Many devious minds work within, and for the park homes industry. A lethal combination is an unscrupulous park owner with his equally nasty legal advisors. But then add the ‘killer’ ingredient of a Judge who knows little or nothing about mobile homes. (Ah , those things you tow behind a van with Elsan toilets, that second class citizens use) If you’re “lucky”, he’ll seek “advice” from that obviously knowledgeable barrister that your park owner has spent your pitch fees on. The answer is predictable; it wont be to your advantage! And if he doesn’t seek such advice? If in doubt, he’ll come down in favour of the business man. You cant win! After all, how else is he going to afford the next new Bentley?
But, occasionally, it doesn’t quite turn out how the unscrupulous park owner was expecting it would. Never mind, there’s plenty more of your money he can throw at the legal profession; this time to engage in such tactics as are necessary to drain you, his customer, of every penny you have……and it could happen to YOU! In fact, its already happened; and to a couple, one of whom has since died. Whose to say her demise was not accelerated by the trauma of being branded a bankrupt, for doing nothing wrong? All that was “wrong” was living on a park in a sound, but older home, and crucially, on a plot that could accommodate two homes. You can guess the rest. A failed attempt by a previous park owner didn’t deter the new boy. But it was the manner, and the questionable circumstances that caused not one, but two cases to come before the court at the same time. The first one being a spurious one in essence. The homeowners, the surviving partner now 79 years of age, accepted an invitation for cheaper electricity from an outside source, who had agreed to supply, and took payment for doing so. They later realised they were supplying to a privately owned site, and had to terminate the contract which had earlier been agreed and entered into. In the meantime a relatively small sum had accrued, which was now due to be repaid to the park owner, and was subsequently handed over. However, because of his typical attitude, rather than accept an apology, he took the matter to court, together with a further application to the court to seek to terminate the agreement! Here now is the crucial trick that was engineered, which spelt disaster. One can only believe this was a deliberate attempt to destroy the couple, once and for all.
It is understood that instead of the two cases being heard separately, an application by the barrister was made to hear them as one case. To “save the courts time” I wonder? This is a common ruse to gain advantage over residents, as I have witnessed in the past.
The outcome was< yet again, that the park owner did NOT win his demand for an eviction order, but because the two cases were now combined, the Judge, utterly unfairly, ordered the park owners’ inflated legal fees to be paid entirely by the resident, which amounted to tens of thousands of pounds. Rendering, at a stroke, the residents bankrupt ‘on the spot’. Interest continues to be added to this day!
The latest we have is bailiffs acting for the park owner are demanding the home now be sold forthwith; none of the money of course going to the elderly remaining resident, who would be made instantly homeless. Crucially, if this happens, the park owner will have got his own way, and would clear the home from the pitch immediately. This si the same company who is reported in a newspaper to have said of the resident “he can live in a box”! Isn’t this the best of bad reasons why you should not consider moving into on of his boxes on wheels, or anyone else’s until our legal system is also rid of unscrupulous – highly paid individuals.? It also serves as an example of what a member of the British Holiday & Home Parks Association, (BH&HPA) is capable of.
Colin Packman President of PHRAA. May 2007.
|
