The Mackworth VT two storey Mobile/park home is an interesting development, but one which caused some doubt as to its status in law, according to a recent article. Was it a caravan, as defined in current legislation? So the National Park Homes Council wheeled in their solicitor for his verdict.

At this juncture, I shall define the role of a solicitor as having an obligation to act in the best interests of their client, and follow their instructions. This can often mean they are acting contrary to the interests of others, as they are also entitled to take their clients account of events as true, and so advance their clients case upon that basis. It will therefore come as no surprise to learn the short answer to that question was “yes”! Neither did it seem to take a moment for the NPHC to grant the model its seal of approval, complying fully with British Standard S3632.

But I was more interested in what the article didn’t mention - almost certainly because such other important factors were either not revealed, or even thought about , perhaps? What of meeting planning approval for instance?

It wasn’t long ago that both the trade associations were complaining that to add a Decra -style roof to an older home would make the home “too heavy” for the base, ‘which wasn’t constructed to take the extra weight’… Many bases still aren’t capable of withstanding home, which for years have had this style of roof as standard practice! But were they really concerned with the homeowners safety? Not in essence, it was yet another idea for their members to use to exert pressure against homeowners to seek to scupper their lawful obligation to maintain an older home, with the ultimate aim to remove both the home and occupier off site. As then they could argue that, because of its “condition,” it was having a detrimental effect on the amenity of the site’, a clause in the Act that can lead to termination of the Agreement.

So, no mention of what, if any, improved specifications have been introduced following any possible thorough research into the known added stresses affecting a taller structure, and its impact upon the concrete base, for example. This faily come sunder the serious heading of health and safety. So what importance does the park homes industry place upon this subject?

The BH&HPA (British Holiday &Home Parks Association Limited) makes clear in a statement by its current Director General in 2002 that it “is the only organisation that works solely for the benefit of park businesses, and exists exclusively to serve the parks industry. The mission of the association is to enable and assist British park member businesses to prosper”. So, not a care in the world for the buying public, then?

We’re regularly told by experts that the climate here is changing rapidly; in particular, we are to expect more frequent ans severe gales. Even the summer months have been very windy in the past two years. Could the storm of 1987 become a regular occurrence?

When I purchased my first mobile home 40 years ago in 1968, it was equipped with two steel cables, one on each end, secured around the chassis, and anchored to steel eyelets imbedded deep within the concrete base, even though I was sheltered on the eastern side by a high boundary hedge. That was in the days when park owners cared for their residents’ safety and peace of mind, because it was also fitted with an electric coiled element surrounding the incoming water main beneath traditional lagging, which could be activated in extreme weather. What, one wonders, does the Mackworth have incorporated to steady it in a howling 90 mph+ gale in an exposed and/or elevated position, one wonders? And how sure can any buyer be that the park owner is suitably trained or experienced in dealing with all the safety aspects of this new concept when he, or his contractors site it?

Meanwhile, let us look for some assurances that at least the BH&HPA will have been warned of the need to place matters of health ans safely high on their list of priorities; particularly so when siting this entirely different form of home. The Association, you’ll recall, that “works exclusively to serve the parks industry”. The writer of the above passages spoke to the nation last year, via the fantastic “Face the Facts” programme on BBC’s Radio 4. I’ll pick up the transcript at the point where the legendary John Waite asks Mrs. Ros Pritchard, the BH&HPA’s director general:

“But how sincere are you, as an organisation, about your wish to police these things”? I mean your own director’s report of 2002, a copy of which I have here, talks about the importance of lobbying against the “burden” is your word, the burden of regulation. It says that where it is not possible to avoid the introduction of regulation, your Association endeavours to ensure that enforcement is with the lightest possible touch.”

Ros Pritchards response: “We’re talking about taxation legislation, health and safety legislation, employment legislation……”. An estimated 3 million people heard that, and later were also able to read it via our site on the world wide web. When the boss of an industry body that also represents the makers of homes, tells the world it treats health and safety with the lightest possible touch! That should spell commercial suicide for them and fear for buyers. In 2005, Mrs. Pritchard was awarded the OBE, stated in a local newspaper to be ‘for her services to tourism’. I’ll bite my tongue. What are your feelings?

With 100% more area exposed to stress from predicted sustained higher winds, satisfactory answers and proof must be forthcoming to satisfy potential customers that it has not only been rigorously tested to withstand the expert’s predictions, but, in addition, that a matching improved formula for its hard standing has been calculated. Even then, if there is still not to be a foolproof system of independent checking of crucial areas before allowing the home to be occupied , one can only imagine the potential risks involved. It is no use hearing that age-old statement; “we’ll conduct an immediate investigation to make sure that nothing like this ever happens again”, after the event. As a caring organisation, we need to see the proof that all is well. Clearly, one cannot rely upon a biased legal view of its “compliance” with the Caravan Sites & Control of Development Act, 1960 and the Caravan Sites Act 1968, as if to say this solves everything. It doesn’t! Worse still, they know it.

With the poor track record of many park owners, couples with the allied ability to be able to cram in many more homes that this configuration allows for, as stated in the article we read, must not be at the expense of safety in the siting process. But with messages from the industry that, in practice, can translate very easily from a light touch, to none at all, alarm bells will continue to ring loudly, until a robust retraction of those broadcast remarks are made by the very same person who produced them, so let’s hear it, Ros.

In an industry only seen by most as interested in huge profits, what next? Pile a dozen single units on top of each other and call it a mobile home block of flats? The sky’s the limit.

Compiled September 2008 for PHRAA by Colin Packman. President. Published February 2009.