From only the second line of the Foreword by Sally Keeble did it become abundantly clear that the Government had ignored the original needs of the Working Party, arranged as a direct result of persistent complaints to the then DOE/DETR by residents and their representatives over a period of many years. The main complaints stemming from the growing mass of unscrupulous site operators, and the ill-founded legislation, suffered since 1983. Yet Ms Keeble placed the perceived benefits to site owners first and foremost, as they were mentioned in this line before home owners! Indeed, throughout the following text there were many instances where clearly, the site owners’ position was judged to be paramount; well beyond those of the long suffering residents.
Could it, I suggest, be associated with the “massive lobbying” that the park home industry claimed to engage in, as stated in a leading article within the “Official Journal of the National Caravan Council”?(NCC). This organisation also incorporates the National Park Homes Council (NPHC) under the Directorship of the then Alan Bishop, who had played a leading role at those meetings. I am quite sure that it had been intimated that the ‘trouble-makers’ were generally those outside the membership of the trade associations. I would argue that, by and large, the Government had accepted this line of thought, without sight of any substantiation. I will conclude this document with the exposure of a very serious issue that cannot be ignored. I now turn towards commenting upon the folly of a number of Government responses, which did, and have continued to show bias towards the industry, at the certain expense of residents rights and peace of mind. More importantly, I question the validity of some of the responses, in light of the ‘Human Rights Act’.
Note: In all cases during these observation notes, we are dealing with the same Labour Government who pushed the 1983 legislation into law during what was thought to be the dying stages of it’s term in office, and it is again the same Government who have from 1998 - 2006, made a complete mess of the latest legislation like it did with the 1983 Act, and the one before that. One must seriously give thought as to what is next on the Agenda for park home owners because it is completely and utterly intolerable that they must continue to be harassed and bullied by operators who don’t care one iota for their welfare, but only care how much they can sting the home owners for financially.
WRITTEN STATEMENT/AGREEMENT: The Governments wish to delete the current 6 months right of appeal to alter Terms within the Statement overlooked the very important fact that Park Rules, which were not mentioned, also formed part of the same Agreement! Experience showed that many nasty, and sometimes unlawful Terms were ’hidden’ within the park rules themselves. A common one being that of forbidding home owners from displaying a ’For Sale’ sign in their own home windows, in order to stop, and inhibit, private sales of their own homes. There is no law in this land that prevents such a notice, but many residents, INCLUDING THOSE ON “QUALITY AWARD”(SIC) PARKS, were, and still are to this day, bound by such demands.
The Government extraordinarily dismissed the request for a Standard Agreement. It was surely essential for everyone to have the same Terms and Conditions. It would have been madness, for example, to issue widely varying Terms of occupation of other properties of the same type. Wasn’t this yet another loophole in the making? as it gave site operators ‘Carte Blanche’ to write their own oppressive regulations. It most certainly was. Yet even to this day such Terms abound in their thousands all due to this pathetically inept Government shying away from it’s direct responsibility to protect those who’s Working Party was set up to protect. This was the main reason why the Working Party was set up - to stamp out such outrages. What an abysmal failure.
Within this sector, and throughout the whole document, reference was made to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations, as if this was some instant magic formula for resolving disputes; for example, a ‘quick’ solution for someone just moving into a new park home, in order to rectify an unacceptable Term. My experience, and of others who have contacted the O.F.T. have waited unbelievably lengthy periods, (in my case, almost TWO YEARS)only to be told that they could offer little help, these being the words they use on all occasions when they don’t want to become involved for whatever reasons they can think up on the spot. I would suspect that they have little, or no, experience in dealing with park home issues. Another example of residents being fobbed off, rather than Government being bothered to protect us, by way of foolproof legislation.
Finally on this topic, a colleague, Bernard Johnson, compiled a first class draft of a revised Written Statement some years ago, only for a batch of fifteen copies addressed to the Working Party being delivered to the Government but not appearing in front of those for whom they were intended, yet to this day no acknowledgement nor action on the content of this has been forthcoming. Cynics would venture to suggest it contained no loopholes, so would not have been welcomed by site owners. There must NEVER be a VOLUNTARY style Agreement in lieu of affording complete protection, by virtue of a totally revised, legally binding document closely resembling that of Mr Johnson’s model.
COURT ACTION: Sympathy towards site owners was again demonstrated by the Government on page 10 of the Sally Keeble document, where it felt they should not be required to go to Court before they can refuse a sale which, undoubtedly, would encourage further abuses at this already stressful time for residents. The Government was nevertheless quite happy to see residents forced into Court action when faced with overcharging of utilities, rather than imposing strict controls on pricing. It’s weakness in this area was, and still is, demonstrated by the condoning of additional charges, with no fixed limits, within the laughingly termed Maximum Resale Price Order for water. A similar attack was also underway on gas and electricity charges wasn’t it? Instead of preventing over-charging, such “massive lobbying” had now surely opened new avenues to create FURTHER over-charging - but under a very different name, of course.
RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL: Although the Government finally accepted that the “right” to first refusal by site owners was unlawful, it remained silent on how “massive lobbying” may have got in the way of the necessary ‘legal advice’, when compiling Mobile Home booklet No30 from the former booklet No 16, which contained the correct information; that it was indeed unlawful for the site owner to bulldoze his way into the private sales process. This above all, was a very serious action, that has continued, despite protests, through several changes to the booklet. One can come to no other rational conclusion than collusion……..
AGE & CONDITION OF HOME: The Government, having been ‘persuaded’ that it would be a ‘good idea’ for site owners to be granted a legal right to enter a resident’s home for no other reason than to aim to find fault’ with the interior, simply because they could find absolutely nothing wrong with the appearance of the home from the outside. This was SOLELY because (as was normal) their ONLY aim was to ultimately remove the home, regardless of it’s current sound condition for it’s age just to replace it with a new model, thus creating vast profits, was utterly obscene! Did it conveniently escape the then Labour Government (and any of a number of it’s politicians who are still in business today) attention that such enforcement breaches the Human Rights Act?? To condone such action was to be a party to the process of making elderly and vulnerable (usually) persons HOMELESS; not just for then, but indefinitely!! It was quite obvious, from the wording of the Implied Term, that it only needed to be VISUALLY pleasing to the eye. There was NO MENTION WHATSOEVER within the Mobile Homes Act of a survey being required, nor was one needed, for the reasons provided above. The Government was therefore pandering once more to the park home industry and it’s growing army of outlaws.
TIME WASTING: Throughout the long consultation period there was ample evidence of this, “excuses” were the main core. Time and again we were told that there was no parliamentary time, a firm reluctance to make changes to legislation, preferring instead (with applause from the industry) to roll out further voluntary Codes, etc; that few even read, or knew how to read, let alone abide by. The Park Homes Charter was a typical example, which was put down on paper before it was properly completed and thrown out to the residents as quickly as these site owners could dispense with them, which resulted in the residents national representatives totally wasting their time attending a meeting in London which was Chaired by a site owner who disgracefully failed to declare that he had a vested interest in the proceedings which followed. Nor did his peers who also attended that meeting let on who he was. This is only one of the things which site owners call IMPARTIALITY.
However his chairing the meeting was not his only offence, in his role as the author, or co-author for the ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE ASSIGNMENT COMMISSION, he also failed to mention his standing as a park owner again for a second time, but on this issue, Government showed it’s true colours by stating “If the park owners want to carry out this analysis then by all means let them get on with it”, Could they honestly have put hand on heart and categorically state that the industry would produce true facts and figures?? Or was it just wishful thinking???. Evidence of how quickly the Government could act, have occurred since the events in the USA. A handful of ‘British Muslims’ claimed they were being victimised as a result, within days they had the protection they demanded Before one person had died of Anthrax, measures were in place here, thousands of miles from the source, which could mean 7 years in prison for inappropriately sprinkling ANT POWDER.
FINES: But when it comes down to punishing terrorists of a different kind - for many residents HAVE been terrorised by the actions of a growing group of site operators, the unwillingness to treat a criminal offence which, for example, the breach of a site licence condition is, with any degree of severity shunned because £5,000 is ‘peanuts’ and ‘pocket money’ to someone who can make £70,000+ clear profit on the sale of a home, or who receives 10% of the sale price of a modern park home in the time it takes to scribble a signature on the Assignment Form. We must have an open-ended fines policy of not less than five figure sums, if we are to deter site owners from their wicked trading policies, so commonly exercised.
ARBITRATION: In the experience of those involved in resolving the many and varied issues, it was patently clear that only truly independent and unbiased arbitrators could safely be considered. Even then, so few cases had been decided this way, there was concern as to the depth of experience such persons held within the unique park home field of operation.
PITCH FEES & COMMISION: Once again, the folly of the Government was evident. Did it really believe that it could obtain a thoroughly truthful account of the Economics of the park home industry, as mentioned above, from a group who made it abundantly clear that they did NOT want changes to legislation that had given them 80 loopholes on a plate for the past 18 years?? Did the Ministers responsible for setting this up really believe they would be told of the vast profits, the innumerable scams that had been broadcast for almost as long as the Archers had been on Radio 4, it seemed to ensure nationwide coverage. Of course not, The findings were predictable - even before the outset; that the “results” would find site owners almost as ‘poor’ as the proverbial Church mouse. It would underline a “desperate situation”. Crocodile tears from this industry must be dismissed forthwith.
THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY PROFESSOR KENNY LLB. LLM.: To add weight to the argument for urgent reform, the following quotes were important to be absorbed by those Ministers entrusted to make changes. The Professor stated on BBC Radio 4, “You and Yours” programme: “the appalling thing is, owning a mobile home residential site is a licence to print money in any event. But such is the character of many of them, they’re not satisfied with that, they want to harass and bully the residents as well. The ones that are willing to bully and harass people, in order to increase very large profits by a little bit more, will go on doing it, unless they’re stopped by the law.” More recently the Professor has rightly been most critical of the Government’s inaction. He said, “It is a scandal that such an obvious deficiency in the legislation, which was brought to the attention of the relevant Government in the year that the Act was passed (1983) should NOT have been rectified after all this time.” On the subject of the commission, his view was that, “Other house owners do NOT have to pay a large fine of 10% of the sale price to the former robber baron who owned the land where their home is. Is this a fair analogy?.” Residents would not disagree. His views of the present Government’s inaction (in the 1980’s) was expressed thus; “It is clear that the Government is more interested in the plight of long lease-holders in Islington or Grosvener Square than it is in oppression being suffered by the small numbers of park home residents(250,000+) Could it be that a country with such pretensions to the Rule of Law can be rectified only if they are of a larger electoral significance?”.
TRUST ME, IT’S A QUALITY AWARD PARK: In conclusion as stated above, I consider the inclusion of this exposed situation best illustrates how wary the Government must be when dealing with trade associations, and prominent site operators alike. The ‘Park Home’ magazine carried an annual list of Quality Award parks. I noted that one in particular which couldn’t possibly have qualified, as it didn’t actually exist, as such, at the time of going to print as it was, at publication, a building site, confirmed by photographic evidence. I firstly approached the sponsors of the scheme, a subsidiary of the Royal Bank of Scotland, whose MD promptly blamed the Editor of the magazine, without any justification whatsoever.
My investigation then centred upon the Haulfryn Group, owners of the land, whose MD had little choice but to admit the listing was placed without the involvement of the inspecting company, on behalf of the NPHC, which is AQS of Cardiff. Clearly the aim was to insert this park within the listing, as they didn’t intend to wait a further 12 months. However, because the blame had wilfully been aimed towards the Editor, who rightly demanded a retraction, this left the NPHC in a corner. The inevitable happened. Rather than be honest and admit that the Haulfryn Group had deliberately inserted the listing in advance, which was not denied, Alan Bishop, Director General of the NPHC - who regularly contributed to discussions within parliament - chose to lie. Writing a letter, published in the ‘Park Home’ magazine, that it was placed “in error”.
Fortunately in the same issue, the Editor clarified the true position to readers who, without much difficulty, would have no problems with who was telling the truth. One thing remains clear; residents representatives do not have to sink to such low depths in order to put our views across. We tell the truth and, above all, can prove it. If the Government really wanted proof of how appalling a Quality Award park (sic) Agreement is, I can forward a copy. The company, (16 parks) failed to respond. Proof why site operators must NEVER be allowed the freedom to create their own Agreements!
SOME EXAMPLES OF THIS OFFENDING AGREEMENT CURRENTLY IN FORCE
I must point out that this example replaced an earlier unlawful version, containing, amongst other unacceptable Terms, the demand from the site owner to have the right of “first refusal” of a home for sale. Many trade association members adopted this type despite the fact that these associations(BH&HPA and NPHC) jointly compiled a model document. I should also stress that the featured Agreement was by no means unique. It’s purpose was to seek to deny the holder certain rights, and to further add to his/her burden of responsibility, above that which is acceptable. Note also that these are only token examples of the offending Haulfryn version.
1. “The (site) owner shall have the right to move and re-site the Mobile Home, either temporarily or permanently. This may happen in any of the following circumstances: (i) in the interests of the proper management of the park, or (ii) as a consequence of redevelopment of the park.”
This was tantamount to Wimpey’s demanding that sound homes be moved aside to make way for a new development, or a utility provider demolishing a home and re-building it elsewhere, solely to gain access for the replacement of paperwork! Totally insane.
2. “In determining the amount of the reviewed pitch fee, regard shall be had to the annual pitch fees payable in respect of other Mobile Homes situated on the Park, and on other local parks in the area”.
It fails to take into account the certainty that no two parks are identical; that facilities will inevitably vary. It has been proven in past research, that where lower pitch fees are present locally, these had been, and still are IGNORED, when using this unauthorised method. It is like Tesco universally raising their prices to match those of Harrods. A perfect example of sheer GREED.
3. “the owner shall consent to the sale of the Mobile Home, and the transfer of this Agreement, except where it is entitled to withhold it’s consent on reasonable grounds including, amongst other things, (not specified): If the home owner proposes to sell the Mobile Home and transfer this Agreement to someone (other than a member of his family) for less than it’s true and fair open market value”.
A site owner has NO lawful right to dictate the sale price of a resident’s home, that is a matter between the two parties involved. More GREED at work.
4. “Not without the written consent of the owner to carry out…… any work to the hard standing”.
Given that this particular company was earlier taken to Court by a resident to prove that he was NOT responsible for the concrete base, they nevertheless disregarded that ruling, and implied that the resident was still required to repair it, but simply needs written consent from the site owner, thus passing on the responsibility onto others.
5. “To permit the owner to enter the Mobile Home, upon 28 days notice to inspect the electrical, wiring and apparatus of and in the Mobile Home, including all electrical - gas - water - and sewerage instillations or conduits”. There is no legal right in this case to enter a private dwelling. It is the responsibility of the home owner to maintain these services within the home. Finally, a Park Rule prohibits “notices of any kind” to be displayed in the home.
NOTE: Although the latest legislation has been in force for some three and a half years now, inclusive of it’s many loopholes and preclusions, due again to this Governments inability to see in front of it’s own nose in order to deliver unto the park home residents, the protection that they badly required so that these greedy unscrupulous site operators could NOT manipulate the whole content of legally binding documents, ably assisted by their equally devious legal advisors.
Government through it’s complete lack of wisdom and knowledge of the park home industry (It thinks it knows more than it actually does) did, as is par for the course, fail abysmally to ensure that the new Terms were watertight in reference to legal implications for site operators and possible resulting consequences, were placed entirely upon the shoulders of these people thereby ensuring the onus of DUTY to remain within the law and to refrain from using the goalposts to place different interpretations on every scam they could find. The action of ensuring that the legal advisors to the industry received their copies of the new legislation three months prior to the home owners representatives provided them with a total advantage over the latter insofar as any possible challenges concerning the manipulations now put in place.
The fact that separate meetings were held behind closed doors with the trade side, whereby the home owners representatives WERE NOT invited to attend, most especially on the matter of the farcical QRA debate and other matters, did nothing to apply any trust in this Government. At the same time, this Government ensured that despite the fact that the Working Party meetings were purportedly designed to deal with matter concerning the WELFARE of PARK HOME OWNERS in this industry, industry representation was fully present at all times and thus THEY were the party who were dictating the outcome of these meetings at which NO OFFICIAL ACCOUNTABLE MINUTES were taken.
We can only hope that, if another party is elected into office, we will get an opportunity to have these Laws and their interpretations fully debated upon and then corrected to ensure full parity to BOTH
parties in this industry instead of being totally biased in favour of the one with all the finances and lobbyists in their pay ruling over not only the home owners but, it would appear, over the Government also.
It is funny that in the 1980’s, Professor Philip Kenny made a comment in his article to the effect that this Government was more interested in the plight of lease-holders in Islington and Grosvener than in the oppression be suffered by 250,000+ park home owners and rising by the week. At the time he hit the nail right on it’s sweet spot because even today some 27 years hence, nothing has changed. This Government had a golden opportunity to make amends for it’s previous, pathetic changes to a specific community’s lives, but left it almost as badly off than it was before the 83’ legislation came into effect. 1998 to 2006 was the best chance for the thousands of park home owners, who pay their required dues to the economy of this country, as these latest talks for parity were purportedly being held for the DIRECT BENEFIT AND WELFARE OF THE PARK HOME RESIDENTS, NOT the industry. This was what Government told us before the start of their meetings. What happened???. What happened was that Government once again allowed the industry to wield the rod so as to maintain the upper hand, as they have done since the 1940’s. Today this Government has changed it’s direction from the plight of two towns, to ensuring their exorbitant wages, pensions, and stealing from the public purse is swept aside, in much the same way as they cast the park home owners aside through the latest legislation. Again they were in too much of a hurry in case they missed out on any extra fictitious expense claims before getting their marching orders.
Because of the way in which this last Government has left the park home owners out to dry, there is no way that it can be trusted ever again, and to be honest, it doesn’t deserve our trust, and if the next Government is the same, then the best we can hope for is to make things happen ourselves, In reality perhaps the industry deserves to be ridiculed but not the home owning faction because they have done nothing wrong to deserve the treatment meted out by these oppressive UPO’s throughout the industry, nor by a Government which has no conscience. If they cannot practice honesty in their dealings then perhaps it is time that the home owners showed them how it is done.
There is no perception at present as to what the home owning faction of this industry will do if they cannot get the justice which is so badly missing from their respective Agreements with operators who have totally ignored the new legislation, as it has the 1983 Act of Parliament, and the Act before that. Somewhere along the road the elastic will snap at which time we would dread to think what type of action will occur, but whatever it is, it will be drastic for one party or the other. But who knows which one???.
