I’ve lost count how many letters from PHRAA to the industry and government have remained unanswered; they’re obviously not accustomed to answering what the perceive as “difficult” inquiries.  Are they so naïve as to not understand they have, in ignoring the issue, indicated to the sender their wrongdoing?  Remember the proverb; Truth never fears investigation”

So, who can you trust, and what can you believe when contemplating the park home lifestyle?  You can believe us when we highlight just a few recent examples here of how you could be misled. For instance, there are published ‘comparisons’ to show, in one example, how moving onto one park “can save the park home buyer £220,000” (This is not a misprint) when compared to a bricks and mortar property in the same area.  But any comparison of this nature deliberately ignores the fact that one is not comparing like with like!  You do not, or ever will own the land upon which your home stands, and will instead be forced to pay ever rising pitch fees for this, that, and especially ‘the other’!  For there is now, thanks to this government, a series of dotted lines below reference to the aforesaid pitch fee in the new agreements under the Mobile Homes Act, for the park operators to dream up “other charges”! You’ll be discriminated against in many other ways too numerous to mention here, because of the manner in which the legislation, particularly much of the recent changes now affect you at various stages of your occupation of that pitch.  What price, for example, the TOTAL SECURITY of bricks and mortar???

You may be swayed by the results of certain competitions; it was felt necessary to vary the emphasis of an annual event; this year to find the best Park of the Year, as opposed to the ‘best Park Owner’, though inevitably it will be the park owner who will jump up and change his advertising to reflect the fact that his/her park is the best, regardless of their nature towards residents. But is it fair to all competitors that in explaining the obvious to readers, on what constitutes a ‘good park’ they should actually name, but three parks? It cites one park with a named facility that was actually provided by a former owner, and another who had interestingly won the previous competition three times, but not recently. I tackled the editor on this, and of previous concerns earlier in the year, but received no reply to either letter. Would such content in a ‘readers letter’ therefore stand a chance of publication nowadays? Not for the first time have we learned of a ‘conservation award” being presented; with appropriate publicity, to then be told or discover the following year this ‘treasured’ spot has now been destroyed in the name of development.

But government is king, when it comes to unanswered communications.  Its close stated relationship with the park home industry is clearly and thoroughly defined in a public document discovered by PHRAA some years ago during a search at Companies House. Contact us, if you would like to know more. The connection is crystal clear by witness to the manner in which all park home residents were denied an effective means of tackling the mass of problems, by the carefully chosen use of a Statutory Instrument at the outset. This ensured that there was a watertight seal that couldn’t  be broken, so to speak. That all contained within could not be effectively challenged by resident’s group.  Even MP’s who supported us strongly were working in handcuffs. Because although they had “debates” in both houses in June 2006, in terms of definition were meaningless. It was noted earlier that careful selection of a committee made up of those who seemed not to live or operate in areas where park home sites existed, nor who attended any All Party Working Group meetings for the Welfare of Park Homeowners, were nevertheless appointed to help seal the fate of residents, whilst ensuring not only the free flowing success of the park home industry, but the opportunity was taken to ensure key respondent’s wants were met.  We know this because of the careful selection of responses by certain park owners , via the Freedom of Information Act.  This is why we knew in advance that such demands as inhibiting the formation and effectiveness of Residents Association through utter discrimination, which directly affect other day to day issues, being their for only one vote per home.  One ‘charming’ park owner stipulated he wanted a mechanism by which “unscrupulous’ residents can be removed.  That label is generally attached to those residents who dare to ask ‘awkward’ questions and understandably get somewhat angry when they’re invariably ignored, as indeed we have been on these issues highlighted here. This particular wish was indirectly granted through the abolition of the former 1826 day notice applicable to older homes deemed to be over 10 years old by the industry. The replacement for this being a single word ‘Forthwith’. Instead of having a five year breathing space, virtually instant action is now needed. Thus, in practice, it can amount to the homes life being dramatically reduced by five years. That in turn ensures the homeowner is under threat and stress. Just the punishment for an ‘unscrupulous’ homeowner.  Prayer answered for truly unscrupulous park operators everywhere, is it not? Try writing a letter to government to fin out who influenced that decision, and why. Yes you’ll be wasting your time. To reinforce this belief, I offer the following proverb.

Compiled for PHRAA by Colin Packman, President.               July 2007.