PHRAA, Park Home Residents Action Alliance

Exposing the “ONE VOTE PER HOME” Con Trick.

PARK OWNERS CAN’T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS,

CAN THEY????? .

YES, Thanks to the recent decision in the PRESTON COURT OF APPEAL on 23rd November 2010 using the industry biased 2006 amendments To the MOBILE HOMES ACT 1983 against innocent and vulnerable Park Home owners, park owners can now legally have it both ways.!!!!

I refer of course to one particular and, as in this case, abuse of a clause contained within the strict terms and conditions introduced by Government which by law have to be conformed with by the park residents in order that their proposed parks Residents Association be recognised by the Park Owner. (See Government Park Homes Fact Sheet “Qualifying Residents Association” available from Department of Communities.) a minimum of 50% of residents must be registered members and for the purpose of voting only ONE VOTE PER HOME is allowed. This is taken from the first name on the Agreement, usually the male.

For the purposes of this article I will highlight the offending clause which in PHRAA’s view (which contrary to the other two National Park Home Residents Associations and trade organisations all of which fully support this clause,, PHRAA continues to publicly condemn on the PHRAA website and elsewhere ) blatantly discriminates against Park Homeowners wives or partners by denying them, by law, the right to vote on all matters and decisions directly affecting the quality of their park home lifestyle, including pitch fee increases, proposed park rule changes etc. In short this clause effectively means that if wives or partners disagree with decisions affecting their lifestyle, then thanks to the ACT, they are required to ‘put up and shut up’!!!! Only in the Park Home industry would this outrageous practice, which amounts to an insult to women, be tolerated by authority, let alone Government approved. I should add that written complaints on this subject to Harriet Harman, (the then Minister for Women who still continues to champion women’s equality rights,) both by PHRAA and MP’s remain unanswered to this day. Mrs. Emily Pankhurst and supporters who bravely fought and sacrificed so much to achieve the right of all women to the Vote must be turning in her grave. I am sure that Mrs. Pankhurst did not fight for the vote for all women with the particular exception of those living on park home sites????

Although the park owners, government, the park home industry trade organisations and their very “clever” and influential legal teams and not forgetting the total support for the inclusion in the legislation of this discriminatory clause demonstrated by the other two National Park Home Residents Advisory Associations, will I am sure be very proud of their victory regarding this clause, but unfortunately for many park home owners, this law only applies one way. This is when, (Yes you’ve guessed it) it benefits only the park owner as 65 devastated residents of Carr Bridge Park, Blackpool found to their cost following an Appeal Court Hearing held at Preston Court Lancashire on 23 rd November 2010.

For the purpose of this article I need not go into the details of the case here as a full report will be available shortly on the PHRAA Website

Although the Mobile Home Act dictates that only one vote per home is allowed when decisions are made. As mentioned earlier this is stated to be the first name on the Agreement (contract) which is usually the male. However as recent events have proved beyond doubt when the park owner GREEN TREE PARKS Ltd and his very “clever” legal team TOZERS of Exeter represented by Mr. Leslie Bloem QC, undertake Court Action against a group of his residents who have exercised their right under the MHAct by actually daring to question his recently imposed extra charges, as if by magic the interpretation of this rule abruptly changes. SURPRISE, SURPRISE, THE SUMMONSES TO APPEAR IN COURT ARE SERVED ON EACH INDIVIDUAL OCCUPIER OF THE HOUSEHOLD CONCERNED. This means that if there are two or more occupiers eg., Husband and Wife then two or more, entirely separate but identical, sets of Court Papers are issued to that household. When as in this case there were 40 households involved it amounted to a nice little earner for the Solicitor eh?? But obviously extremely intimidating for the terrified elderly residents on the receiving end of this outrageous but legalised racket. How’s this for a legalised racking up of legal charges. Just imagine the rumpus if a residents solicitor were to try the same trick on a park owner???

So please would someone in Authority explain to PHRAA and every Park Home Owner in the Country how it is that PARK HOME RESIDENTS APPEAR TO BE IN THE UNIQUE POSITION OF BEING HAULED OFF TO COURT ACCUSED OF A CRIME THAT THEY COULD NOT POSSIBLY BE DEEMED GUILTY OF ON THE GROUNDS THAT AS THEIR NAMES ARE NOT THE FIRST TO APPEAR ON THE AGREEMENT RESULTING IN THEIR BEING BANNED BY LAW FROM LEGALLY HAVING ANY SAY IN MATTERS AFFECTING THEIR WELFARE?????? In other words how can wives and partners etc permanently occupying the park/mobile home with the registered homeowner be prosecuted for an alleged breach of a contract in which they are officially banned, by law, from having any say or input.

But it seems every thing is possible when it involves a Park homeowner.

AS I SAID AT THE START SURELY THEY (PARK OWNERS) CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.

BUT OF COURSE THE LAW IS DIFFERENT FOR US PARK HOME OWNERS, or perhaps I should say SECOND CLASS CITIZENS. WE ARE EXPECTED TO COMPLY WITHOUT QUESTION TO THE LAW AS DICTATED BY THE ALMIGHTY PARK HOME INDUSTRY.

I should also point out to our readers that PHRAA fought tooth and nail against the “One Home One Vote” clause at the consultation meetings we attended in London. This proved to be a very unpopular stance to take with the DCLG Ministers etc, the Trade organisations, and the other two National Residents Associations and resulted in PHRAA being banned from future meetings in a concerted bid to silence PHRAA which remains the only National Park Home Residents Association with the guts to “TELL IT AS IT IS” Some two or so years ago our President Colin Packman was graciously granted an audience with the great Robert Shceoch Advisor to the Government on Park Home Policy at the DCLG with a view to getting this unofficial ban lifted. He was told that the ban would be lifted immediately providing PHRAA agreed to toe the official line. This interprets as the line as dictated by the Park Owners Trade Associations supported by the other National Park Home Residents Associations and continues to be adopted by Government. NEEDLESS TO SAY PHRAA DECLINED THIS “OFFER” ON THE GROUNDS THAT WE WILL NOT BE SILENCED AND WILL CONTINUE AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO EXPOSE THE EXPLOITATION SUFFERED EVERY DAY BY THOUSANDS OF VULNERABLE PARK HOME OWNER CAPTIVE VICTIMS AT THE HANDS OF THE EVER GROWING NUMBERS OF UNSCRUPULOUS THAT NOT ONLY INFEST THE RESIDENTIAL PARK HOME RESIDENTS, BUT ALSO HOLIDAY CARAVAN AND CHALET OWNERS who despite being the customers of a £6 Billion industry (figures supplied by Mr. Scheoch DCLG) have even less protection than us Residential Park Home owners.

UPDATE……

Since completing the above article PHRAA has unearthed further information in the form of a reply to a FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 PHRAA request to the PARK HOMES POLICY TEAM at the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) . Although the reply did not answer the actual query raised, it did coincidentally, contain the following revelation as to the identity of the organisations directly responsible for the Governments introduction of the “ONE HOME ONE VOTE” clause so despised by many park home residents especially those wives and partners denied a vote on matters of direct effect on their welfare and park home lifestyle. The following is a direct quote from this letter dated 23^rd June 2011.

“ ………..The contact details you refer to only seem to appear in the Department’s Park Home Factsheet on ’QUALIFYING RESIDENTS ASSOCIATIONS. That document contains the contact details of the two (national park home residents) organisations mentioned (IPHAS & NAPHR) together with the two industry representative groups (BH&HPA and NPHC) BECAUSE, BETWEEN THEM, THEY HAVE AGREED A MODEL TEMPLATE FOR THE CONSTITUTION OF A QUALIFYING RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION. “

I leave long suffering park owners to form their own conclusions on the above revelation, but it makes you wonder whose side certain others are on????

Compiled for the PHRAA Website by Ron Joyce. General Secretary. PHRAA.

JULY 2011

==================================================

PS. I perhaps should apologise to Mr. Scheoch and Mr. Bloem QC for not spelling their names properly, but as I have absolutely no respect for either of them in their dealings with elderly and vulnerable park homeowners, I could not be bothered to look up the correct spelling. However if they are offended, they can always sue me. Not that they would get anything if they did as they have already had over ten years of my life spent fighting for park homeowners rights to a FAIR DEAL.. My home is worthless because our PARK OWNER,, in common with all the other UPO’s, stops me selling. Because of this I and thousands of other helpless PHO are prisoners in the concentration camps known as park home sites. They have everything now, there is only my blood left. Do they want this as well.? ONE THING IS CERTAIN “COUNT DRACULA” AND HIS CRONIES ARE ALIVE AND PROSPERING, reincarnated as UNSCRUPULOUS PARK OWNERS thriving on the never ending supply unsuspecting, innocent PARK HOMEOWNERS. RON.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Statistics
Visitors: 381135

Warning Bulletin No 28. What price "Justice" for Park Home owners

Written by Ron Joyce
Wednesday, 24 October 2007
There is one vitally important piece of information, crucial to the future health, wealth and happiness of anyone considering the purchase of a Park Home, carefully omitted from all the glossy adverts, glowing write ups in specialist magazines and the press, all seeking to glorify park home life as the perfect lifestyle for those approaching, or have reached, retirement age. Sell up your bricks and mortar homes, release the capital and buy a park home leaving you worry free with a nice little nest egg left over to spend on treating yourself to all the things you’ve always wished for, but could never afford. Sounds to good to be true doesn’t it? Yes it can be. But get it wrong and the idyllic life you have been led to expect could turn into an horrific nightmare if the park you have chosen is owned, or is purchased later, by an unscrupulous park owner. It is only then, when its too late, that you find out the hard way that the missing vital piece of information, carefully not mentioned before you parted with your hard earned cash was, that all the laws you took for granted whilst living in bricks and mortar in the outside world, are of no use to you now. The only law that applies in practice on a park home site is the law as decreed by the park owner, who will be obeyed at all times. Step out of line, dare to ask questions, or fail to accede to his constant demands for even more of your hard earned cash imposed by means of high pitch fee increases and other charges and you will be branded a trouble maker. Woe betide you then!!! You will of course be showered with comforting assurances by the charming park owner or sales person whilst engaged in the very simple buying process. ( a park home is not housing, its classed as a caravan, therefore a chattel, and is purchased in exactly the same way as a car or TV etc.,) more than likely the park owner or his agent will have persuaded you that it is not necessary to employ the services of a solicitor for the buying process. But in view of the many thousands of pounds of your savings being invested in the home, PHRAA would strongly recommend that a solicitor is used, if only to oversee the transaction. Remember a park home is chattel, but unlike buying a car or a TV, if things go wrong you cant take it back. Many new park homeowners will find that every thing is fine and park home life is every bit as good as it has been portrayed, especially if the park has a good and caring owner. Even if the park proves to be owned by an Unscrupulous Park Owner, (UPO) everything may appear to be fine at first, especially if the park is undergoing development, *(older homes being removed, being replaced with new ones,)* and the park owner has several empty new park homes standing unsold on the park. He will go to any lengths to keep his existing new residents happy, for obvious reasons. This PHRAA refers to as ‘The HONEYMOON PERIOD’ and may last for weeks or months depending on the whim of the UPO. One thing is certain that it will end very abruptly the first time you ask questions or have reason to complain. The other increasingly common event, which shatters the lives of the previously happy and contented park homeowners is when they wake up one morning to the news that the park has been sold. This comes as a tremendous shock as residents usually have no idea that the park was even up for sale. Unfortunately for the helpless residents, in 9 out of 10 cases these days the park will have been sold to a UPO., who usually appears on the park accompanied by ‘jack booted’ henchmen, and residents are soon left in no doubt that their previous happy and trouble free park home lifestyle has gone forever. IT IS NOW THAT DESPERATE RESIDENTS TURN TO THE LAW FOR HELP. The law governing park homes is the MOBILE HOMES ACT 1983/2006 which innocent prospective park homeowners will have been assured affords them compete protection and peace of mind. In practice however, especially where the park is owned by a UPO., the Act is not worth the paper it is printed on, partly because it is riddled with more loopholes than a sieve, every one of which, when manipulated by his ‘clever’ solicitors, favour the park owner. But worst of all is the fact that the Government have placed the homeowners in an impossible position, made far worse by the recent October 2006 amendments to the Act, by placing the entire burden of responsibility for enforcing the Act (law) firmly on the shoulders of the aggrieved park homeowner. In other words should the park owner…… (1)….. persistently prevent the homeowner for exercising his legal right to sell their home. (2)…. enter on to the homeowners pitch (plot) and remove their property and destroy their garden area. (3)…. commit acts of harassment, intimidation, abuse, bullying, threats of, or actual acts of violence against the homeowner. (4)…. fail to honour agreements, written or otherwise entered into with the homeowner at the time of purchase. (5)….. fail to provide homeowner with a Mobile Home Act Agreement (contract) (6)…. fail to maintain services, which being part of the agreement, the homeowner has a right to expect. (7)…. fail to recognise, or deliberately obstruct the formation of, a properly constituted residents association. (8)….. fail to provide documentary evidence to support claims for increased pitch fee increases or other charges as required by the Act, when requested to do so by homeowners. If any of the above listed or any other of the numerous breaches of the Act are committed against homeowners by a UPO the only course of action open to homeowners under park home law, is to undertake Court Action against the park owner. This means that the only method of ENFORCING PARK HOME LAW due entirely to the fact that Government have refused to provide any official means of enforcement, falls on those least able to defend or protect themselves. The mainly elderly, therefore vulnerable, mostly 70, 80 90 year old pensioner members of our society who are the majority of the estimated 250,000 plus park home population. By failing to include provision, within the Act, for the necessary powers of enforcement, the Government have forced the oppressed victims to prosecute their oppressors, irrespective of whether they have the will, the health, or the means to undertake such a traumatic and potentially financially ruinous experience, as many who have tried, even when believing they have a cast iron case, have found out to their cost. The first step is to try and find one of the very few Solicitors who have even a scant knowledge of park home law. This will cost around £175 plus VAT per hour. On top of this will be Barrister and Court costs, plus the costs of the Hearing totaling several thousand pounds. It will certainly take many months for the case to get to court. Two years is quite common before a date for the hearing is arranged. Once a date for the hearing is set it is quite common for the park owner or his Solicitor to contact the Court a few days before the case is due to be heard, requesting that the case be put back because he is ill, is out of the country or any other ploy he can use to delay the case. This can and does happen time and time again, delaying the hearing for many more months during which time the costs and the intolerable stress levels for the helpless homeowner are rising astronomically. Make no mistake about it Government has handed the unscrupulous park owners the absolute power, through the Mobile Homes Act, now made even worse by the 2006 amendments to that Act, to totally dominate the lives of park homeowners nationwide and while this present Mobile Homes Act remains as it is, there is nothing any park homeowner can do about it. As all too many distraught park homeowners who contact PHRAA openly describe their situation as “SECOND CLASS CITIZENS LIVING IN PRISON CAMPS FOR PENSIONERS”. Is this what you have paid, or are about to pay, £100,000 - £300,000 price of a park home for? For the park homeowner taking Legal Action against a park owner in an attempt to obtain his rights is not for the faint hearted especially bearing in mind the advanced age of the average park homeowner and his limited financial resources. Many have been forced to abandon cast iron cases through lack of funds or the physical and mental stress involved having a detrimental effect on their health. There is also the fact that the park owner has the funds to employ the services of top legal firms who are specialists in park home law meaning that the odds of obtaining justice, especially against a UPO, are stacked heavily against the homeowner. Just to illustrate the point of how long it takes and how expensive taking Court Action against the park owner is in practice, here are four examples from our own park owners parks. (1)….. Resident aged 79 took our site owner to court for removing and destroying a large section of his plot together with stealing and destroying the residents storage shed complete with its contents. The case took over 3 years to get to court at a cost to the resident of over £11,000 which as he won he was awarded his costs plus a small amount of compensation. However, 4 years on, the site owner has still not complied with the court Order to restore the damage. Resident was 79 when the case started, 81 when it finally reached Court. (2)….. Resident, elderly lady 81 years of age, suffering ill health had to move into sheltered accommodation. Home placed on market at £97,000 as valued. Buyer found within a week at asking price. Site owner illegally put off this buyer and every other buyer by making untrue statements. Resident instigated court action over two years ago. Each time a date is set for hearing site owner makes excuses to the court stating he cannot appear on set date. Case put back several times now due either December 2007 or early in 2008. Resident besides being distraught is having to continue paying pitch fees, council tax and other charges on a home she cannot occupy or sell. (3)…. Elderly lady resident, same park, same site owner, similar case. 2 years waiting to get to Court. No date set as yet. (4)….. Elderly widower living alone, suffered from serious illness. Had to go into care Hospital. Placed home on market. Site owner illegally blocked sale for 2 years. Father died. Son inherited his fathers Park Home and site owner has been blocking sales for over 4 years. Son lost over £10,000 to date attempting to obtain justice. Still has not sold. Son faced with yet further Court Action against site owner for illegally blocking sales. For the Government to bring out laws ostensibly to protect the welfare of park homeowners, but place the entire responsibility for the enforcement of those laws solely on the shoulders of 60, 70, 80,and 90 year old pensioner park homeowners is nothing short of outrageous. PHRAA is fighting for the rights of park homeowners to a fair deal on many fronts and will never rest until the Government recognises that this archaic Mobile Homes Act is responsible for the continued untenable plight of park homeowners and that there is an urgent need to take action NOW to bring in and watertight legislation to protect park homeowners backed up by real, Government backed, powers of enforcement. At present Park Homeowners are subject to laws akin to laws in force in 1607 that kept the peasants oppressed. Until new effective legislation is put in place park homeowners will remain the peasants of 2007 left to the mercy of the unscrupulous local Baron. ( UNSCRUPULOUS PARK OWNER) If you or any of your fellow residents have had similar experiences please let PHRAA know. We need your evidence to put pressure on government. Names will not be divulged without permission. Help PHRAA to help you. Compiled for PHRAA by Ron Joyce. General Secretary. August 2007.
Last Updated ( Thursday, 08 November 2007 )

< Prev		Next >

[ Back ]

Joomla! is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL License.

Design & Hosting by D3 Developments | D3 Developments Web Directory