would appear that rogue park owners are above the law. Full story will be available shortly elsewhere on this website.) Ron PHRAA.
The sad thing is, many issues raised are already the subject of legislative control and/or control through the express terms of a standard Written Statement. Notably again, Annette Brooke (Column 1083), refers to the matter of ’rule changing’ which is the one easily dealt with under the agreement. I suspect in that instance, the occupiers were disinclined to obtain the common consensus of 50% or more of the occupiers to object to the new rules. I do not see any MP complaining of apathy and promoting legislative provisions. If the occupiers cannot be bothered to establish what protection they already posses or put themselves out to obtain proper legal advice or assistance, what else can one do for them?
Happily Martin Horwood MP appeared to understand the distinction between holiday and permanent residential homes which he described as, “….the parallel issue….”. I would argue life for many holiday caravan owners may well be worse than that of their residential counterparts. They invest vast sums in holiday caravans, rarely obtaining a written agreement and are then subject to the owner demanding outrageous annual pitch fee increases. Either that or the sort of fraud Mr Horwood describes. All again, much more extensive than commonly realised from a holiday home prospective.
Mention was made of the British Holiday & Home Parks Association (‘BH&HPA’) by Chris White MP (Column 1109). Mr White thought the BH&HPA should be “willing” to publish lists of the rogue element. Pity Mr. White did not ask why in 2001, the BH&HPA (and National Caravan Council) declined to allow the Office of Fair Trading to oversee operation of their individual ‘ Complaints Procedures’ when the OFT proposed a new policy on Codes of Practice. In declining, the BH&HPA inter alia, stated that, “….self-regulation must provide market advantage through customer awareness and choice, to be successful.” There you have it, ‘self regulation’ is the preferred method of control. We know differently…….
Andrew Stunnell MP, The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State responded for the Government (Column 1112). Amongst other bland comments , Mr. Stunnell almost echoing the “soft touch” approach of the BH&HPA , stated his Government were “….committed to targeted reform that does not place unnecessary burdens on site owners, who ought to be allowed to thrive….” (echo’s again of upsetting the site owner?). I suggest we’ve heard all this before and where has it got us? Not very far I would venture. Mr. Stunnell went onto claim that on the basis that the rogues are a ‘minority’, there had to be a “…..balance between regulation and the burden of implementation”. His department was not “….convinced that the protection of park home residents from the (here we go again) minority of unscrupulous site owners requires a complex and costly national licensing system”. Do I hear strangling sounds to the tune of the ’fit and proper person test’?
(It will be noticed that the Government have given absolutely no consideration whatsoever to the ever increasing burden placed upon the ever increasing number of exploited elderly and vulnerable park homeowners. It appears that the welfare of the park homeowner continues to be sacrificed to enhance the aspirations of the all powerful park owners. ) It is hardly any wonder that park home owners have become convinced that they are classed as “SECOND CLASS CITIZENS” Ron PHRAA.
In summary, for me it was a distressing debate. For those of us who have kept abreast of park home matters, I’m afraid it’s all been heard before in one form or another. I have no doubt that the MP’s are well intentioned but it does not help to try and focus minds on irrelevant matters that simply should not have been raised in this debate. The public are already wary of Members of Parliament and their veracity. Neither, I note, was any mention made of remedies. The fact is, the Government can churn out as much legislation as they want but where a few of the individuals affected or agencies (such as police and local authorities) show any desire to invoke or apply the law, of what use is legislation?
***** I wrote this article before the Plymouth County Court ordered the Small family to desist from abusing occupiers of their 19 parks. For the simple calculation above, I had conservatively allowed for the Small family to own 7 parks not 19. This means that the percentage of rogue owned parks (still conservatively) increases to, 274 which is 15.22% of all parks.
Reproduced for the PHRAA Website by kind permission of the author Mr. Graham Watts LL.B LL.M of Park Home Legal Services Ltd. March 2011.
Additional Comments by Ron Joyce. General Secretary Park Home Residents Action Alliance (PHRAA) March 2011.
Legal View No 6 
