on many parks and harassment so the UPOs can get existing homes for a few thousand and replace with ...... Publish detai
House of Commons Communities and Local Government Committee
Park Homes Written Evidence—Volume V Only those submissions written specifically for the Committee and accepted by the Committee as evidence for the Park Homes inquiry are included.
List of written evidence Page
Written submission from [***] (PH 151)...................................................................................... 4 Written submission from Ashford Borough Council (PH 152) ....................................................... 6 Written submission from Consumer Focus (PH 153) .................................................................... 9 Written submission from the National Caravan Council (PH 155) ............................................... 17 Written submission from South Gloucestershire Council (PH 156) .............................................. 32 Written submission from Epping Forest District Council (PH 157) .............................................. 36 Written submission from Liz Webster (PH 158) ......................................................................... 41 Written submission from Trading Standards Institute (PH 159) ................................................... 44 Written submission from Swindon Borough Council (PH 160) .................................................... 46 Written submission from the Independent Park Home Advisory Service (PH 161) ........................ 50 Written submission from Annette Brooke MP, Mid Dorset and North Poole Constituency (PH 162) .............................................................................................................................................. 55 Written submission from the [***] Residents’ Association (PH 163) ............................................. 57 Written submission from Parkfoot Holiday Homes Ltd (PH 164)................................................. 60 Written submission from South Oxfordshire District Council (PH 165)........................................ 63 Written submission from East Hampshire District Council (PH 166) ........................................... 67 Written submission from [***] (PH 167).................................................................................... 69 Written evidence submitted by [***] Residents’ Association (PH 168)........................................... 70 Written submission from [***] (PH 169).................................................................................... 76 Written submission from Conrad Meehan, Senior trading Standards Officer (PH 170) .................. 79 Written submission from Trelawne Cottage Gardens (PH 171) .................................................... 88 Written submission from Cheshire West and Chester Council (PH 172) ....................................... 93 Written submission from Torbay Council (PH 173) .................................................................... 99 Written submission from Devon Private Sector Housing Managers Group (PH 174)................... 104 Written submission from Exeter City Council (PH 175) ............................................................ 107 Written submission from the Park Home Residents Action Alliance (PHRAA) (PH 176) ............. 109 Written submission from [***] (PH 177).................................................................................. 111 Written submission from the Office of Fair Trading (PH 178).................................................... 121 Written submission from Councillor Roger West (PH 179) ....................................................... 126 Written submission from Mrs Shirley Dodd-Clark (PH 180) ..................................................... 133
Written submission from [***] (PH 181).................................................................................. 135 Written submission from South Derbyshire District Council (PH 182) ....................................... 136 Written submission from the British Holiday & Home Parks Association (PH 183) ..................... 141 Written submission from Hullbridge Parish Council (PH 184) .................................................. 152 Written submission from the Turners Hill Park Residents’ Association (PH 186) ........................ 154 Written submission from A L & A E Lee & Sons (PH 187) ......................................................... 155 Written submission from Mr T G Scott (PH 188) ..................................................................... 157 Written submission from Warfield Park Homes Limited (PH 189) .......................................... 159 Written submission from Mel Preston and other residents (PH 190) ....................................... 163 Written submission from Mrs Pamela Hutchins (PH 191) ......................................................... 164 Written evidence submitted from Provincial Town Properties Ltd (PH 192) ............................... 165 Written submission from [***] (PH 193).................................................................................. 167 Written submission from Ben Bradshaw MP (PH 194) .............................................................. 176 Written submission from residents of Eastern Green Park 2 (PH 195) ........................................ 179 Written submission for Cornwall Council (PH 196) .................................................................. 180 Written submission from the Cornwall Branch of the British Holiday & Homes Parks Association (PH 197) ............................................................................................................................... 188 Written submission from Elms Caravan Company (PH 198) ..................................................... 190 Written submission from St James’ Park Ltd (PH 199) .............................................................. 192 Written submission from the Wayside Farm Park Residents’ Association (PH 200) ..................... 195
Written submission from [***] (PH 151) SITE FEES – Site fees are now subject to different rates on our park. Originally, everyone paid the same but over the past few years; all new residents are given a new agreement at a higher rent. For those who are buying from an existing resident, this is illegal as they should have the vendors’ original paperwork signed over but this is not happening. AWARDING OF LICENCES The principle is excellent in theory but becomes useless when the issuers of this refuse to take any notice when conditions are breached by the park owners. SITE LICENCES There seems too little point to issuing a site licence. There are numerous breaches of the licence here yet the local council do nothing. They are aware of everything and have been updated continually at their request... Our licence was for a certain number of homes yet we have already got over 10 extra sited with more to come. The 6 metres rule is ignored in most cases. Where there was originally 1 home on a plot, when the resident goes, the home is replaced by 2 homes etc. Gardens are lost which causes even more flooding and a great many parking spaces have disappeared. Even though our council say we should have 2 spaces per home, there are quite a lot of people who don’t have any. Yet, the council say there are more than enough because if someone has a larger driveway on their plot, the planners count that as 2, 3 or 4 spaces which are unacceptable. How would the home owner be able to get in or out with other cars parked and that owner pays the pitch fee for that space. We have 2 councillors who agree that other people’s plots are for their own use, not other residents, but the local authority do nothing. All they ever say is that the matter is being looked into but there is never any conclusion or action taken. On one occasion, there was a meeting with a council representative who actually said they can’t use tax payers’ money without good reason. Obviously, although we pay the same amount as ‘bricks and mortar’ citizens, we are considered non-entities with no rights. This is a real insult because we do not get most of the services that are included in the council tax breakdown. It could be argued that we contribute more as we don’t get our roads swept, repairs done, lighting We need an independent organisation or individuals in each borough dealing solely with the site licences because local authorities really are not interested in enforcing conditions. We have 1 individual at the council who is excellent and deals with their particular interest but the rest do not care. FIT AND PROPER PERSON – This will only work if there are strict rules and a qualified independent organisation to monitor this. If this is overseen by the local council it will be a waste of time and resources.
4
REGULATIONS As occupiers, we need greater protection and support against owners who are unscrupulous. Not every park owner is a villain but for those people who are unfortunate to have such a park owner, there must be stricter legislation to protect. There are cases of sales being blocked on many parks and harassment so the UPOs can get existing homes for a few thousand and replace with new homes costing £100k or more. A much better return than 10% of the sale price! RESALE This is an area which needs a serious overhaul. In most cases, sales go through smoothly but there are large numbers of sales which are blocked using various reasons. We are lucky because sales here don’t seem to have any problems but know that many people on parks have lots of problems. Also, new park home buyers are not always aware of the 1983 act and accept a new agreement at a much higher fee and this should be outlawed with by the park owners being dined heavily and named. RESALE FEES 10% is far too high. When it is taken into consideration that most people who take on an older home will update the home inside and out which gives a higher value. So, if someone does make a lot of improvements, when they sell, the park owner benefits which seems a little unfair. We know that parks are a business but there should be a lower sales fee. The comments below are on behalf of another park resident – What is the reason for these, with regulations etc if councils do not enforce them? Our park has a licence for 122 homes but currently there are 130 +, the owner was told to upgrade the services – to our knowledge this hasn’t been done. The council has been kept informed of developments as soon as there was any indication of same yet still they do nothing. The council always say they want residents to update them but still nothing happens.
February 2012
5
Written submission from Ashford Borough Council (PH 152) Summary of issues 1. There is a need for an effective fit and proper person test to be freshly developed as the Housing Act 2004 test for HMO’s in not effective enough in this scenario. 2. Fees should be charged for the application for a site licence, and for varying of the licence 3. The legislation needs to be improved significantly to enable better enforcement and regulation of licence conditions 4. Better protection is needed for unsuspecting prospective purchasers of homes where site licence conditions are being breached. Fit and Proper Person Test Currently the Local Authority has no scope to refuse a licence if relevant planning permission exists and no checks into the applicant are required by law A clear and effective fit and proper person test should be required within the legislation as part of the application process for a site licence. The current test applied within the HMO legislation in Housing Act 2004 is not the appropriate test as it does not work well and is not clear. It is likely that even if this test is applied and we can be successful in demonstrating that an applicant has failed the test, another ‘front person’ can be put forward as the licence holder even though links to the previous licence holder or their company may exist. This effectively would allow the same administration to continue to influence the responsible person and the work to take action starts all over again. Any such test should be developed carefully in dialogue with local authorities and very clear guidance should be issued to support the test developed. Relevant considerations should include evidence (in any LA area) of previous activity to breach planning consents, allegations of harassment and illegal eviction, efforts to block sales and drive down park home values, failure to respond effectively to complaints, failure to respond to requirements to demonstrate that the services on the site are adequate to the size of the park. Clearly where park home owners have sites across a number of local authorities’ measures to search a national database of park homes and owners / licence holders would be useful in clarifying at application stage a set of factors which may be used to determine if the applicant is a fit and proper person. It is considered that the fit and proper person test should be applied to all registered shareholders / directors in a company or business and that there should be extensive checks such as: -
CRB checks paid for by the applicant Full names, DOB of all interested parties 6
-
Company details and registration number Addresses of any other site licences held by any of the interested parties and other sites owned Site manager details Arrangements for managing sites including complaints process
A prescribed form giving the local authority permission to make relevant enquiries and receive information from other organisations in the consideration of the licence application would be useful. Every licence should have to be reviewed every five years and the fit and proper person test should be applied again at the time of review. Currently once issued the licence is in place until revoked. The ability to review applications and the appropriate ‘teeth’ to deal with rouge licence holders would make the legislation much more effective in protecting residents. Local Authority Fees The local authority should be able to set a charge similar to that in the HMO legislation for the application for a site licence and also for a review of that licence after 5 years. Enforcement and Regulation of Licence Conditions Clear up to date criteria for licence conditions should be set. The model standards should set out a minimum requirement for licence holders to comply with and the law should support LA’s in being able to require demonstration that the licence holder meets those standards. For example if the LA requests evidence that the standards are met and this is not provided then it should be possible to take a prosecution. The current legislation does not go far enough in providing the tools to deal with poor management. In addition the level of fine currently imposed is little deterrent to owners where they are making huge amounts of money. This should be reviewed so that the penalty actually becomes a deterrent to poor management. Consideration of the award of improvement notices and prohibition notices should be considered together with other useful tools such as stop notices where there is something that is of immediate danger to residents or where the licence conditions are being seriously breached. Park Homes sites should also be subject to building control checks for drainage and laying of bases, electrical installations, etc so that certificates have to be obtained prior to any changes to these systems and there is adequate protection for residents.
7
The Fire Service should also have joint responsibility to work with the LA to inspect and enforce fire safety on park home sites. Finally where it can be seen that standards are not being met residents should be given a legal right to withhold rent in these circumstances and the protection of the law where owners try to obstruct sales of homes to drive down the value of homes. Better protection for unsuspecting prospective purchasers of homes Currently there is little to warn a prospective purchaser of a home about any problems on the site or of any breaches. This means that the owner is free to continue to sell new homes to unsuspecting vulnerable buyers even where serious breaches are occurring. Better arrangements to combat this are required. When a person buys a house a land registry search can be made with the LA and problems are identified. There is no such system for people wanting to purchase a park home and this should be considered further. This should include some form of action to encourage new purchasers to check for problems with the site including whether the plot they are to go onto has relevant planning consent and whether there are any current breaches. One way of achieving this is a requirement of the owner at the time of completion of the contract and sale to produce a certificate or formal statement endorsed by the local authority that the site (demonstrated by way of a plan) has planning consent and is operating without breach of licence conditions. This may the single most effective method of preventing complaints from escalating as owners will not want their record to impede any potential sales. This is where the money is made and if poor management can affect the ability to sell by warning buyers it may make site owners much more responsive to the needs of their existing residents. Any action that is taken by LA’s currently does not seem to impact greatly on owners especially if this results in low level fines but it does impact greatly on those unsuspecting purchasers who are often elderly or infirm who may inadvertently find themselves on a plot which does not have planning consent or is in breach of the licence numbers for the site.
February 2012
8
Written submission from Consumer Focus (PH 153) About Consumer Focus Consumer Focus is the statutory consumer champion for England, Wales, Scotland and (for postal consumers) Northern Ireland. We operate across the whole of the economy, persuading businesses, public services and policy-makers to put consumers at the heart of what they do. Consumer Focus tackles the issues that matter to consumers, and aims to give people a stronger voice. We don’t just draw attention to problems – we work with consumers and with a range of organisations to champion creative solutions that make a difference to consumers’ lives. Our response Overview A park home is usually a detached timber framed bungalow-style home set in a private residential park, used by the owners all year round. In law, they are known as ‘mobile homes’ and are covered by the Mobile Homes Act 1983 and associated legislation. It is estimated that about 200,000 people live in park homes across Great Britain. Consumer Focus warmly welcomes the opportunity to provide written evidence to the Communities and Local Government Inquiry in to park homes. Consumer Focus and Consumer Focus Wales have been conducting research in to the issues faced by park home residents and how best to help them overcome these issues. As part of this work we are surveying all local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales and interviewing park home residents about their experiences. We are also consulting and meeting with key stakeholders where we identify that there are issues (including police authorities, Association of Chief Police Officers, trading standards officers, licensing officers, Consumer Direct, Ofgem, the Consumer Council for Water and voluntary organisations), and with residents’ associations and the park homes industry in order to build as robust an evidence base as possible. Our research is still ongoing with full recommendations, based on the evidence, expected later in 2012. The research will provide the most comprehensive independent study into park home issues. This response sets out our observations and views to date and may be subject to change once the research is complete. Recommendations: 1. Resale of Park Homes and resale fees: Greater protection can be achieved by removing the motivation for unscrupulous site operators to harass and intimidate park home residents which is the financial gain that can be made from ‘sale blocking’. We 9
recommend that the approval process for a potential purchaser of a park home is removed entirely. 2. The protection of occupiers of park homes against harassment and illegal eviction: The problems and issues that face park home residents are often complex and require a multi-agency approach to deal with them effectively. Partnerships should be established at a local level between the police, local authorities (licensing and trading standards departments) and organisations from the third sector. 3. The regulation and enforcement of site licence conditions: Local authorities need greater powers to withhold and withdraw licences, together with stiffer economic penalties for breaches. To be effective this should be a self-funding model and local authorities able to charge reasonable fees for the issuing of licences. 1.
Resale of Park Homes and resale fees
The Mobile Homes Act 1983 provides that a resident owner is entitled to sell their home to a person approved of by the owner whose approval ‘shall not be unreasonably withheld’. It is apparent from our discussions with certain current and former park home residents that this process is being abused by some site owners for their own economic gain. Site owners are making demands upon prospective purchasers to attend interviews or are demanding an unreasonable amount of information from them before approval is given. Other site owners are simply failing to respond to requests from residents to approve a purchaser. This kind of passive sale blocking can be just as damaging, both financially and emotionally, to the resident as the more active interference in the sale process. The key to better protection for park home residents is to remove the approval process for potential purchasers of park homes. The approval process is in effect a ‘right of refusal’ which can lead unscrupulous site owners to block sales of park homes in order to force residents to sell their home to them for a vastly reduced price. Homes are then resold afterwards at a massive profit. Or, another new home is placed on the same site pitch and then sold for a profit. This causes great distress to park home residents and can mean them losing large amounts of money on their initial investment. Individual residents have told us, for example, that they have had to leave their home, perhaps for family reasons, or to go into residential care, sometimes funded by the State, because of their financial losses. If they have been unable to secure approval of a purchaser of their current home, these residents then face paying ongoing pitch fees and other charges, as well as costs for their new accommodation. This could push people who may already be on very limited incomes into (or further into) poverty.
10
Case study Consumer Focus has spoken with one couple who lost a total of £65,000 due to their site operator blocking the sale of their park home. The couple moved to a site in Wales in early 2007. The couple bought their park home for £135,000, however after only 15 months living on the site they decided to leave (due to family reasons) and placed their park home on the market again. They quickly found a buyer based in the north of England who offered them £110,000. The sale was agreed and the couple asked the site operator for approval of the potential purchaser. The potential purchaser was then informed that they would have to travel to the park home site in order for the site operator to interview them. It had been explained that the purchaser was unwell and making such a journey would be very difficult. Consequently the sale fell through due to the potential purchaser not wishing to travel such a distance. However the couple later found out that the site operator had instead offered the same purchaser one of the site operator’s own park homes for sale. The site owner agreed that the purchaser would not have to travel in order to be interviewed if they bought one of the site owner’s park homes. As a result, the prospective purchaser bought a home on the same site from the park operator instead of the residents. After 18 months of couple’s park home being on the market, it eventually sold for only £70,000. The site operator also demanded that the 10 per cent commission on the property was paid directly to them before the transaction went through. The economics of the park home industry mean that it can be far more lucrative for a park home site operator to purchase an outgoing resident’s home and then install a new home rather than to take 10 per cent commission on a sale to another party. The information that we have to date indicates that, as a rule, prospective park residents who want to buy a new home, do so through the park operator on the site where they choose to live. It is not a case of choosing a site and then buying the home to put on it themselves. Instead, a buyer will find a site they like and pick out the new home they want. The site owner then purchases the home from the manufacturers and marks up the cost of the home to the purchaser, sometimes by 100 per cent. Great financial profit can be made by an unscrupulous site owner by sale blocking who can stand to pocket between £50,000 – £80,000 profit per park home by putting a new home on site, as opposed to earning £10,000 commission on the sale of a £100,000 home by the outgoing resident. There is evidence that criminals have infiltrated the park home industry because of the financial gain that can be achieved from sale blocking. This was demonstrated in Operation Kingpin. Operation Kingpin was a West Mercia police investigation into a series of offences committed at The Glen Park Home site in Bromsgrove. Here the site operators terrorised residents, resulting in five residents selling their homes to the site owners; one for £6,000, four for £1. All five homes had market values of over £80,000 pounds. All five homes represented the only financial asset of their elderly occupants. In February 2009 the site operators, plus five other men, pleaded guilty or were convicted of offences of conspiracy to commit 11
blackmail, conspiracy to commit arson, and conspiracy to defraud. They were sentenced to a total of sixty four years imprisonment. Residential Property Tribunal approval process In England, the jurisdiction of the courts to decide any issues relating to a failure or refusal to approve an incoming purchaser has been transferred to the Residential Property Tribunal Service (RPTS). The transfer of jurisdiction came in to effect from the end of April 2011. Since that date several of the determinations have related to issues around the approval process. If a site operator fails to respond to a resident’s request for approval of a potential purchaser within 28 days of the request being made, the resident has a right of redress through the RPTS. Consumer Focus is actively following all RPTS hearings and consequent determinations. To date the RPTS has decided applications in relation to the approval of a purchaser. These determinations show that delays in the sale process are resulting in the vendor losing that purchase1. The RPTS cannot currently award damages to the parties but, in at least one case, has indicated to the successful applicants that they might look to recover damages from the site owner for the lost sale of their home. Losing a sale can be financially crippling to a resident who may then be forced to accept a much lesser sum for their home rather than remain on the site. Due to the substantial financial detriment that can result in a loss of a sale, Consumer Focus thinks that it is disproportionate to continue with the current system for approval. A simple credit check and document verification, similar to the process when an individual rents a private property, is sufficient to establish if a potential purchaser is of sound character and a welcome addition to the park home site. The written agreement or licence could stipulate restrictions or conditions in relation to the age of residents etc. If the purchaser then fails to comply with the terms of their agreement with the site owner and/or the properly agreed and current park rules, the site owner has a right of redress against that purchaser. Recommendation: It is strongly recommended that the approval process for a potential purchaser of a park home is removed entirely. 1. The protection of occupiers of park homes against harassment and illegal eviction Research conducted by Berkley Hanover Consulting in 2002 showed that 68 per cent of people living in park homes in England were aged over 60 and that about two thirds of park home operators imposed a minimum age limit (usually over 50 years old). Consumer Focus 1
For example in the case of Topp Vs Copper concerning a park home at 23 Tudor Rose Park, South Coast Road, Peacehaven, East Sussex, BN10 8UR. On 14th May the applicant (park home owner) wrote to the respondent (site owner) requesting approval for a potential purchaser, nothing was heard, consequently an application to the RPT was made. During proceedings the potential purchaser withdrew his offer to buy; therefore the RPT was left with no option but to simply determine that the respondent was in breach of Para 8 of S1, Part 1 of the Implied Terms in that he failed to reply to a request to approve a Buyer of a Mobile Home within 28 days.
12
has no reason to believe that these figures have decreased in the last 10 years and, indeed, the current percentage of older population living in park homes may be higher. With an older population comes an increased level of vulnerability. The vulnerability of older people is routinely recognised by bodies, such as the police, local authorities, voluntary sector and advice agencies. The Social Care Institute for Excellence was recently commissioned by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) to carry out an assessment of the impact of financial crime against vulnerable adults. The assessment report defines ‘vulnerable adult’ as being: ‘Someone who is, or may be, in need of community care services, by reason of mental or other disability, age or illness; and who is, or may be, unable to take care of him or herself, or unable to protect him or herself against significant harm or exploitation.’2 Consumer Focus has received allegations from residents in England, Scotland and Wales of harassment and intimidation by some site owners and site managers, including physical violence. The police response to these allegations is sometimes patchy and often requests for help by residents are met with the answer ‘it is a civil matter’ or incidents are responded to as one off incidents or too minor to investigate, rather than a pattern of harassment. Consumer Focus is working with the police and trading standards in some local authority areas to better identify the issues faced by residents and find ways of resolving them. The problems and issues that park home residents face are often complex and require a multi-agency approach to deal with the issue effectively. This has become apparent in Consumer Focus’ work with one park home site in Powys, mid-Wales. Here the police have an established working relationship with the local Community Safety Partnership.3 Through integrated computer systems there is now a more comprehensive picture of the case history of anti-social behaviour in a particular area. Voluntary organisations such as PAVO (Powys Association of Voluntary Organisations who form part of the National Council for Voluntary Action) have also been brought in to engage with park home residents and site operators in some cases to establish community agreements to help provide support and a way forward for residents’ disputes with site operators. Consumer Focus will be monitoring the effectiveness of this intervention. The help and support of such agencies can encourage the formation of residents associations. These can be key to individual residents being more vocal and collectively putting forward their concerns to a site operator. However, Consumer Focus is aware that, in order for a residents association to be approved by the site owner, it needs to publish a publicly available list of members. It has been reported to Consumer Focus that the very fact of residents needing to be identified in such a way can leave them open or perceiving to be open to intimidation by unscrupulous site owners and this effects membership. We have had stories 2
Available at: http://bit.ly/z9kB9N. Community Safety Partnerships (CSPs) are a Home Office initiative established to bring agencies and communities together to tackle crime such as anti-social behaviour targeted towards park home residents. There are currently 310 CSPs in England and 22 in Wales. 3
13
from residents who have been actively dissuaded from joining residents associations by site operators who label them as militant or troublemaking. The public nature of the membership needs to be addressed. Consideration should be given to involving an independent body, such as local authorities or other third parties, to ensure that a residents association has reached the required 50 per cent in order to gain qualified status and to hold the register. Consumer Focus is also aware that some local authorities are in favour of holding the register. Recommendation: •
• •
•
More effective training and guidance should be given to local authorities and the police to ensure that the victims of harassment, intimidation and violence on park home sites are properly supported. The police and local authorities should give greater priority to park home matters and where appropriate criminal prosecutions should be encouraged. Residents need to be made aware of their rights before buying a mobile home. This is particularly important as many potential purchasers fail to get any legal advice before purchasing a park home. Consideration needs to be given to how best to address the concerns of some residents about being included in a publicly available list of resident association members
1. The regulation and enforcement of site licence conditions If a park home operator wishes to run a residential park home site, they need to have planning permission coupled with a licence for the site in accordance with Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960. As long as the site has permission to have residential park homes on it, the awarding of the licence is automatic. The local authority cannot, for example, withhold the licence on the grounds that the intended site operator is not a fit and proper person. Local authorities should have greater powers to withhold and withdraw licences, coupled with stiffer economic penalties for breaches. This should be a self-funding model and local authorities should be able to charge for the issuing of licences or for varying a licence. Currently local authorities are not able to charge for the licensing service and breaches of site licence conditions carry only a £100 maximum fine for a first offence. 4 There is a risk that the withdrawal of a licence will result in a park home site no longer being able to operate and residents would need to be re-housed. However the threat of withdrawal should be real so that site operators take steps to work with local authorities to improve site conditions. One the 1 February 2012 the Welsh Assembly unanimously supported the principal of a Private Members Bill in relation to park homes which may enable registered social landlords to take over park home sites in the event that the site operator has his/her licence withdrawn or a collective buy out by residents. 4
Section 9 (1) The Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960.
14
Recommendation: Local authorities need greater powers to withhold and withdraw licences, together with stiffer economic penalties for breaches. This should be a self-funding model with local authorities able to charge for the issuing of licences. Lack of written statements Consumer Focus is aware that many park home residents not being provided with a written statement. Under the Mobile Homes Act 1983, residents are entitled to a written statement and copy of the park rules 28 days before agreement is reached to buy the park home from the site owner. However in many cases this is not taking place. The written statement is the park home owners’ contract with the site operator which details the right to occupy the pitch on the park. Consumer Focus is also aware of at least one case where a resident purchased a home from the outgoing resident and was told by the site owner that he needed to sign up to new terms. This is not true, as incoming purchasers have a statutory right to have the existing agreement assigned to them from the outgoing purchaser. This means that things such as the amount of pitch fee and any other charges payable should remain the same. It can be a cause of great distress if residents are living side by side but one is paying more in pitch fees and other services than the other. Park home purchasers need to be aware of their rights to ensure that existing agreements are transferred to a new owner unchanged and residents are not forced to accept new terms, such as a higher pitch fee. We are exploring whether the requirement to give a written agreement should be included in the site licence. Energy, water and sewerage issues A park home resident often has no direct contractual relationship with the supplier of services. Instead, the site operator buys in services such as the energy supply and then recharges those to the resident. This leaves residents with less consumer protection measures than other domestic customers. The issues facing park home residents are complex. A summary of the concerns of residents are as follows: (we are able to provide more detail should the Committee wish) 1. Lack of transparency about energy, water and sewerage costs with many residents reporting that site operators do not provide them with details of how charges are made up. 2. Energy, water and sewerage companies refusing to speak to residents about problems with their supply due to the resident not being a customer of the supply company 3. Park operators passing on VAT at 20 per cent to residents in addition to the climate charge levy 4. Residents being unable to access energy efficiency measures due to the fact that they are not the bill payer 15
5. Residents unable to secure grants to insulate their homes due to the manufacture of their home excluding them from the more traditional measures, such as cavity and loft insulation 6. Residents being unable to choose their energy supplier and switch to more economic deals 7. Residents not being afforded the same protections against energy disconnection as traditional domestic users 8. Residents being forced by site operators to purchase heating oil through them rather than from suppliers direct 9. Residents receiving demands for high additional charges for work to water pipes, installation of meters and other work without prior consultation Conclusion In conclusion, Consumer Focus, based on the evidence to date, believes park home residents should be provided greater protection, in particular by the following measures: x That the approval process for a potential purchaser of a park home is removed entirely. x Partnerships should be encouraged and established at a local level between the police, local authorities (licensing and trading standards departments) and organisations from the third sector to ensure that park home residents are protected from all types of harassment and intimidation. x Local authorities need greater powers to withhold and withdraw licences, together with stiffer economic penalties for breaches. Consumer Focus would welcome giving more detailed oral evidence to the Inquiry.
February 2012
16
Written submission from the National Caravan Council (PH 155) Key Points Summary Site (Pitch) Fees Awarding and maintaining site licences Enforcing and revoking site licence conditions Park Owner/Park Manager - "Fit and Proper Person" (FPP). (How would this be enforced?) Park Registration Local authority park regulation Buyer Approval — Sale Blocking Commission on the resale of park homes Abuse - protection against harassment and illegal eviction Utilities and Services - prices and resale costs Conclusion Key Points Summary 1) The issues considered in the DCLG 'Park Home Site Licensing Consultation 2009’ are relevant today: 'fit and proper person, the power to refuse and revoke licences, local authorities to serve enforcement notices, police action and new licensing offences with robust financial penalties'. The NCC still supports these and to re-establish industry credibility, positive action must be taken to tackle these issues but in a proportionate and measured way. 2) Much legislation exists; it just needs enforcing5. The vast majority of park owners are honest and decent business people who deal with these issues correctly and fairly. Their reputation is being damaged by an extreme minority 3) The NCC wants to see: 'A thriving and well run park homes sector where people want to live...a licensing system that raises and maintains standards and ensures sites are safe, well planned and well managed with appropriate facilities and services'. 4) The industry will support its members to achieve this and ensure they are not disadvantaged. New legislation may provide a partial solution but enforcing existing legislation should be the priority. Our comments outline the background, current situation and opportunities for change are summarised overleaf:Site (Pitch) Fees 5) Although the Residential Property Tribunal (RPT) is dealing with a small number of cases, fee setting is not a significant cause of rogue activity.
5
House of Commons Library—Park Homes Law Summary
17
Awarding and maintaining site licences 6) Local authorities must be given the resources and training to carry out their responsibilities consistently and have penalties to deal with breaches. 7) A centralised park licensing and registration scheme linked to 'Fit and Proper Person' licensing could also be a way forward. Enforcing and revoking site licence conditions 8) Local authorities should be given a 'duty' (not just a power), the resources and the means, with robust penalties to enforce breaches that act as deterrents. Park Owner/Park Manager to be a "Fit and Proper Person" (FPP). How would this be enforced? 9) The industry still supports FPP but considers it may be costly and unenforceable. There are operational, logistical and resource implications coupled with the absence of strong penalties as deterrents. 10) It must cover the park/business owner and park manager, be separate but linked to park registration and local site licence regulation and be applied nationally. Park Registration 11) All residential parks to be centrally licensed and a registered member of a trade body operating under a compulsory Code of Practice regime that includes regular, independent assessments, monitoring and sanctions for breaches Local authority park regulation 12) All residents should have the same rights. The best practice of private operators site licensing should apply to local authority parks; 13) Opportunity to join a trade body with a Code of Practice regime that includes a regular independent assessment process and monitoring and sanctions for breaches.
Buyer Approval — Sale Blocking 14) Sales to be conducted via a professional intermediary (e.g. Estate Agent) and an independent, industry approved panel/3rd party (e.g. solicitor/advisor) who would ensure the transaction is correctly conducted. 15) In addition, the RPT could compensate for loss of sale income following significant delays and withhold commission if there is evidence of a blocked sale.
18
Commission on the resale of park homes 16) The industry would oppose its outright removal. 17) The business model depends on commission, new sales and the pitch fee for the long term development of the park and to maintain the value of land and home. We are prepared to discuss alternative models that ensure business viability and profitability. Abuse - protection against harassment and illegal eviction 18) The police to be more aware of their enforcement responsibilities to protect residents on park estates as well as on public land6. Crime is crime wherever it takes place. Utilities and Services - prices and resale costs 19) Pass-through rate applied to all utility costs plus the means to charge reasonable administrative/infrastructure fees where appropriate. Site (Pitch) Fees Background 1) Homeowners pay a pitch fee, essentially a 'ground rent', for the right to put their home on a plot of land owned by the park owner. This fee allows them to keep the home stationed on the park and covers upkeep of common areas and roads, and communal costs such as electricity for streetlights as well as infrastructure development. 2)
Pitch fees increase/decrease by RPI and can only be raised by more if: a) The park owner invests in the park to the benefit of the residents b) and they are consulted.
3) Although the RPT is dealing with a small number of cases, fee setting is not a significant cause of rogue activity. Nor was it the view of Berkeley Hanover who carried out an investigation for the Government in 20027. 4) Their report noted that it accounted for about 40% of annual revenue8 and new/resales 51 %. Should changes take place to Commission, with the opportunity for new/resales reduced due the longer life of current homes (see 80), pitch fees* will rise to ensure sufficient funding is available for park owners to continue to develop the park and to maintain land and home resale values.
6 7 8
DCI Colquhoun report—Criminality within the park home industry Economics of the Park Home Industry—(Berkeley Hanover 2002) Economics of the Park Home Industry Page 46 – 4.10
19
*The 2002 report confirmed that if one source of income was reduced, another would need to increase to maintain the viability of the business. One example showed that if commission was removed there would be a 22% increase in the pitch fees.9 Current Situation 5) Although the number of cases reaching the RPT to date is 8 out of 47, fee setting is not a significant cause of rogue activity 6)
Pitch fees are controlled by legislation10
7)
The rules governing pitch fee increases prevent the park owner raising it arbitrarily.
8)
Residents are required to pay the fee - Implied term 21.
9)
Disputes now handled by the RPT in England and the County Court elsewhere.
Opportunities 10) A move to CPI from RPI is likely to be requested by residents as pensions are now governed by this index. But CPI was higher than RPI a few years back so who can say if it will remain lower. Awarding and maintaining site licences Background 11) This is a Local Authority responsibility and a lack of resource, and possibly knowledge and understanding, prevents proper levels of supervision on existing sites or ensuring compliance with the original or updated licence and effecting appropriate changes in the law. This is compounded by the lack of effective penalties to enforce existing legislation and the absence of rigorous enforcement where breaches are reported. Current Situation 12) Site licensing is covered under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act (CSCDA) 1960. 13) Under CSCDA local authorities have powers to issue, alter, attach conditions to, register, transfer or apply to the court for a site licence to be revoked but the penalties are not an effective deterrent 14) No model set of site licence awarding conditions exists so each authority interprets them differently
9 10
Economics of the Park Home Industry Page 13 - 41 NCC Mobile Homes Act (NHA 1983) Written Statement Implied Terms 16 - 20
20
15) Land used without a site licence is an offence under the Act and currently carries a maximum fine of only £5000 Opportunities 16) Local authorities to have: a) b) c) d)
Appropriately trained resources to carry out existing responsibilities. Effective means of dealing with breaches and penalties that can be imposed as deterrents to enforce existing legislation. Standard model documents. The means to apply the site licence conditions consistently.
17) Create a central park registration scheme (Stephen Gilbert MP) licensing, with a fee structure and penalties for breaches
11
linked to FPP
18) Ensure that both the park/business owner as well as the park manager are all named on the site licence Enforcing and revoking site licence conditions Background 19) As (2), local authorities do not have the resources, means or access to effective penalties to enforce breaches. The existing legislation provides for the licence to be revoked but such action is rarely taken (if ever). Current Situation 20) Inconsistent interpretation of site licence conditions — no guidelines for uniform standard of enforcement 21)
Lack of prosecutions and penalties to enforce breaches
22)
Lack of understanding and local political will
23)
No effective link with police to enforce against criminal behaviour.
24) Police unsure of their responsibilities for dealing with criminal behaviour on park home estates12 Opportunities 25)
Local authorities given resources and funding to enforce existing legislation
11
Hansard 10 Jan 2012 : Column 74 Site Licensing Bill Standing Order No 23 DCI Colquhoun Report – Criminality within the Park Home Industry
12
21
26)
Consistent interpretation and enforcement
27)
More prosecutions, stiffer penalties and publish all cases to act as a deterrent
28) Compulsory park registration scheme linked to the licensing of both the park/business owners and park manager 29) Opportunity for government body/trade body to set up and run the schemes (VCA and small trailers/Landlord Registration Scheme) Park Manager/Park Owner to be a "Fit and Proper Person" (FPP). How would this be enforced? Background 30) Once planning consent is given, the only requirement to become a park owner is to have sufficient means to purchase the land and develop it. That needs to change. In future they should also be required to show they are competent to run such an enterprise. 31) As far back as 1998 the Government accepted that a licensee should be a 'fit and proper person' but recognised there were operational, logistical and resource implications for local authorities. However, today, authorities operate fit and proper person criteria in other contexts, such as Landlord and Pub Licensing and houses in multiple-occupation, and can build on that experience. 32) Whilst the industry as a whole is in favour, the DCLG Park Homes Site Licensing Consultation Outcomes 2010 rejected FPP13. Current Situation 33) Subject of a DCLG consultation in 200914 34) In 2010, Government rejected the proposal15 in the 2009 consultation and remain opposed, despite some support from key MPs involved with the sector. 35) Industry supports it but highlighted the complexities of how it would work in practice – unenforceable 36) Does not address land ownership issues or how to tackle owners that are not, or cease to be, 'fit and proper' 13 14 15
DCLG Park Home Site Licensing Consultation Outcomes 2010 DCLG Park Home Site Licensing Consultation 2009 DCLG Park Home Site Licensing Consultation Outcomes 2010
22
a) If an owner ceases to be allowed to run a park, how is the park business managed, operated and funded in the future? Opportunities 37) Effective licensing arrangements as proposed in NCC's response to the DCLG 2009 consultation16 to cover park/business owners and park managers, their competence to run a park and include a CRB check 38)
Training — Industry Park Managers course as basic
39) Separate centrally operated licence scheme must record both the park/business owners and the park manager and be linked to park registration and the site licence, so that enforcement action by one authority can be enacted by another 40)
FPP names to appear on the site licence
41) The Landlord Registration Scheme FPP questionnaire17 provides a possible template model for an industry scheme. There is already a national IT database system in place which, whilst appearing to have the right effect, could benefit from further improvements18." 42) Local authorities to: e) f) g) h) i)
Carry out a site licence review of every park and as part of the inspection, record full FPP details Carry out annual inspections to include Fire Service, NICEIC19 and Health and Safety Have more effective enforcement and penalties for breaches; Have joined up local government with the police force Publish details of all cases in the public domain (name and shame)
43) Three strikes and out: perpetrators banned from applying to operate or run a park in future. NB: this won't remove land ownership rights or prevent them from running another business** ** In practice, if someone is declared unfit, they could transfer ownership rights to a family member or a shell company and the local authority might have difficulty in proving the subsequent person is 'unfit'. Human Rights Act may apply
16 17 18 19
National Park Homes Council (NCC) Response to consultation August 2009 Weymouth – Fit and Proper Person Registration Form Scotland Govt – Evaluation of Landlord registration NICEIC – the UK electrical contracting industry’s independent voluntary body
23
Park Registration Background 44) Whilst all parks have a site licence, a park does not need to be a registered member of a trade body. This new requirement would sit alongside FPP checks to ensure the park and people licensed are linked. Current Situation 45) Not every licensed park is a member of a trade association 46) Whilst there is legislation in place, a trade body has no legal remit to uphold/enforce the law - that is the remit of the police/RPT/judicial body - and can only invoke and enforce its own Code of Practice 47) The NCC is introducing Codes of Practice*** across all member sections based on the OFT (Consumer Codes Approval Scheme -CCAS) framework20. It includes regular independent assessment with monitoring and sanctions ***A code is not a substitute for legislation; that support is essential with an enforcement mechanism that works. Opportunities 48)
Park Registration Scheme to be mandatory not voluntary.
49) All parks to register as a member of trade body working under a Code of Practice regime that includes regular independent assessment with monitoring and sanctions. Local authority park regulation Background 50) All parks should be managed to the same best practice standards and licensing arrangements as required of private operators through site licence conditions. 51)
Residents should have the same legal rights.
Current Situation 52)
Local authorities are exempt from site licensing under the CSCDA 60
53)
Cannot 'police' themselves
54)
Not a level playing field with private operators
20
OFT CCAS framework – Give your business the edge
24
Opportunities 55)
Local authorities brought under the control of the CSCDA 60
56)
Site licensing extended to local authority parks a) b) c)
enforcement and conditions outsourced parks transferred to an independent licensed body with government funding and bought in management expertise trade body sets up scheme under licence
57) Compulsory trade body membership with code of practice regime which includes an independent assessment, monitoring and sanctions 58) Local authority park managers trained — Industry Park Managers course - and have to meet FPP criteria Buyer Approval - Sale Blocking Background 59) This is a focus of rogue activity and it damages the integrity and reputation of the whole industry. Concerns are well documented and whilst the Government's consultation is overdue, we understand it is imminent. Cases involving buyer approval/sale blocking reaching the RPT since April 2011 amount to 6 out of 47 and in only one of the two published decisions has compensation been awarded -£45021. 60) Due to the unique tenure of Park homes, sales are the only transaction involving the sale of residential property not governed by a formal legal procedure with agents employed by the seller and the buyer to protect their interests and ensure the transaction is carried out correctly. Current Situation 61) Park owner approval of the new owner/buyer must not be unreasonably withheld22 62) Used correctly, buyer approval manages park occupancy. This benefits all parties and is an important relationship building exercise between resident and the park management. “NCC Mobile Homes Act (MHA 1983) Written Statement Implied Terms 8
21 22
Ilford Bridge RPT decision NCC Mobile Homes Act (MHA 1983) Written Statement Implied Terms 8
25
63) Used incorrectly, the approval process can result in blocking the sale from moving to completion or delaying it unreasonably and in time, forcing the sale back to the park at a significantly reduced price. Opportunities 64)
Removal of approval of buyer from sale process
65) Local estate agent appointed to handle assignment/sale ensures home is properly surveyed, and monies handled under NAEA rules23. 66) Sales are conducted via an independent industry panel/ approved 3rd party (e.g. a Solicitor/advisor) with specific experience and knowledge of park home legislation to finalise the transaction. 67) Use of estate agents and solicitor/advisor panel member would ensure no unfair terms are present in the contract 68) Regulating this process would ensure the buyer is empowered and understands park rules/obligations 69)
Standardised sale/transfer/assignment documents used in all circumstances
70) Financial compensation to seller if an aborted sale/assignment results in a substantial financial loss (evidence necessary so RPT can determine and award) 71)
RPT to deal with approvals subsequently withheld unreasonably
72) Park Owners who withhold approval unreasonably, as agreed by the RPT, forfeit commission on sale — or are ordered to repay it. 73) Strengthen Caravan Sites Act 1968 on intimidation/harassment - removal of approval stage would not eradicate harassment per-se (needs co-operation of agencies empowered to deal with this such as the police, local authorities or a special enforcement body) Commission levels on the resale of park homes. Background 74) This was subject to a DCLG consultation in 20062425 75) This income - one of three revenue streams which also includes the pitch fee and new/re-sales/assignments - funds a lower initial purchase price and lower pitch fees. 23 24 25
The NAEA is the UK’s leading professional body for estate agents DCLG Consultation on Park Home Commission rate 2006 NPHC (NCC) Response 2006
26
76) It is not comparable with commission payments made to estate agents. That is for an external service carried out by recognized professionals. 77) Often called a 'transfer fee', it plays a vital role. It ensures funding is available for improvements and redevelopment that maintain the infrastructure and add value to the park and the home. Embracing all modern health and safety requirements can be costly and lengthy and the infrastructure on some parks can require substantial upkeep and modernisation (especially those established immediately after the second world-war). 78) The fee represents the resident giving back to the park owner a share in the increased value that the owner has created. This 'incentive' is in the interests of the resident and the park owner and benefits both. 79) For your information: a)
Berkeley Hanover report in 2002 showed that as a percentage of the annual revenue a park receives, commission is only c7%26.
b)
It is not a 'regular' income; the report also showed that on average, only 6% of all homes changed hands every year - that's c5000 out of 85000.27
c)
The same report also confirmed that if one source of income was reduced, another would need to increase to maintain the viability of the businesses. One example showed that if the pitch fee was removed there would be a 22% increase in the pitch fee28
80) Homes last longer — resale opportunities are reducing as modern construction extends the life of a home from 20 years to 50+. This is in turn reduces the income available to the park. Current Situation 81) Industry opposes outright removal 82) Commission on the sale of the home as a back end (rather than front loaded) payment for the use of the land accepted by Parliament in 1960's, and reduced in the 1970's, as crucial to park business funding and operation. 83) In 1983, Parliament decided that the park owner's interest in the land should continue to be recognised through paying commission to a maximum of 10% of the transaction29. 26
Economics of the Park Industry (Berkley Hanover 2002 – page 46 – 4.10) Economics of the Park Industry (Berkley Hanover 2002 – page 51 – 4.28/33) 28 Economics of the Park Industry (Berkley Hanover 2001 – page 13 – point 41) 29 Mobile Homes (Commissions) Order 1983. It is an implied Term in the Written Statement (8(1i(3) 27
27
84) Subject to an extensive consultation exercise in 200230, no evidence of excessive profit or income was found and Parliament allowed it to continue. It was also included in full and in the new Caravans Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 to cover park home living there. 85) With assignments/re-sale/new sale opportunities reducing, removal of commission would increase costs elsewhere Opportunities 86) Options for change include: a)
b) c)
Appoint local estate agent and independent or industry approved, 3rd party (e.g. solicitor) to handle the sale/assignment (see 65/66) inc survey and professional valuation of land and home Sliding scale of commission based on length of stay Payment upfront (by purchaser on bought price) rather than on departure (by purchaser on selling price)
87) Payments made in excess of 10% are contrary to legislation and must be refunded when appeal is upheld by RPT Abuse - protection against harassment and illegal eviction Background 88) The vast majority of park owners are honest and decent business people whose reputation is being damaged by an extreme minority. 89)This increase in criminal activity has been encouraged to develop, because of an apparent lack of understanding and political will to ensure that authorities and the police have the resources, regulations and penalties and the legal infrastructure to positively enforce the law on private as well as public land. Legislation exists; it is time to enforce it. 90)There are instances where the park manager/ owner is only enforcing site licence conditions imposed by the local authority and the resident may not agree. In some instances, this is subsequently being reported as 'harassment'. Current Situation 91) Separate legislation exists31 and protection against harassment is enshrined in the Caravan Sites Act 1968 s3. 92) 30 31
Maximum punishment is £5,000 or 6 months in prison
Economics of the Park Home Industry (Berkeley Hanover 2002 – page 11 – point 32) Protection from Harassment Act 1997, Public Order Act 1986, Crime and Disorder Act 1998, Fraud Act 2006
28
93)
Police appear not to be aware how existing legislation applies to park home estates.
94)
Confusion between civil and criminal activity
95)
Limited police and local authority resources to bring enforcement actions
96)
Fear of residents to report issues
97) Potential for misunderstandings in relation to actual —v — perceived harassment. Opportunities 98)
Removal of approval of owner from sale process
99)
DCI Colquhoun report to the All Party Parliamentary Group32
100) Greater awareness of all agencies with powers to act: crime is still crime on a park home estate. 101)
Publish all such cases to act as a deterrent
102)
Enforcement agency/judicial body to deal with issues not RPT
103) Calls for multi-agency conference/education of issues in park home legislation ignored (the NCC called for this over 5 years ago) Utilities and Services — prices and resale costs Background 104)
The costs are much the same as living in a bricks and mortar home:
105)
Council tax is payable: usually the cheapest band – A.
106) Electricity costs can be less; some parks buy at commercial rates and then recharged out at the pass-through rate — 1st January 200333. (same applies to gas) 107) If mains gas is not available LPG can be used. LPG is more expensive than mains (even in bulk supply) and the cost can be higher for residents than for those living in bricks and mortar homes.
32 33
DCI Colquhoun Report Criminality within the Park Home Industry OFGEM Resellers Leaflet
29
108) Water is often metered and charged by the park based on consumption at rates approved by OFWAT. In some instances, water is supplied directly from the local water company 109) Other services such as telephone and satellite TV are purchased directly from suppliers such as BT. Current Situation 110) Lack of understanding leading to differences in regional VOA approaches to Council Tax banding 111)
Unregulated LPG prices can be a contributor to discontent
112)
Parks can restrict access to other LPG companies and stifle competition
113)
Pass-through rule for electricity/mains gas purchased by the park owner
Opportunities 114) Council Tax - Band A across the UK recognising that Councils do not supply some services as homes are on private land 115)
Ensure residents can source their own supply
116) Ensure all utility costs are covered by pass-through regulation and reasonable administrative cost can be charged to cover maintaining the infrastructure, meter reading, etc 117)
Excessive charges can be dealt with by RPT
CONCLUSION 118) We would welcome the opportunity to explore these issues and opportunities further. 119) We are confident that the suggestions we have made will be welcomed by park owner and resident alike 120)
Enforcing existing legislation should be the priority
121)
All solutions must repair the integrity of the industry.
122) It is important to have regard for the business model and how commission works for the benefit of residents not against them. 30
123) Changes in the business model could lead to corresponding changes in other areas to no one's benefit
February 2012
31
Written submission from South Gloucestershire Council (PH 156) South Gloucestershire Council is a Unitary Authority which is a mix of urban development and rural agricultural land in the West of England. As well as being an area of mixed development South Gloucestershire has a mix of park home sites of varying sizes, historical use, some that have never registered any concerns by its occupants and others that have given rise to significant concerns. South Gloucestershire Council Officers make the submission below to the Select Committee based upon experience in dealing with the variety of park homes in its District and refer back to the consultation undertaken in 2009 on the future regulation of these types of sites. The comments are divided in to the specific questions asked by the Select Committee. In addition to the specific responses below Officers fully support the need to change, update and improve what is considered to be antiquated and inadequate legislation covering this area of housing. Many residents using this type of residence could be considered amongst the more vulnerable members of our society and deserve appropriate protection from rogue and unscrupulous trading practices: The current legislative provision does not do this. Unitary Authorities only have a power to act under the current legislative regime and whilst South Gloucestershire Council chooses to exercise this power it comes without resource and without the introduction of fees and an appropriate tool kit of powers Officers can see that this could be a potential argument for not getting involved in these sites. Site fees Currently there are no provisions under the currently legislation to charge a fee for the issuing or varying of licenses, allowing Local Authorities to do so will bring this in line with other licensing functions. When undertaking this work Officers are required to inspect, advice and investigate the site thoroughly which is of benefit to the site owner and residents, covering costs would be advantageous. In the 2009 consultation a fee structure was proposed to enable Authorities to cover the cost of administering and enforcing the 'new' legislative provisions. Officers agreed with this proposal and think that a full cost recovery process would enable effective and fair regulation of this area. Officers further agree that Park Site owners should be able to recover this fee from the residents of park homes, a process which could be controlled by the Local Authority. In the same 2009 consultation process the question was asked as to whether Authorities thought that the Secretary of State should have a reserve power to regulate fees payable and/or the manner of their recovery? Officers felt that this was a reasonable proposal but that it should only be exercised in extreme cases and not without prior warning.
32
The awarding and revocation of site licences The 2009 consultation suggested a number of circumstances where local authorities should grant a licence and Officers agree with these. They would also make the further comment that it would also be appropriate to take in to account ongoing issues at other sites that the applicant has an interest in when determining the application. A possible way forward would be to have the power to obtain undertakings from the applicant to comply with the site license conditions. This undertaking should have the same force and penalties as those available under the Enterprise Act. Currently in order to revoke a site license, a Local Authority must pursue a conviction on two separate occasions for breaches of site license conditions, once this has occurred a license may be revoked. It is felt that this should be revised to the benefit of residents and local authorities. Pursing a conviction for a breach of a condition creates a situation where residents are living in a situation that is not only in non compliance with the site license condition but also potentially dangerous. Securing a conviction does also not ensure the site owner complies with the condition, merely receiving a fine. There are circumstances that the site owner may be convicted of a breach yet still the item remains unresolved. Where sites are found to be in breach a condition that poses an imminent risk to the health and safety of the site residents there should be the capacity to seek revocation of a mobile home site license whilst working in conjunction with the enforcement activity detailed below e.g. Prohibition Notices. To develop a Fit and proper person test The current legislative provision offers next to no protection to residents of park homes where an unscrupulous person, admittedly these are the minority of site owners, should choose to abuse the position of power and influence they have over residents. Taking action against these 'rogues' is extremely difficult, time consuming and ultimately of limited benefit to residents who will have suffered, moved on or in extreme cases died before issues are resolved. The introduction of a fit and proper test would seem to be a proportionate and reasonable response to this concern. Creating an assessment similar to that seen with licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation would allow Local Authorities to develop a fully joined up approach to delivering this service from the point of a planning application through an application form. Accompanying this application form could be the following documents, which are conditions of many site licences: • CRB Check • Site Plans • Fire Risk Assessment (where applicable) 33
• •
Gas Installation Certificate Electrical Installation Certificate
Information requested of the site owner during the application form process could be as follows: • • • • • • •
Address of site owner(s) e.g. Date of Birth All interested Parties Company Details e.g. company registration number Address of other sites owned within and outside of Local Authority Area Site Manager details Have you had any previous site licenses revoked? Any previous convictions relating to mobile homes sites?
Developing a prescribed form for completion will enable the Local Authority to have a greater understanding of the business and the standard of management. This could also be the basis of creating a National Risk based inspection regime, thus enabling site owners to receive the same level of service throughout the United Kingdom. The 2009 consultation suggestion some above criteria for determining whether an applicant is a fit and proper person which Officers and generally in support of but would also note that some offences should also not be considered spent under this regime. For example an individual who has convictions for fraud obtaining money by menaces or other similar offences should have a presumption against them being able to obtain a license. It would also be appropriate to do credit checks on the potential site owner to ensure financial stability. The regulation and enforcement of site license conditions; Please also see the comments to licensing and revocation above. The 2009 consultation recommended a number ways forward in this area, again Officers were in general agreement with them but would make a further point about potential management arrangements. Any agreements relating to management arrangements are dependent on them actually being implemented. Where there is evidence from other local authorities that the applicant does not implement these it should be a strong contraindicator to a license or certificate being granted. There should also be some protection for the existing conditions on the site, such as recreational space, that do not necessarily meet the revised model standards. Ideally a power revert back to those conditions, where reasonable, should be provided.
34
The Local Authority should have the power to revoke the licence and make an Interim Management Order. There should be an appeal, during which time the licence should remain in force unless there was an imminent risk issue. Appeals should have a maximum time frame of 28 days from start to finish. development South Gloucestershire has a mix of park home sites of varying sizes, historical use, some that have never registered any concerns by its occupants and others that have given rise to significant concerns. South Gloucestershire Council Officers make the submission below to the Select Committee based upon experience in dealing with the variety of park homes in its District and refer back to the consultation undertaken in 2009 on the future regulation of these types of sites. The comments are divided in to the specific questions asked by the Select Committee. In addition to the specific responses below Officers fully support the need to change, update and improve what is considered to be antiquated and inadequate legislation covering this area of housing. Many residents using this type of residence could be considered amongst the more vulnerable members of our society and deserve appropriate protection from rogue and unscrupulous trading practices: The current legislative provision does not do this. Unitary Authorities only have a power to act under the current legislative regime and whilst South Gloucestershire Council chooses to exercise this power it comes without resource and without the introduction of fees and an appropriate tool kit of powers Officers can see that this could be a potential argument for not getting involved in these sites.
February 2012
35
Written submission from Epping Forest District Council (PH 157) 1.0
Introduction
1.1 Epping Forest District Council is a rurally-based local authority in Essex on the outskirts of London. The District has 16 permanent residential sites comprising approximately 735 units, the second highest number of units in any local authority in Essex. 1.2 The Council has a great deal of experience of both reactive and proactive work on park homes sites and welcomes this inquiry which we hope will address some of difficulties we have encountered in dealing with the very real concerns of park homes residents in our District. It is in the light of our experience in dealing with these issues that we would make the following observations. 2.0
Site Fees
2.1
The Council has no comments on this point
3.0
The awarding and revocation of site licences
3.1 This authority believes that on application from the owner for a park home licence for which planning permission has been obtained or is being applied for the Authority should, in its formal acknowledgement of receipt of the application, notify the applicant that the licence will be granted provided certain conditions are met including the current licence conditions for sites in their district. This allows a potential purchaser to be informed of the criteria to be met should the sale be completed. 3.2 The Council feels that an approach should be adopted that is consistent with the proposals outlined in consultation papers ‘Park Home Site Licensing - Improving the management of park home sites’ (May 2009) and ‘Park homes site licensing reform’ (March 2010), namely that the application for a site licence should include appropriate information to confirm that: • • • •
The site has planning permission as a park home site; The site is suitable, or may be made suitable by conditions attached to the licence, for such number of park homes as may be specified in the licence; The proposed licence holder is a ‘fit and proper’ person; and, The proposed management arrangements are suitable for the management of the site or can be rendered suitable by conditions attached to the licence.
3.4 The Council feels that there should be a fee for licensing park homes sites to reflect the local authority’s costs in carrying out the associated work. For new sites this should be charged when the initial application is made and that for existing sites a fee should be payable to reflect the costs of inspecting sites on an annual basis or as appropriate 36
4.0
Fit and proper person test
4.1 This Authority would welcome the introduction of a fit and proper person test along the lines laid out in the consultation document ‘park home site licensing reform’. As highlighted by others, we would also like to see the criteria extended so we could consider spent convictions of a serious nature, public health, housing and nuisance legislation and to be able to consider all cases of harassment, not just those exclusively related to business activity. We would also like to be able to consider both individual cases and cumulative cases of unscrupulous behaviour of a site owner against residents on his site and other sites he owns. 4.2 The test would need to be broad enough to encompass appropriate types of misbehaviour but also, in order to be fair to site owners, would need to be quantifiable and evidence-based. The test needs to accommodate situations where the same owner or persons acting on his behalf harass individual occupiers over a variety of matters over a defined period of time. 5.0
Refusing a site licence
5.1 The proposed process would rectify the omission from existing legislation of facilities to refuse an application for a site licence and would allow local authorities not to issue a licence if the owner did not meet the agreed criteria. As well as the criteria outlined above this should also include taking into account conduct on other sites and the applicant’s ability to manage them. 5.2 Consideration needs to be given as to whether a single-tier or two-tier system of licensing is appropriate. This Authority would favour a single-tier system where we would maintain responsibility for licensing sites in our District but feel that we should also be able to take into consideration any unscrupulous behaviour or poor management that may have occurred on any other sites in the same ownership. 6.0
Revocation of a licence
6.1 The Council’s view is that a system needs to be in place that allows local authorities to consider the cumulative actions of an unscrupulous owner on one individual or more individuals. The existing provisions for revocation of a site licence are contained in Section 9 of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 which appears to require 3 separate, previous convictions for failing to comply with Site Licence Conditions on the same site. These convictions must have been in the same court (S9 (2) of the Act) and can only relate to breaches of the site licence so that other previous convictions of harassment cannot be taken into account. There is some confusion as to whether repeat convictions, convictions on other sites owned by the same person and/or any time limited convictions can be taken into account. 37
6.2 A workable process needs to be put in place whereby an owner can have his site licence revoked for misbehaviour. This could be linked with the ‘fit and proper person’ test where failure to meet the ongoing requirements of the test could lead to revocation of the site licence. See Section 3. 6.3 The Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act is silent on what is to happen after a site licence is revoked. Where revocation is considered appropriate, this Authority agrees with the CLG proposals (Park Home Site Licensing – improving the management of park home sites) for the implementation of interim and final management orders to allow the Local Authority to take over the short and long-term management (respectively) of the site. The Local Authority would have responsibility for the management of the site whilst the owner retains ownership. The Management Order could be revoked if the site is sold to a new owner or the existing site owner satisfies the Local Authority of his ability to manage the site properly. This process is in line with management orders relating to empty homes under the Housing Act 2004. 6.4 In order to facilitate these changes it would be necessary to modify S3(6) of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act whereby ‘Where revocation is ordered, another licence may not be issued in respect of land to the same holder for at least 3 years. Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this section, a local authority shall not at any time issue a site licence to a person who to their knowledge has held a site licence which has been revoked in pursuance of the provisions of this Part of this Act less than three years before that time.’ 7.0
The Regulation and enforcement of site licence conditions
7.1 This Authority agrees with the CLG proposals (Park Home Site Licensing – improving the management of park home sites) for enforcement – to be in line with the existing Housing Act 2004 enforcement powers and including similar powers of entry. 7.2 We do not, however, agree with the requirement to consult with site owners in all cases as this is considered over-bureaucratic and will cause delays. This is consistent with the spirit of the Council’s enforcement procedures under which officers work with property owners where possible through proper and positive communications and only take formal action when an informal approach has failed or the seriousness of the situation requires emergency action. 7.3
We agree that a Local Authority should be able to recover their enforcement costs should they consider it justified and appropriate. 7.4 The CLG proposals (Park Home Site Licensing – improving the management of park home sites) regarding the introduction of enforcement powers to control the maximum number of homes and Removal Orders are considered useful but, in our view, would in practice be limited to being used only where the home was unoccupied. 38
8.1
Protection of occupiers of park home sites against harassment and illegal eviction
8.2 The experience of this Authority is that while the legislation give local authorities powers under the Caravan Sites Act 1968, the Protection from Eviction Act 1997 and the Criminal Law Act 1977 to deal with issues of harassment and illegal eviction, in practice the powers are limited as they rely on the occupier being able, or prepared to provide effective evidence. Occupiers tend to be older people and sometimes vulnerable who feel unable to cope with making formal statements and even more reluctant to appear in court, fearing further repercussions from the site owner. In addition, in some cases the form of harassment does not result from a single individual incident but rather a cumulative effect of several smaller incidents over a sustained period of time. 8.2 As mentioned below the power of revocation of a site licence does not include cases of conviction for harassment by the site owner. The more common forms of distress to occupiers in this Authority’s experience are in connection with blocking the sale of homes; requiring works to homes and preventing works to the home other than by the site owner’s own contractors and raising pitch fees and the costs of utilities. These issues fall outside the remit of the Local Authority under the above legislation. 9.0
Resale of park homes
9.1 The blocking of sales by the unscrupulous owners for their own gain appears to be a real problem about which this Authority receives numerous complaints. Since April 2011, cases of disputes regarding blocking of park home sales are heard by the Residential Property Tribunal (RPT) and, because of this, the process should be easier and less expensive for park residents. However, there is still a cost (currently £175) and the whole process of filing a complaint and taking action can be too daunting for many residents who are typically older people. 9.2 It is understandable that site owners would want to have enough control to ensure that certain standards are met and that the site can be properly managed. However, it is considered that these conditions can be covered in the written agreement that is required to be provided by the site owner and agreed by the new occupier (Mobile Homes Act 1983) and the park rules which can be made available to every prospective purchaser. Site owners may feel that they have a responsibility to advise prospective purchasers of the poor condition of a unit but it is argued that, as is the case for bricks and mortar properties, responsibility for such matters is for the prospective purchaser to establish themselves, by a surveyor or otherwise. A requirement for formal conveyancing procedures on the purchase of a park home which requires the purchaser to have a survey undertaken and to take on legal advice may address this. 9.3 This Council is aware of situations where unscrupulous owners put obstacles in the way of sales so that vendors are left with no alternative but to sell directly to the site owner at 39
a price that is well below market value. In order to prevent this, the Council feels that there should be no requirement for the vendor to have to get prior approval from the site owner as to the suitability or otherwise of any proposed purchaser.
February 2012
40
Written submission from Liz Webster (PH 158) In response to the Communities and Local Government Committee request for submissions related to Park Homes, in particular the legislation and its effectiveness, I would like to make the following comments. Please note that whilst I do currently work for a Local Authority dealing with caravan site licensing, these are my own personal comments and not those of the local authority. They are comments made following more than 10 years of experience of dealing with park homes in an enforcement role. My comments are in particular related to the following areas:• The legislation, • Harassment, • The owner/occupier relationship. The Legislation The law surrounding park home sites is complex, numerous, confusing and inadequate. In no other areas of housing law do so many pieces of legislation interconnect but in reality provide very little protection to those affected. Fundamentally, a park home is some ones “home” yet occupiers are treated differently by the law. The Housing Act 2004, the fundamental piece of legislation for dealing with poor housing conditions, does not apply. The main piece of legislation for regulatory purposes is the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 – a piece of planning legislation. This requires local authorities to license caravan sites, including park homes and, should they choose to, attach conditions to the license. But, due to the complexity of the law, the fact that local authorities have less and less resources available and because caravan site licensing doesn’t allow fees to cover the reasonable costs of licensing, not all local authorities attach conditions or deal adequately with sites. As a consequence park home sites are often poorly controlled, with local authorities lacking the expertise in this area. In addition to that, the 1960 Act is toothless. It doesn’t have any form of enforcement tools, such as improvement notices, so local authorities can’t require an owner to carry out work or do the work required in default. They can’t take away a license where an owner is failing to co-operate or comply – the only way that can happen is if a court revokes the license following a second prosecution for breaches of the site license. Finally, the conditions purely cover physical conditions on site, they don’t allow conditions to be applied relating to the management of the site. Some form of good practise guide for site owners would be helpful so owners know what they should be doing and the local authority has guidance to refer to. My suggestion would be to fundamentally alter the legislation surrounding licensing to bring it in line with the Housing Act 2004 and HMO licensing. There needs to be tools available to deal with failure to meet conditions and park homes should be including 41
within the definition of a house within the same legislation so part 1 applies and poor conditions within a home can be dealt with. The complexity of this area is made even worse by the civil legislation that also exits in this area. It is perhaps this that creates the most difficulties and misunderstandings. Often, occupants don’t appreciate that the Mobile Homes Act 1983 is civil legislation and for them to pursue and not a piece of legislation that the local authority have responsibility for. The introduction of the RPT to oversee and resolve some of the disagreements under this piece of legislation is a good thing I would suggest but even so, the elderly, who are often the ones occupying park homes struggle to be able to resolve such civil matters on their own and are often the ones less likely to seek assistance or be able to afford to do so. As a consequence, the more unscrupulous site owners can take full advantage should they choose to do so. The one area that seems to be particularly unreasonable is in relation to the sale of a home and the fact that a site owner can potentially veto a sale. Harassment It is clear that park home site owners are in a role of considerable power in relation to the occupants of the homes. This inevitably leads to problems, which are often compounded further by poor management. The legislation available to local authorities in this area is the Caravan Sites Act 1968. Again, it’s not an easy piece of legislation to try to use. Counsel advice given in one particular case relating to harassment, was that some of the wording of the legislation is such that to be successful in showing an offence for harassment, you must show that the owner intended to cause the occupier “to refrain from exercising a right”, such as the right to sell their home. However, the word “refrain” is not defined in the Act and in any case, the act of harassment is unlikely to cause any one to refrain from a right but rather just prevent them from doing something that they have a right to do. The advice received from counsel was that the wording in the Act needed to be extended to widen the scope of the offence with the insertion of the words “To be prevented from exercising any right or pursuing any remedy in respect thereof...” and the word “refrain” removed. The owner/occupier relationship The legislation governing the contract between owner and occupier needs reviewing. Whilst the Mobile Homes Act 1983 has made some issues clearer, there remain loop holes and difficulties. The lack of clarity around contract issues and their enforcement simply creates more tension and conflict. In my experience, it’s the lack of understanding and the feeling of powerlessness that causes a lot of the complaints that result from site occupiers who are often the elderly and most vulnerable. The power balance that exists between owner and occupier is unequal. Whilst I do understand the owners concerns and the fact that they own the land, a park home is nevertheless someone’s home and they have just as much right to occupier it without being 42
harassed and with the right to quiet enjoyment that any other occupier of a property has a right to. My suggestion is to fundamentally review the legislation around the owner/occupier relationship to make it function more like the long leases that exist for other types of accommodation and where the freehold interest remains with one party, in return for a ground rent, and allowing the sale of individual units on long leases. The license would then operate in a similar way to HMO or selective licensing and control the management of the site – both in physical and non physical terms.
February 2012
43
Written submission from Trading Standards Institute (PH 159) Summary • • • •
•
•
•
Approximately 200,00 people currently live in park homes The Trading Standards Institute is acutely aware of the potential for consumer detriment for people who live in park homes We have received reports that there are problems with ‘rogue’ site owners in many parts of the country causing distress to a large number of residents Consumers experiencing problems with their mobile home site manager/operator are in a very difficult position because the issue is in relation to their home, and the consumer is dependent on the site manager/operator for utility charges etc. In addition, making complaints about the operator, to trading standards or environmental health, may render the consumer liable to potential victimisation, to the extent that they are in fear in their own home. TSI believes that there seems to be insufficient regulation of park home owners to protect consumers from unfair practices, in particular with regard to the ability of owners to ‘block’ sales, unfair increases in pitch fees and utility charges and other unfair practices. Trading Standards Services can, and do, use existing legislation, in particular the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 to take action with regard to misleading and aggressive practices, however it would be preferable if sector specific legislation could be introduced/improved to ensure that consumers, many of whom may be considered to be vulnerable, who live in mobile homes could be adequately protected. TSI believes that the suggestion that a site manager should be a ‘fit and proper person’ does not go far enough to protect residents and, in addition, is unlikely to have an adequate system for preventing an individual who acts unfairly towards consumers from continuing to act unfairly.
Submission details TSI believes that residents of mobile home sites require more substantial protection than that which currently exists within the Mobile Homes Act 1983, as the rules within this legislation do not address the substantial areas of detriment which may be faced by consumers living on such sites. Trading Standards Officers currently use the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 to take action against businesses which are engaging in unfair commercial practices, by misleading consumers or engaging in aggressive practices. However, many residents of such sites are not aware of the role of trading standards in protecting consumers and reputable businesses, and so trading standards are often unable to investigate and pursue alleged breaches. In addition, consumers who wish to complain are frequently afraid of any repercussions caused by complaining to the authorities, as the site operator will know the identity of the 44
complainant and therefore could potentially engage in further, more extreme practices. Consumers need to feel that they are safe from potential repercussions if they make a complaint. Trading standards do not have the power to close down a business who is acting to the detriment to consumers so, even if a matter gets as far as court (be it a criminal prosecution or a civil action via the Enterprise Act 2002) the trader could continue to act unfairly, necessitating further action. Whilst we are of the view that there should be provisions to ban a site owner/operator who persistently acts to the detriment of consumers, we understand that this could create practical difficulties, as they will continue to own the land and will therefore be able to exert pressure on anyone who takes over. TSI is aware of the submission made by Martin Fisher, Senior Trading Standards Officer with Cornwall Council, and fully endorse all of the comments he makes. Particular areas for consideration TSI is of the view that the Mobile Homes Act 1983 does not cover many of the areas of severe detriment faced by residents. We believe the legislation needs to be completely redrafted, giving consumers clear consumer protection with regard to the known areas of abuse. In addition, we think there needs to be some process whereby an individual/business who has engaged in unfair practices can be prevented from continuing to run a site or have any interest in one, perhaps introducing a system where the local authority can take over the running of such a site where there are clear matters of consumer detriment. The consumers should not be put at any disadvantage if this were to happen. TSI would be happy to work with the Communities and Local Government Committee to help with the drafting of any potential new legislation.
February 2012
45
Written submission from Swindon Borough Council (PH 160) Summary Swindon Borough Council is a unitary authority with 4 registered mobile home sites within its district. The majority of these sites are managed and run effectively by the licence holders and without complaint to the local authority by the residents. However, one mobile home site licence holder is causing many problems to the residents and his activities (or lack of) are repeatedly reported to Swindon Borough Council by both the residents and the Residents Association. This particular licence holder also runs other mobile home sites in other parts of the country and causes similar problems. Swindon Borough Council has come to the conclusion that the current arrangements for regulating mobile home sites are insufficient and dissatisfactory when trying to deal with those licence holders who repeatedly cause problems for their residents. As the majority of residents on mobile home sites are elderly and vulnerable it can be especially frustrating to see the effects of the activities of the licence holder. Swindon Borough Council would make the following observations and recommendations; •
• •
• •
• •
•
•
Park Homes are often populated by elderly vulnerable residents who are in particular need of safe, secure and healthy accommodation and there should be sufficient legal opportunity available to local authorities to ensure they are not put at risk Site fees are often unclear in their origin and subject to the licence holder adding charges to cover distribution and supply costs Clear guidance, reinforced by statute, on how site fees should be presented to the park home residents with limits set on the additional costs added by the licence holder would be beneficial to the current situation Periodic renewal of Park Home site licences would help to bring greater accountability for the actions of site licence holders Empowering Local authorities to recover their administrative costs from the licence applicant in the form of a fee when issuing a Park Home licence would bring the process into line with other licence procedures relating to housing within the Housing Act 2004 Enforcing park home site licence conditions can be hindered by the choice of either informal action or prosecution A statutory enforcement notice procedure would enable local authorities to take more appropriate action when faced with a park home licence condition contravention Bringing the Housing Health and Safety Rating Scheme applicable to Park Home sites would allow local authorities to address matters not adequately covered by the model conditions Local authorities, Police and the Park Home residents have no control over who may be a Park Home site licence holder
46
•
•
A ‘fit and proper person’ process would bring some control over park home site licence holders. In addition, allowing park home residents and other agencies to show their support or make objections to a park home site licence applicant being awarded a site licence would bring transparency and fairness to the process. The resale of Park Homes is currently complicated and can be halted by both the site licence holder and the vendor independently of each other.
Site fees The current arrangements allow for site licence holders to be less than transparent when passing on the costs of gas, electricity and water to the residents. In addition, they can inflate the price of the energy supply far in excess of the costs they incur when redistributing electrical, gas and water supplies around the park home site. Swindon Borough Council is of the opinion that site licence holders must be required to provide individual bills to each unit of accommodation on the park home site. In addition, the bills must show clearly the initial cost of supply to the site licence holder, and the additional costs placed onto the bill by the site licence holder. Furthermore, the additional costs that a site licence holder is permitted to place onto a utility bill should be capped by statute at a rate determined by Central Government. The Awarding and Revocation of site licences The current arrangement awards a site licence on a permanent basis and does not allow the local authority to recover the costs involved in issuing the licence. In addition there is no opportunity within the awarding process for affected persons and other agencies (e.g. Police) to submit either their support or objections to the award of a licence to a particular person or organisation. Furthermore, a licence applicant does not have to make known any previous convictions or interests they may have. Swindon Borough Council would like to see the mobile home licence process brought into line with similar arrangements as for the licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation under the Housing Act 2004. This would award a licence for no longer than a 5 year period and would require the applicant to pass a ‘fit and proper person’ test. In addition, a process by which affected persons and interested parties could lodge their support or objections to a licence being issued would be welcome due to the vulnerable nature of the residents. Furthermore, local authorities could set a site licence fee to offset the costs of administering the licence. The regulation and enforcement of site licence conditions The current arrangements only permit an enforcing authority to deal with a site licence contravention on either an informal basis or as a prosecution. The absence of a statutory notice procedure leaves enforcing authorities in a difficult position as they have to judge the public interest and the costs when taking a case through the courts. On the majority of occasions it is inappropriate to take a site licence contravention through the courts and this 47
provides for problems in enforcement for the enforcing authority. Frequently it can lead to much posturing between the local authority and the licence holder and often it is only through persistence and frequent inspections that an improvement is achieved. Swindon Borough Council would like to see a statutory notice procedure brought into the regulation of mobile home sites. This would prevent the ‘sledge hammer to crack a nut’ option and would bring the regulation of mobile homes in line with that of other types of accommodation regulated under the Housing Act 2004. As part of the notice procedure, local authorities should be able to charge for the administration needed to serve a notice so that the costs of enforcement are met by the licence holder and not the public purse. In addition, the regulation of mobile home sites should go beyond the requirement to comply with site licence conditions. It would be entirely appropriate to bring mobile homes within the scope of the Housing Health and Safety Rating Scheme (HHSRS) so that hazards not covered by site licence conditions can be dealt with. This would bring mobile home site regulation and enforcement into line with that of all other types of accommodation currently covered by the Housing Act 2004. The need for a ‘fit and proper person’ test The current situation does not require the site licence holder or the manager of the site to make known any previous convictions or other interests prior to being awarded a site licence. As mobile home sites provide accommodation predominantly for the elderly and vulnerable this is a situation that should be addressed. Swindon Borough Council holds the opinion that licence applicants should be required to make known any previous convictions to the local authority prior to the licence being awarded so that a decision can be made on their suitability and appropriateness for being a site licence holder. In addition, should a site licence holder be convicted of an offence after the award of a site licence, the local authority should be empowered to retrospectively review the decision to award the licence and have the ability to remove the licence if appropriate. A consequence of a fit and proper person process is that in the event where the licence holder fails the test, the site will be without a person to control the conditions. Therefore, a management order process would need to be provided, similar to that found in the Housing Act 2004, whereby the local authority can make arrangements for the site to be managed in the absence of their being a site licence holder. Resale of park homes The current situation allows for the site licence holder to impact on the resale of a park home by the resident. This can lead to a resale being brought to an abrupt halt due to the activities of the site licence holder despite the vendor and purchaser being in agreement on the resale. Conversely, the vendor can also bring a sale to a halt despite the site licence holder and the buyer having agreed their residency on the site.
48
This is a difficult matter to find an appropriate and reasonable resolution to as the site licence holder is the owner of the land on which the park home stands and so it would be unreasonable to prevent them having an input on the resale of a park home on their site. However, their current involvement in the process can become overbearing under the present arrangements.
February 2012
49
Written submission from the Independent Park Home Advisory Service (PH 161) Summary We recommend that the law on Mobile Homes be thoroughly reviewed and consolidated into one piece of legislation and particularly: •
The implied terms dealing with pitch fees and related charges need revision
•
A local authority should have the power to refuse or withdraw a site licence to a site owner or manager. A ‘fit and proper person’ test should be applied to each applicant.
•
Local authorities should have the duty as well as the power to monitor and enforce the site licence conditions.
•
A local authority owned site should comply with local site licence conditions.
•
The procedure for sale of a park home by a resident should be reviewed with the aim of reducing the power of a park owner to interfere with a sale.
Introduction 1. This submission is from Alan Savory on behalf of the Independent Park Home Advisory Service (IPHAS). This is a voluntary non profit making organisation comprising a team of volunteers who have made a study of legislation pertaining to park homes and park home sites and their related problems and offer advice on request to its members who are occupiers of mobile/park homes in England, Wales or Scotland. Occupiers can become members on payment of an annual fee of £5 per home. Advice and information is also often requested from, and given to park owners, local authorities, lawyers, M.P.s and the media. The IPHAS representatives have also been invited to meetings with the DCLG to discuss proposed legislative changes. They have also attended meetings with the trade bodies, British Holiday and Home Park Association (BH&HPA) and National Park Homes Council (NPHC) for similar discussions. 2. Alan Savory MBE has been with IPHAS since 1994 and is now the Senior Consultant. Alan has attended many meetings with government and is invited to attend meetings of the All Party Group of Parliamentarians for the Welfare of Mobile Home Owners. The law relating to park homes 3. The law relating to park homes is based mainly on the Mobile Homes Act 1983 which governs the occupiers’ rights and the agreement between site owner and occupier. This was reviewed by the Park Homes Working Party in 1998 and a report issued in 2000. Following this report, the DCLG has been working on implementing the recommendations of this report. This has resulted in amendments to the Act brought in by the Housing Act 2004 and Statutory Instruments issued in 2006. These S.Is improved the implied terms in the 50
agreement (Written Statement) between occupier and owner but unfortunately also introduced some new loopholes in the law which have been used to advantage by unscrupulous park owners (UPOs). Site fees 4. The occupier owns the mobile home but not the land on which it stands; this is owned by the site owner. The occupier pays a ‘pitch fee’ for the right to occupy the pitch and for the maintenance of the common areas of the park. The rules governing the annual review of the pitch fee are in the new implied terms but are still loose enough so that UPOs can demand extra increases over the rate of inflation for a number of reasons. The main problem is differentiating between maintenance costs (which are recovered within the pitch fee) and improvements (which may be recovered by an addition to the pitch fee). Many site owners also make an additional charge, usually called a ‘service charge’ for specified services which should rightly be included within the pitch fee. Many occupiers (residents) are elderly and vulnerable and do not understand the law sufficiently to object to this or, in the worst case, they give in to threats to pay this charge. Site licences 5. The site owner is issued a licence in accordance with the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960. The only reason that a licence application can be refused or a licence withdrawn is if the site owner has had a licence previously revoked under the Act. Revocation of a site licence can be requested of a court if the site owner has had three prosecutions for breach of site licence conditions. Revocation of a site licence is very rare. 6. This means that a local authority has to issue a site licence to an applicant even if they know that the applicant is going to cause trouble for residents or will probably fail to comply with site licence conditions thus causing trouble for the local authority in the future. Experience has shown that a number of UPOs own a number of parks and give scant regard to site licence conditions or to their duty towards occupiers. The question therefore arises that if publicans and child minders need to be checked before being issued with a licence, why cannot a site owner (or manager) be checked before obtaining a site licence? The subject of a ‘fit and proper person’ test was discussed with the DCLG in 2008 to 2010 and consultation papers were issued to discuss the problems of applying such a test. All this work now appears to have been dropped. 7. The suggested new measures of increasing fines for breach of site licence conditions or charging for a licence will not deter the UPOs and have no effect on the basic problem which is that the UPOs are only in it for the money. Each time they ‘persuade’ an elderly resident to sell their home to the site owner for a small sum, they can obtain a clear profit of about £100,000.00 by putting a new home on the pitch and selling it. Owning a mobile home park is the only business where it pays to be nasty to the customer.
51
Site licence conditions 8. Conditions can be attached to the site licence by the local authority in accordance with the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960. However, although the Act gives the local authorities the power to monitor and enforce the site licence conditions, the Act does not give a duty to enforce the site licence conditions. The result is that some local authorities do not bother to enforce the conditions or, if there is any problem or difficulty, they hide behind the fact that they are under no obligation or duty to enforce the conditions. Sometimes the local authority may attempt to enforce the conditions but, when the park owner starts to get nasty, the official backs away because there is no legal obligation to enforce the conditions. 9. In some cases, the local authority official does not understand all the subtleties of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 and becomes an unwitting pawn of the park owner who uses (or misuses) the site licence conditions against resident(s). For example, the site owner can force a resident to remove a porch, extension or shed stating that it is a breach of site licence conditions even though the porch, etc., has been existing for many years without any objection and the owner would use the local authority official to back him up. Regulation of parks owned by local authorities 10. Under the 1960 Act, a local authority owned park does not need a site licence. Obviously it would be absurd for a local authority to issue a licence to itself. But in many cases this is used as an excuse to ignore site licence conditions. I believe that sites owned by local authorities should be required to comply with similar site licence conditions as used by other parks in the area. Protection against harassment 11. Although residents are protected in law by the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and the Caravan Sites Act 1968, actual protection is difficult. The UPO usually offers harassment and threats verbally when no witnesses are present. The new implied terms restrict the occasions when a site owner can enter the pitch and call on the resident but there is no way of enforcing this so when a UPO calls on a resident in late evening and issues threats, what can be done? It is only on parks where a residents association exists and can log all such incidents and report them where there is any semblance of protection. The only certain way of reducing this is to prevent the rogue site owners from owning a park in the first place which brings us back to the question of a ‘fit and proper person’ test. Resale of park homes 12. It is in the interest of a UPO to prevent the sale of a park home by a resident to a new resident because he can then buy the home for the smallest figure he can get away with and then put a new home on the pitch and net a clear profit of about £100,000.00. The resident occupier has a right under the 1983 Act to sell the home and assign the agreement to a new resident and the only involvement by the park owner should be to approve the buyer and collect his commission of up to ten percent. A site owner cannot withhold approval of the 52
buyer unreasonably and the introduction of the tribunal system in May 2011 went some way towards removing that potential obstacle. However, the park owner can still deter the buyer by insisting on an interview (there is no legal requirement for an interview) and during the interview can deter the buyer by stating falsehoods such as the home will have to moved next year or by claiming the home is in poor condition. If all else fails, he can simply be nasty and the buyer will have second thoughts about living on a park with a nasty park owner. 13. This is one problem that cannot be resolved by the tribunal system (Residential Property Tribunal Service) because, although they have dealt with cases where they declare the park owner was wrong to withhold approval, while the case was proceeding the buyer was lost because no one would want to live on a park where a resident has to take legal action to get the rights they are entitled to under the law. 14. Other problems pertaining to the sale of a home is that many park owners use the sale and assignment procedure to increase the pitch fee on sale or to change the agreement or to add new express terms or charges to the agreement. These actions are very wrong because the implied terms state that the home and agreement is to be assigned to the new buyer. This implies the existing agreement and pitch fee without change. Commission 15. On resale of a home, the park owner is entitled to a commission not exceeding ten percent of the sale price of the home. This has been the subject of consultation and review following the Park Homes Working Party and the government has decided to leave it alone. The requirement for the commission is in the agreement and it can be argued that the occupier accepts this when buying a home on a park. Nevertheless, the subject of commission continues to rankle among residents who resent the fact that the park owner is entitled to ten percent of their assets without doing anything to deserve it. (If the park owner handles the sale he is entitled to make a charge for his services in addition to the commission.) The Tribunal System 16. The introduction of the tribunal system (the Residential Property Tribunal Service) in May 2011 was a great step forward in that it enabled residents to have disputes resolved cheaply and quickly without the expense and worry of the county court. Site owners can no longer use the threat of expensive court action as a means of forcing through exorbitant pitch fee demands. However it still has its limitations particularly in the resale of a home as explained above. Recommendations 17. Following the Park Homes Working Party report, the government has introduced one Act and about eight Statutory Instruments amending the legislation pertaining to park homes. This legislation which was intended to restrict the activities of UPOs has also opened up a few new loopholes for UPOs to use to their advantage. In addition, some new site owners have entered the industry with criminal tendencies and they are bringing the whole park home 53
industry into disrepute. The whole field of residential park homes and the related legislation needs a severe overhaul to deter the criminal element and clean up the park home section of the housing market.
February 2012
54
Written submission from Annette Brooke MP, Mid Dorset and North Poole Constituency (PH 162) I have 6 Park Home sites in my constituency. I am Vice Chair and convenor of the APPG on Mobile Homes, and a very active supporter of my constituent, Sonia McColl, who has set up the ‘Justice for Park Home Owners’ Campaign. To avoid repetitions from other submissions, I will highlight just a few issues: • Sale blocking • Intimidation with intent to encourage movement from or within the site • Local authority role • Fit and proper person rule • Pricing of utilities Sale Blocking I have been involved with one severe case. The site owner used interviews with prospective buyers to give false and misleading information. The Residential Property Tribunal does not solve this problem; once a buyer is ‘frightened’ away, he/she will not come back. I believe the interview must be witnessed or scrapped. In this particular case, the police were eventually convinced there was a case of fraud to be pursued, but much time was wasted whilst they considered it to be a civil matter. The case did not proceed to prosecution. I feel there is much awareness-raising to be done with police forces and the CPS. Intimidation Again, the motivation is money. We see people being chased off sites or the park owners moving them to an inferior pitch and replacing their home with an expensive unit for sale. Again, the Residential Property Tribunal does not necessarily help as if the case is won, even more intimidation can result. Park Home owners may not be ‘brave’ enough to fight their corner. Local Authority Role This needs to be enhanced. When people turn to the local authority for support, too often the reply is ‘no power’ to intervene. Local authorities need to be more proactive, visiting sites more regularly and at least be a first point of call. Site owners should be required to lodge their ‘site rules’ with the local authority and the site rules should only be changed when fair and transparent procedures are followed. Residents must not be too frightened to join a ‘resident’s association,’ again details should be lodged with the local authority. A whole range of ‘decisions’ should be specified and where a resident’s association exists members must be ‘properly consulted.’ Generally, a regime of much tougher site licensing needs to be introduced. Fit and Proper Person Rule Clearly this does not prevent a ‘rogue’ site owner simply transferring the site to a business partner or relative but it would not do any harm and would convey a strong message that an 55
individual was not ‘fit and proper’. This should be included with a package of measures. It cannot be right that somebody convicted of a serious crime relating to a site and park home owners can just carry on in that role. Pricing of Utilities A review must take place on overcharging and the potential for overcharging park home residents for utilities such as electricity, water and indeed resold calor gas.
February 2012
56
Written submission from the [***] Residents’ Association (PH 163) Recommendations To develop a Fit and Proper Person test To prevent Park Owners ‘blocking’ legitimate sales of Park Homes by Home Owners or their heirs To protect Home Owners against harassment and intimidation by Park Owners To give greater powers to Local Licensing Authorities to revoke Site Licences when necessary To develop a Fit and Proper Person test There is a misconception in Government that because the number of ‘rogue’ Park Owners is small, in comparison to the total number of Park Owners in the whole country, that the problem is small, it is not. The number of Home Owners affected by a Park Owner can be very high as in this town. One ‘rogue’ owner here owns two Parks with a total of 459 homes. There was no restriction on him buying the second of these Parks in spite of having court actions and convictions against him in relation to Parks he owned in other areas. Park Owners who have convictions against them for harassment of their residents on one Park should not be allowed to purchase another Park. To prevent Park Owners ‘blocking’ legitimate sales of Park Homes by Home Owners or their heirs Our Park Owner purchased this Park in 2003. Since then very few residents or their heirs have been able to sell their homes on the open market. Methods used to block sales: Intimidation of all the Estate Agents in the town by threatening their staff. There is not one agent left in this town who will sell a home on this Park Interfering in the sale by: Telling the prospective buyer that the home they are intending to purchase is worthless. Personal insults to the buyer and family deterring them from wanting to live on the Park Homes up for sale ‘mysteriously’ damaged to make them unsalable Case 1. A truck deliberately reversed into a home late at night, damage irreparable Cases 2 and 3. Deliberate flooding of the home with water Obviously no witnesses or evidence but it is very clear to us why these homes were singled out for such treatment.
57
The most vulnerable are the elderly who come to the stage in their lives when they have to move on to sheltered accommodation. They are in no position to resist pressure from the Park Owner who is pushing them to accept a few thousand for their property many thousands below the market price. We believe in excess of 40 Home Owners have been cheated out of their property in this way on this Park. As the Residents Association we try to assist Home Owners with the process whenever we can but on a Park of 250 homes many of these transactions have taken place before we are made aware and the resident has moved on and is too intimidated to make witness statements. To protect Home Owners against harassment and intimidation by Park Owners Many residents over the years have experienced ‘bullying’ tactics from the Park Owner in their dealings with him. Mostly this is in relation to sale of homes but also in other ways such as being pressurised into carrying out unnecessary work on their homes using the Park Owners family and staff doing the work at well above market prices. Some very reputable Park Home refurbishment companies have been prevented from working on the Park by intimidation of and threats to their staff. I have no witness statements or evidence to attach to this submission because people are too frightened to be named and there is no evidence to produce. This does not mean that anything I have stated is untrue. I am submitting as Chair of the Residents Association on behalf of the residents and am prepared to state on oath in a court of law if necessary that everything I have stated is true. Additional Comments This Park is in a beautiful part of the country in a fairly isolated location. When I first moved here 17 years ago there were a number of amenities provided by decent previous Park Owners which made it an almost self-sufficient village and a very pleasant and happy place to live. We had allotments, a community hall, a convenience store and visitor’s car parking. All these have been taken away from us by the Park Owner by various underhand methods. Allotments An area of land was set aside to provide 21 plots which had been cultivated for more than 30 years by residents and surplus produce distributed to older people on the Park. Residents had a contract with the previous Owner paying a peppercorn rent of £1p.a. for all the plots plus water rates. The current Owner decided he wanted the land back, sent a letter to the tenants demanding a rent increase to £300 p.a. for each plot making them arguably the most expensive allotments in the country. Tenants negotiated with him and he agreed to a more reasonable rent but would not provide any guarantee of a lasting agreement for use of the 58
land. Eventually the tenants were given notice to quit and remove all their glasshouses and equipment from the land. Community Hall There was a small hall provided by a previous Park Owner. The residents Association had a full repairing lease from the Owner and paid a peppercorn rent. The hall was well maintained and used by residents every day of the week. The current Owner would not renew our contract, closed the building and then demolished it to replace with new homes. Convenience Store There was a small shop provided by a previous Owner and leased to a series of private individuals over the years. After the last tenant left the park owner offered it to a prospective tenant on condition they paid £20,000 allegedly to replace the roof. The tenant could not afford to pay and the shop was closed, demolished and replaced with new homes. Visitors Car Parking There was a properly surfaced car park provided by a previous Owner with app. 60 spaces marked for visitors. This has been replaced by new homes and inadequate replacement car parking provided. This is an Owner who has no care or respect for the residents who pay him a pitch fee and provide him with a living. We have no redress, if we stop paying our rent we are breaking the law but he can flout Park Home Law with impunity. The rent tribunals are inadequate to cope with this kind of abuse.
February 2012
59
Written submission from Parkfoot Holiday Homes Ltd (PH 164) In summary: • Sites should be licensed and it isn’t unreasonable that park owners should be subject to ‘fit and proper’ criteria. • All sites whether privately owned or under local authority control should be subject to the same regulation. • There should be an independent and fair appeals procedure in place against any determination of ‘fit and proper’ as an erroneous decision could have devastating consequences for the business and its customers. • If licence fees are introduced it should be made possible to recover these through the annual pitch fee: the leading beneficiaries of the scheme would be the residents. • The residents live on our scenic park for the full 12 months of the year for an average annual rent of £1640 : our holiday home owners on the other hand have only a 10 month season. For this they pay a reasonable ‘market rate’ of £2090 for a pitch half the size without the landscaped garden, drive and garage • The 10% commission on resale of a park home is justifiable in that a well run park such as ours assists in the sale as would an estate agent and also relies on the commission to make up the shortfall in fees over the period of occupancy. This commission helps subsidise the pitch fee. It should be noted that on a well run park sales are often very rare, and it is not regular income. • The price paid for electricity and gas is low as the business achieves a commercial price for our contract with the supplier and charges at a ‘pass through’ rate which is significantly lower than standard domestic rates. We spend considerable time negotiating the deal on natural gas for our 16 customers and are unable to recharge the costs of this. • As members of the BH&HPA we are able to keep abreast of current regulation but even so find it extremely complicated and time consuming. It is little wonder that some innocently fall foul of the regulations if they do not have specialist support. • If the current regulations were actually enforced then the unfortunate customers of parks managed by unscrupulous owners would be protected. Introduction I manage a family owned combined holiday and park home park at Ingleton in the Yorkshire Dales. There are 16 park homes housing 28 retired people together with 160 caravan holiday homes. Our park has several quality awards including the David Bellamy Gold Conservation award and 5 star tourism award, and Silver Green Tourism Business award. We have a quality park offering our customers a calm and peaceful lifestyle for their holiday or retirement. We are members of the British Home and Holiday Parks Association and are aware that the Association will be making representations on behalf of its members. However, there are a few points that we wish to bring to your attention.
60
The downside to any change in regulation is that somehow it makes customers less happy to accept things at face value – they worry that they have something to fear. The changes in park home law in 2006 unsettled customers and park owners alike. Too much regulation leads to fear of getting things wrong, even for those who are running a park that is well managed and who are considerate of their customers. ‘Fit and proper’ persons Without doubt sites need to be licensed and it is reasonable that the park owners should be subject to a ‘fit and proper’ criteria. Any licensing of the park owners and their managers would be best done on a national basis. This would presumably save duplication of work and resources, saving money and would mean that it would be easier to apply consistency. Also unscrupulous park owners could not simply move their bad practices from one region to another. We believe that literally all parks whether managed by an independent business or local authority should offer the same protection for their residents. On this basis it is essential that the results of this consultation are enforced ‘across the board’. I am certain that our managers would both be held ‘fit and proper’ persons but it would be more appropriate for the managing director, that is, the person responsible for the decision making and business policies to be required to be the licence holder. As regards the determination of ‘fit and proper’ persons, it is essential that there is an independent and fair appeals procedure in place. One only needs to have experience of decisions made in CRB cases to know that collation of information about individuals is fraught with the possibility of error (often due to mistaken identity). An erroneous decision could severely affect the business so it is essential that the appeals process is also timely without causing unnecessary delay in the decision making process. Licence fees The park residents would presumably be the leading beneficiaries of a well run properly enforced licence scheme – but more accurately they are the beneficiaries of a well run park. The fees payable should be proportionate to the size of the enterprise involved, and, importantly, also take into account local variations. The housing market, and therefore, the income for park home parks in the north is considerably less than, say, the south east. Any regulatory fees should be recoverable through the pitch fees paid by customers. If this were not possible, then it would be increasingly difficult to maintain the standard of maintenance currently held which would be disappointing for both the park owners and their residents. On our park, with only 16 homes in the park home section, if the costs were not recoverable, the resultant reduction in the net pitch fee would have significant impact. (It would, however, be reasonable that penalties could not be recoverable).
61
Resale of park homes We aim to assist our customers in any way we can when they decide to sell their park home. Unfortunately the delay in selling is usually due to the unrealistic valuations put on their homes. When we made the original sales we priced the park homes realistically, not making the huge mark ups seen in southern areas of England. This is truly affordable accommodation. The homes are in an idyllic rural location and were attractive to those who wanted a peaceful retirement in a rural community. Most of our residents are very involved in the local community. Unfortunately the rules regulating the pitch fee increases are such that the only increase likely to be accepted is that of RPI. Our annual fees average just under £1640.00. The entrance to the park has CCTV and a security gate with number plate recognition system. The road to the park homes is through our grounds which are beautifully maintained. The residents walk their dogs on our riverside walk and through our woodland. Their grandchildren play on our well equipped playground. The residents live at Parkfoot with wonderful uninterrupted views of Ingleborough (one of Yorkshire’s Three Peaks) for the full 12 months of the year: our holiday home owners on the other hand have only a 10 month season. For this they pay a reasonable ‘market rate’ of £2090 for a pitch half the size without the landscaped garden, drive and garage. The directors feel that the 10% commission on resale of a park home is justifiable in that the company has received a lesser fee throughout the period of occupation by the resident. We have a low turnover of residents so these commissions are rare - any sales are generally due to the residents deciding to move closer to family as they become more elderly. Utilities I note that a problem of overcharging for utilities has been raised by MPs in recent months. I can’t speak for other park owners but we try our best to get a good deal for our residents. The prices for electricity and gas are at a ‘pass through’ rate and as we negotiate business rates for the supplies our customers are at an advantage over normal householders. We are unable to charge the time spent on negotiating the prices, the costs of quarterly billing etc so this is a totally non profit making exercise. Conclusion Membership of the BH&HPA provides us with opportunities to keep abreast of the changes in regulation but the quantity of it is overwhelming. Our customers are happy and we work hard to keep a good relationship between us. However, sometimes we feel that the regulations act against this. If the current regulations were actually enforced then the unfortunate people who live on parks managed by unscrupulous owners would be protected.
February 2012
62
Written submission from South Oxfordshire District Council (PH 165) Park Homes, changes to legislation: The current legislation is grossly inadequate for controlling licensed caravan sites in the UK. The majority of work required to comply with model standards and subsequent licence conditions is by negotiation and persistence rather than any real threat of legal action to remedy the matter. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Greater powers to protect against illegal campsites Clarification on exemptions must be more clearly defined Higher penalties Work in default improvements Closer ties with current council planning regime Owners must be fit and proper person Right to refuse issue of a site licence site. We should charge an annual fee as it costs the council money to inspect and enforce on mobile home parks Application to review the licence and change conditions etc. Right to refuse transfer Protection of residents from harassment Resale fees Council should be able to own a caravan. Licensing caravan sites owned by the council. FSO clarification Statutory duty
1)The council should be able to designate areas that no overnight stops are allowed for caravans or motor homes. This could mean that lay-bys on highways are for registered long distance lorry drivers only and no caravans or camper vans. This can include any field, gateway or common land. This legislation should be in line with the DETR guidance Managing unauthorised camping October 1998, which limits travellers’ and gypsies’ occupation of land within council districts. Designated traveller sites should only allow a temporary stay period as they become permanent unlicensed sites a defeat the object of allowing travellers to stop over a short period before moving along to the next destination. Each person and licence plate should register on entry and be allowed to stay for no more than 28 days and then moved on or risk vehicle being claimed and crushed. All vehicles must have a current MOT, insurance and road tax to enter the site. 2) Many farms have little touring caravans dotted around the site that they claim to be for agricultural workers only. This is very hard to enforce and confirm. Therefore all caravans on 63
agricultural land must be registered with DEFRA/CLG in a similar scheme as the exempt organisations are registered with Natural England for scouts, caravan and camping clubs etc. Penalties shall be applied for anyone found to have an occupied caravan not licensed or registered. 3) Penalties. The current fines are laughable £100 - £250, the only threat is three convictions and revocation of the licence, which will impact heavily on the residents. The council should be able to impose level 5 fines on the standard scale and where there is risk to human health and safety a prison sentence for unscrupulous park owners. The council should be able to apply for revocation or an interim management orders to rectify major problems on the park and recharge to amount to the park owner. If the park owner is absent or their licence has been revoked then the council should be able to charge pitch fees to cover the costs of the repairs and then tender for a new park owner. Any park owner who has lost one licence or had a prison sentence should instantly be reviewed by local authorities who have issued a licence for any of their other sites in the UK this shall scrutinize the compliance with licence conditions And whether they are considered fit and proper to hold a licence for any of the parks in other districts If the owner is considered unfit then every park in that district which was once in their ownership shall be revoked and an application made to the courts to transfer the management to the LA for until a new park owner can be found to buy the park from the original land owner. This may include compulsory purchase order where park owners fail to relinquish ownership of the land. All park owners should be on a national register with any convictions of offences under the licensing act or harassment, assaults, theft money laundry etc. for view to all councils that he has a park licensed with. 4) If the problems are not so severe but not being resolved the council should be able to serve a notice (subject to appeal) to remedy the specific matter and if not carried out work in default carried out and the power to recover costs as reasonably incurred. 5) Often there are conflicts with planning legislation and licence conditions these should be clarified to show which one has precedence over the other. There have been applications for extension new sites and various other items which in planning terms are permissible however completely breach licence conditions, definition of a caravan or are otherwise unsuitable and have led to conflict of interest where planning have granted permission as there are no planning reasons not to grant permission and the resident or park owner has gone ahead only to be threatened with legal action by environmental health or licensing as it breaches the licence conditions or CSACDA60. This needs to be fixed as both act are currently tied to each other but do not complement each other. 64
6) New applicants as well as having planning permission must demonstrate they are a fit and proper person. Guidance should be produced to show how this should be demonstrated. If the service that licences caravan sites is justified in saying the park could not comply with the local licence conditions or the person has been known to be non compliant or harassing of the residents on their parks the council should be able to refuse to issue the licence. 7) Where parks are issued licences they should incur an annual fee to cover inspections enforcement and administration. Each park should be risk rated to show how much time has been spent on achieving compliance etc and the fee is bigger for large or non compliant parks. This should not be too onerous and in the region of existing licence fees for other council inspected premises such as kennels and catteries etc. 8) Should a park owner decide to transfer the licence to another person this should be considered legally conducted until the council has granted written permission and transferred the name across on the register. 9) The new act shall allow the council to intervene where the park owner is unjustifiably requiring work on the park or otherwise harassing the residents. This should be in consultation with the police service and have similar penalties to breach of licence conditions. 10) Park owners often make a lot of money during resale of old homes often to the detriment of the park home owner. The practise of first refusal should be abolished and an independent surveyor should decide the price of sale of a mobile home. Only when a home is in breach of a condition (such as spacing or maintenance, does not fit definition) can the park owner apply to the council to buy the home to remedy the breach. 11) Currently a council cannot own a mobile, this is particularly difficult when a non compliant home is on a council owned park. The remedy falls with the new purchaser at their cost, when a solution can be arrived at be replacement of the home by the park owner. This should be remedied to ensure that council parks are managed correctly. 12) Council owned parks should be registered with DEFRA or CLG who may impose licence conditions based on current model standards in line with other parks in the same district. 13) Current Oxfordshire have drawn up a memorandum of understanding on dealing with large mobile home parks which fall within the duties of the local authority and fire service with regard to enforcement on fire safety. This is split between the local authority for domestic areas and the fire service for communal areas. Some protocol for working together should be drawn up as the benefits regarding best practise for resolving fire issues are significantly advantageous. 14) Currently the licensing regime for mobile home parks and caravans sites is at the council discretion which can lead to some conflicts on prioritization. These items should be placed on 65
the council as a statutory duty to licence and inspect and enforce mobile home sites to ensure the welfare, safety and amenity of the residents. Any new act should encompass all its predecessors such as the: Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 Caravan Sites Act 1968, The mobile homes Act 1983 Social Landlords (Permissible Additional Purposes) (England) Order 2006 (Definition of Caravan) (Amendment) (England) Order 2006. The regulatory reform (fire safety) order 2005
February 2012
66
Written submission from East Hampshire District Council (PH 166) Summary of current Local Authority (LA) Issues A. B. C. D.
Lack of suitable measures to enable Local Authorities to take action regarding poor housing conditions in Residential Park Homes High degree of ‘specialist’ officer knowledge, required to deal with Park Home site licence conditions. The lack of consistency of site licence conditions, across different sites. Insufficient guidance and clarity of responsibility for inspection and action over fire safety issues on Sites between LA and Fire Authority
A. Resolving poor Housing Conditions in Park Homes We have some sites with Park Homes which are rented, (rather than the more usual owner occupied homes on rented plots), difficulties have been experienced in dealing with complaints from the tenants about the condition of the homes. On ‘bricks and mortar” homes, Private Sector Housing officers use (Housing Act 2004), in particular the Housing Safety Rating System (HHSRS) to risk assess the problems and serve notices as necessary, however, Mobile Park Homes are specifically excluded from this housing legislation. Without the Housing Act, the only other methods of dealing with the condition of the home are either the site licence conditions, or a tenancy agreement between the tenant and the owner of the home/site. The local authority can seek to address problems with the site owner, if there is a clause in the specific site licence conditions, covering the condition of homes on the site. Note the 2008 model standards do not include a clause covering the condition of homes. However, in general the penalties for breaches of site conditions, do not give LA much leverage to get things done. With regard to the tenancy agreement it is often found that the tenant has signed to accept responsibility for maintenance of the home, leaving the LA unable to act. B. High degree of ‘specialist’ officer knowledge, required to deal with Park Home site licence conditions. Currently dealing with Park Home sites has become a very specialist LA officer activity as the legislation is not straight forward and does not utilise standard methods of risk assessment and does not have robust, timely and effective enforcement processes. C. The lack of consistency of site licence conditions, across different sites. Many sites have been in existence for many years and each site tends to have site specific site licence conditions in force. Some conditions are not relevant or currently fit for purpose. To date 67
there has been no requirement to ‘upgrade’ to new Model Standards as they have been released. Without supporting legislation to drive this forward and a mechanism to charge for licensing activity, to pay for sufficient resources, improvements are unlikely across Park Home sites D. Insufficient guidance and clarity of responsibility for inspection and action over fire safety issues on Park Home Sites between LA and Fire Authority. In the past there has been considerable concern over fire safety on Park Home sites. Older style homes can become engulfed in flames very quickly, it is not clear if the more modern homes are equally vulnerable to fire. The model standards have tended to help control these issues, but on well established sites and with the development of homes to look more like conventional bungalows, there is often a desire to achieve privacy and mimic conventional homes, with hedges, fences etc. These are likely to compromise fire separation. It is not clear how much of a problem this is, especially on sites with a mixture of new and old homes. Following changes in Fire Legislation, there is a greater involvement of the Fire Authority with sites. Whilst we recognise and welcome the expertise of Fire Authority in these aspects, they are not always as familiar with Park home issues. Conclusions - Either bringing Park Homes within the scope of HHSRS of the Housing Act 2004, or mirroring these processes under Park Home legislation, is desirable to allow LA’s to risk assess and act on poor condition of homes. More central training and guidance on dealing with Park Home Issues would assist Local Authority officers. The processes used for inspecting, licensing, and dealing with Houses of Multiple Occupation, generally functions quite well. Modelling Park Home site licensing, processes on the HMO processes would resolve many of the key issues including allowing LA’s to charge for licensing and inspecting activities, dealing with “fit and proper person issues” etc. Some central investigation and testing of the fire resistance of modern park homes and the effects of hedges and fences in the spread of fire could prove informative for the Fire authority and Local Authorities.
February 2012
68
Written submission from [***] (PH 167) We would like to call your attention to the many problems we face living in a mobile home as our permanent dwelling. •
Site Fees...The site fees we feel are not covering site maintenance at all on our park, we pay an increase every year but nothing much is done on the park if at all.
•
Site License...who checks our site license as we can clearly see faults on our park that should not be allowed, for example, flooding, when we have a heavy downpour of rain, there is no drainage system to cope, the council told our landlord to rectify this in a letter but nothing has been done. We have asked for numerous things to help our elderly residents, lighting, again, ignored. Pot holes in the road, yes, just ignored.
•
Fit and proper...why is there no law to enforce that the landlord is a fit and proper person to run a mobile home park, this needs to be addressed as soon as possible, there are far too many situations that should be solved by someone that at least cares.
•
The regulation of parks...we are sure by now you are aware of residents that have been harassed with awful results of possible eviction even. This has to stop, this only happens in the mobile home industry, we need help now.
•
Resale of park homes...if you live in an older property, you know you are going to have a problem selling, no matter if your home is kept up to condition as stated in your agreement. Still the landlord tries to take the home from you, maybe replace with a new home or rent it. Again, sadly, this has happened on our park, a home was condemned, a rush paint job done and then it was put up for rent. Then if you do manage to sell an older home, you have to pay 10% of the selling price, this should be reduced.
•
Solution...all we want is to lead a happy and secure life in our chosen home, not feel as if we are second class citizens. Always having to fight for what is a simple request, if things were changed, this way of life is an ideal solution for an older couple or older single person as once we had a community spirit that sadly seems to be dwindling. Even families would enjoy the security a park home could offer. Please take note of our comments, we are sure you will agree that we are not asking for the impossible.
February 2012
69
Written evidence submitted by [***] Residents’ Association (PH 168)
Executive Summary 1.0 We believe the law is currently deficient in permitting unscrupulous park home site owners to buy and then operate sites in such a way that they can become blighted making it impossible for law abiding park home owners to sell their mobile homes on the open market as intended by the Mobile Homes Act 1983. 1.1 This is exactly what happened to us since our site changed hands in July 2007. The new site owner ran the site down, neglecting to maintain and then fencing off the communal grass area claiming we had no right to use such area, burning a number of older mobile homes on site, leaving these and other vacant pitches in a terrible state, applying for planning permission to fill in our lake claiming we had no right to use this area, buying up and replacing modern owner occupied mobile homes with cheaper fleet hire style ones, letting these out to young people on benefits with children despite the site having previously been reserved for retired and semi-retired persons and site rules prohibiting children living on site. 1.2 In consequence the site became blighted and park home owners trapped with no option other than to sell their mobile home to the site owner at whatever price offered if they wanted to move, went into a residential or nursing home or died. The site owner also insisted on confidentiality clauses being inserted into such sale contracts to prevent former park home owners disclosing the sale terms and thereby revealing the extent to which such homes have been “undervalued”. 1.3 Despite eventually being recognised as a “qualifying residents’ association” under the Mobile Home Act, the site owner hasn’t once consulted us on any matter affecting the operation and management of the site as required by law. And the site owner has now given notice stating that we are no longer recognised as being a “qualifying residents’ association” despite our association continuing to meet the required criteria. 1.4 In our experience neither the Local Licensing Authority nor the Police have been willing or able to act claiming there is insufficient evidence to prove “harassment” beyond reasonable doubt. 1.5 These problems can affect any mobile home site and at any time. All it takes is for an unscrupulous park home site operator to buy the site. 1.6 Hence law abiding park home owners elsewhere who have done nothing wrong could easily find themselves in the same position as us at any time unless something is done to correct matters.
70
1.7 We are too old, frail and vulnerable to be able to contemplate taking any form of legal proceedings. The prospect of the cost is also daunting. 1.8 Hence we believe an effective “fit and proper person” test must be introduced for prospective purchasers of all park home sites. 1.9 We believe the law should be amended to make it possible for Local Licensing Authorities and/or the Police to prosecute park home site owners for “harassment” based on the lower test of the “balance of probabilities”. 1.10 We believe consideration should be given to Local Licensing Authorities being given the power to carry out required works to park home sites and to recharge park home site owners accordingly in default. 1.11 We believe that park home site owners who blight sites through their actions and/or neglect should be made to compensate park home owners based on the open market value of their mobile homes on the assumption that such blight had not occurred in just the same way that Local Authorities and other Public Bodies can be made to purchase homes blighted by publicly sponsored schemes where compensation is based on the open market value of such homes ignoring the affect on value of the underlying scheme. 1.12 We also believe that consideration should be given to appointing an Ombudsman to oversee the operation of park home sites with power to investigate complaints and to award compensation as suggested above. 1.13 Finally, we would call for action on these matters as a matter of urgency. It cannot be right that unscrupulous park home site owners continue to be rewarded for their actions and/or neglect at the expense of law abiding citizens who have, like us, done nothing wrong other than to be old, frail and vulnerable and hence unable to take any effective action to remedy such wrongs. Factual information and background 2.0 The [***] Residents’ Association welcomes this inquiry into park homes set up by the Communities and Local Government Committee and would be interested in giving oral evidence before the Committee and/or submitting further written evidence and information as required. We would also welcome a visit by the Committee to see conditions on our site. 2.1 The Residents’ Association represents the interests of all the remaining 9 park home owners at [***]. When we were first set up in February 2008, we represented the interests of 24 park home owners. Our numbers have depleted as members have moved off site to go into residential or nursing homes, died or had to sell their park homes to the new site owner because they could no longer stand the conditions on our site.
71
2.3 Up until July 2007, [***] had been owned and operated as a family business by two generations of the same family who lived on site. They operated and managed [***] on the basis that the park was reserved for more mature/retired persons. It was a pleasant, attractive, quiet backwater, containing a variety of twin and single unit mobile homes of both modern and older style construction. It was a settled and happy community. Indeed many residents had been living on site for many years. There was a ready market for mobile homes when they came up for resale on the open market. 2.4 The former owners sold [***] in July 2007 to the current absentee site owner who lives in [***]. As a consequence of concerns which the residents had regarding the way in which the new owner was running the site a Residents’ Association was formed. This was set up in February 2008. This action was recommended by our local [***] Council Ward Councillors. However, despite adopting the model constitution drawn up by the national bodies representing site owners and residents, it took several months before the new site owner eventually recognized us in writing on 30 May 2008 as being a ‘qualifying residents’ association’ under the Act. In fact the new site owner only did this when we wrote saying we would refer the matter to the County Court in default. 2.5 The main reason why we formed a residents’ association was because the Mobile Homes Act requires that “the owner shall….consult a qualifying residents’ association, if there is one, about all matters which relate to the operation and management of, or improvements to, the protected site and may affect the occupiers either directly or indirectly.” However, recognition of the Residents’ Association didn’t alter the new site owner’s behaviour towards us. In effect, she continued to treat [***] as her own private fiefdom with which she could do as she pleased without any prior written consultation with the Residents Association. We tried writing to her, but she didn’t respond. We even consulted a legal practice familiar with mobile home law and got them to write to her pointing out the need for consultation with the Residents’ Association and asking for confirmation that she would do so in future. But their letter also went ignored. Instead the new site owner continued to act unilaterally as follows without any prior written consultation with us as required by the Act since recognising us as being a qualifying residents’ association on 30 May 2008. 2.6 Applied for planning permission on 3 September 2008 to fill in the lake, a particularly attractive feature of the site, with hardcore and subsoil, making good rumours put about when she first bought the site. However, [***] Council refused this application and the site owner did not appeal this decision. 2.7 Started chopping down the attractive trees lying between the lake and the adjoining [***] canal during our AGM on 25 February 2009. [***] Council were contacted immediately and served a Tree Preservation Order on the site owner the following day saving most of the trees in the process. However the felled tree stumps were not removed for many months and the communal grass area adjoining the lake hasn’t been mowed once since 2008. The whole area has been fenced off despite the previous owners confirming that the residents’ could use this area. 72
2.8 Despite the previous owners confirming that the site is reserved “for the more mature and/or retired persons” and the site rules prohibiting pets and children, the new site owner has, since November 2008, put many second-hand holiday style caravans on vacant pitches and let these, plus a number of park homes bought off owner-occupiers, to youngsters some of whom have pets and children. This has resulted in repeated incidents of anti-social behaviour, crime and theft from the site plus frequent police visits to the site, all being to the detriment of the residential amenity of [***]. 2.9 Opened up a large entrance into the land adjoining the site access, which the new site owner bought in 2008, depriving [***] of a large part of its communal parking area in the process. The new site owner also used this land for storage and dismantling of caravans and parking of vehicles, without having first sought planning permission for such use, to the detriment of the residential amenity of [***]. [***] Council issued an enforcement notice in respect of this unauthorised use. The new site owner appealed. But the enforcement notice was upheld in September 2009 and the unauthorised use has now ceased. However, the land remains unsightly and is yet to be properly fenced off from [***]. 2.10 As a direct result of these problems several residents have moved elsewhere. However, given the nature and extent of these problems, it proved impossible for them to exercise their statutory right under the Act to sell their mobile homes on the open market. Consequentially they had no alternative but to negotiate a sale at whatever price they could agree with the new site owner. In fact, not a single mobile home has been sold on site since the current site owner bought [***] on 31 July 2007. Before then, they sold without any difficulty. 2.11 The problems concerning [***] continued during 2009. Indeed they came to the attention of the Chief Executive of [***] Council, [***], and he wrote to the site owner on 9 April 2009 stating as follows: 2.12 “I was disappointed to learn that you felt not able to meet me for an informal discussion about issues relating to the wellbeing of residents at [***]. Officers of the Council are very aware of a number of potential breaches ranging from planning and licensing issues to alleged benefit fraud and to possible health and safety issues. You will know that the residents have now established a Residents Association and this Council will be monitoring very carefully how you as the landlord comply with legislation recognising the consultation processes viz a viz Residents’ Associations and the Caravan Sites Act. 2.13 The Council is significantly concerned with on-going developments in that I will personally be chairing a meeting consisting of Planning and Enforcement Officers, the Police, Environmental Health Officers, Solicitors, Benefit Fraud Officers etc, in conjunction with the Ward Councillors for your area. With this in mind I have appointed a ‘Co-ordinating Officer’, [***], who is an Environmental Health Officer.
73
2.14 With immediate effect all potential breaches emanating from [***] will be co-ordinated by [***] and he will report directly to me on matters of concern, I sincerely hope that you will take good notice of this Council’s concern in relation to the on-going wellbeing of all the residents at [***] and I would be most grateful if when you consider taking further actions at [***], you ensure that you are acting within your legal powers and contact the Co-ordinating Officer, [***]. 2.15 My request to meet with you at any time remains open and if you feel a discussion would be useful, then please contact my Personal Assistant, [***], on the telephone number above to arrange and in the meantime I sincerely hope that the interests of the residents of [***] will become both mine and your prime concern.” 2.16 Unfortunately, this letter didn’t have much effect. In particular, the current site owner continued to ignore the requirement to consult the Residents’ Association on matters relating to the operation and management of the site. Incidents of anti-social behaviour and the like from the new site owner’s young tenants got worse requiring more and more police visits to the site. And further residents lost hope of any improvement and left the site having sold to her. 2.17 Although we have reported these problems on many occasions to [***] Council as the local Licensing Authority and to the Police, both bodies have been unwilling or unable to act claiming there is insufficient evidence to prove “harassment” beyond reasonable doubt. 2.18 In consequence, we have had no choice but to continue living on a blighted site without any opportunity to move elsewhere by selling our owner occupied mobile homes on the open market as permitted by the Mobile Homes Act. Hence those residents who could stand the situation no longer, or who have had to move into a residential or nursing home, or the personal representatives of those who have died, have had no choice but to sell their park homes to the site owner at whatever price she would offer them. This has invariably been far below the open market value that such homes used to command before the site became blighted. However, the site owner has insisted on confidentiality clauses being included in such sale contracts to try and prevent such information coming into the public domain. (Sales prices for park homes are not registered with HM Land Registry and hence are not openly available like those for houses and flats sold on the open market). 2.19 There are now just 9 park home owners left at [***]. The rest of the site consists mainly of second hand holiday style mobile homes let out by the site owner. The site owner can achieve rents of c. £400 per month for such units compared to average pitch fees of some £125 per month for owner occupied park homes. The presence of these rental units and the continued poor state of the site combined with its poor reputation have further undermined any possibility of the remaining owner occupiers being able to sell their park homes on the open market. Indeed, it seems that the current site owner is content to bide her time until each of us who remain need to move elsewhere or die, when she will continue to be able to name her price as the only prospective purchaser. 74
Recommendations 3.0 In the light of our experiences, it is clear that the law is currently woefully deficient and inadequate in protecting the interests of those owning park homes. We do hope the Committee will examine ways in which the law can be amended to much better protect the legitimate interests of what seems to be a forgotten and overlooked section of society. 3.1 We would respectively make the following suggestions: 3.2 We believe an effective “fit and proper person” test must be introduced for prospective purchasers of all park home sites. 3.3 We believe the law should be amended to make it possible for Local Licensing Authorities and/or the Police to prosecute park home site owners for “harassment” based on the lower test of the “balance of probabilities”. 3.4 We believe consideration should be given to Local Licensing Authorities being given the power to carry out required works to park home sites and to recharge park home site owners accordingly in default. 3.5 We believe that park home site owners who blight sites through their actions and/or neglect should be made to compensate park home owners based on the open market value of their mobile homes on the assumption that such blight had not occurred in just the same way that Local Authorities and other Public Bodies can be made to purchase homes blighted by publicly sponsored schemes where compensation is based on the open market value of such homes ignoring the affect on value of the underlying scheme. 3.6 We also believe that consideration should be given to appointing an Ombudsman to oversee the operation of park home sites with power to investigate complaints and to award compensation as suggested above. 3.7 Finally, we would call for action on these matters as a matter of urgency. It cannot be right that unscrupulous park home site owners continue to be rewarded for their actions and/or neglect at the expense of law abiding citizens who have done nothing wrong other than to be old, frail and vulnerable and hence unable to take any effective action to remedy such wrongs.
February 2012
75
Written submission from [***] (PH 169)
In October 2006, it became law to accept Qualifying Residents Associations. In February 2007, just 4 months after this, we discovered a pamphlet from the organisers of the future residents association in one of the empty units that we were looking after. It was a Government headed letter from [***], the then head of the Department of Communities and Local Government. It was headed “Park Home Site Survey – 2006” with a questionnaire asking personal status details. The return address was a committee member of this newly formed Residents Association that had not yet been recognised due to improper conduct. We rang [***] to find out more details about this survey. [***] denied all knowledge of this survey and immediately confirmed that it had not come from his department. [***] notified Scotland Yard and a police visit and CID investigation took place on our park. The committee member was taken to the local police station on his return from holiday and questioned at length until the early hours of the following morning. This scam was announced nation-wide on 13th February 2007 to all Park Owners by the BH&HPA. The scam was found to only involve association members on our park. The whole affair was later brushed under the carpet and no action taken. Within weeks a letter was received from this newly formed Residents Association requesting acceptance as a Qualifying Residents Association. We refused to accept it with those committee members because of their actions and a previous incident that they were involved in when a Council Worker’s life was put in danger by having him dig holes at our park entrance following a request from this association to the local council. We were neither consulted nor informed of this visit by the council or indeed this unrecognised Residents Association. Neither was our permission sought to carry out this work on our property nor was sight of plans of underground services. Following a court summons to accept this body as a Qualifying Residents Association, we were advised to accept or take legal action against them. This was deemed to be too expensive in time and money. Once set up as a Qualifying Residents Association, a letter was sent out to association members advising them to refuse the April 2007 pitch fee review and stop paying their sewage bills, gas bills and any RPI increase as they did not agree with the RPI used. This loss in revenue to us put a stop to any further work on development work and upgrades to the older part of the park. We were unable to pursue reclaiming the outstanding amounts due through the courts at that point because of the costs involved. Furthermore, we have been forced to reduce our work force by one and put the remainder on a 3-day working week thus slowing down any development work and upgrades.
76
The Residents Association have created bad publicity in the press and involved the Borough Council, on many occasions, which sympathetically responds to their many complaints about the lack of progress on the park in completing the development work. Many residents have told us of how they were approached repeatedly to the point of harassment by Resident Association Committee members to get them to join. The reason given for them to join was to organise trips and outings. Some of the older members have been made ill and even hospitalised by the pressure put on them to join. Others have left the park and some have joined and bow to their requests apparently through fear. Only the stronger residents have told them to back off. Most of them have lived on the park for 30 to 40 years and have been very happy on [***] prior to the formation of this Resident Association. We find it appalling that the Residents Association is militantly ruling our park and not allowing effective management of the park by the park owners. This once happy park is now in a low and depressed state almost unmanageable with and community spirit almost destroyed. An amendment is required regarding fit and proper behaviour of Residents Association leaders or committee members as well as fit and proper behaviour of park owners. We have a total of 59 pitches: 2 empty, 2 rented, 1 park office, 5 empty homes for sale and 49 qualifying for Resident Association membership of which there are 27 actual members. Recently some members have dropped out, others are paying their bills but remain members even though they disagree with the association’s actions. The most recent action by the residents Association was to write to the Borough Council in November 2011 asking them revise the Site Licence Conditions by applying the 2008 Model Standards. This was done over our heads and without our knowledge. The legal background is that “The authority may from time to time alter a site licence condition (either of its own volition or upon the application of the licence holder).” On Friday, 13th January 2012,we received an e-mail from the council’s Specialist Site Licence Officer, which had been sent on 11th January, in our absence from the park. She advised us of a meeting with the Licensing Committee on Wednesday, 18th January 2012 regarding “Consultation on the 2008 model licence conditions for existing licensed residential caravan sites (Park Homes).” We attended, were not permitted to speak having been told we could after the report was presented. The committee recommended: That consultation commence with the holders of residential caravan site licences and resident representatives with a view to introducing the 2008 model licence conditions for existing Park Homes for only [***] for all conditions.
77
It is worthy of note that [***] is merely a road within [***] and that the Association members are only 54% of total park residents who qualify for membership. We sent an e-mail to [***], the leader of [***] Council, prior to this meeting, asking for an explanation as to why we were not informed in good time of the recent events. We still await his reply. We purchased the Park in 1988 when there were 34 mobile homes, 3 houses and 5 flats in a barn conversion. It is not a new park or a recently redeveloped park. Planning permission had been granted in 1987, prior to our acquisition of the park, for 30 new pitches on an extension to the park to be named [***]. As this development progressed some 24 years ago it soon became evident that because people were choosing larger homes only 27 new pitches were possible. The last one was constructed in 2007. To comply with the 2008 Licence Conditions would be expensively impractical on the older part of the park causing worry and stress to the more elderly residents who would have to alter the layout of their homes to comply, especially as they have lived on the park for many years. We are still puzzled as to why so much credence has been given to the Residents Association without any consultation with the park owners and how maladministration has railroaded the recent events.
February 2012
78
Written submission from Conrad Meehan, Senior trading Standards Officer (PH 170) 1. Executive Summary 1.1.
The park homes industry has a significant presence in Norfolk, including both residential and holiday parks. Norfolk County Council Trading Standards Service receives complaints from consumers/residents about park homes, the majority of which relate to holiday parks.
1.2.
Consumers report various practices including: a. Being unable to sell caravans privately on site b. Unfair tie-ins c. Excessive price increases d. Vandalism and intimidation e. Being unable to move caravans to a different site f. Lack of security of tenure
1.3.
Consumers' problems are rooted in a systematic imbalance in bargaining power between site owners and caravan owners. This imbalance is open to abuse and is widely abused.
1.4.
Existing consumer protection law provides some protection for caravan owners, but this protection is not widely used. Consumers lack the resources to mount legal challenges themselves, and there are significant barriers to effective enforcement.
1.5.
I make a number of suggestions and recommendations for action: a. Make it easier for caravan owners to move to a different site by either: i. facilitating the establishment of public caravan sites which accept incoming caravan owners, or ii. requiring existing site owners to accept incoming caravan owners b. Legislate for security of tenure for holiday caravan owners, and improving security of tenure for residential caravan owners. c. Require transparent pricing and pre-sale information, including information about likely resale values and any cross-subsidy of pitch fees derived from caravan sales. d. Facilitate a genuine second-hand market in caravans through: i. transferability of secure tenure, ii. separation of site ownership/management businesses from caravan sales businesses iii. eliminate or reduce commission payments to site owners on private sales e. Promote genuine competition by restricting ownership of sites, so as to avoid concentrations of ownership within any geographical area.
79
f.
g.
Regulate the conduct and fitness of site owners via site licences, with provisions to allow residents' or community groups (or, ultimately, a public authority) to manage sites where there have been serious breaches. Seek to promote the enforcement of existing consumer law more widely within the sector.
2. Introduction 2.1.
I am a Senior Trading Standards Officer at Norfolk County Council. Our Trading Standards Service deals with consumer complaints about the park homes industry, and in individual cases we may intervene to help the consumer pursue redress and/or to ensure that park owners comply with consumer laws.
2.2.
I have been involved in projects where we have tried to raise consumer awareness of unfair terms and unfair practices in the industry, and these projects triggered a number of complaints which required further investigation.
2.3.
We are not a licensing authority, but the practices of the park homes industry do also fall within the scope of general consumer laws, including laws on unfair practices and unfair contract terms.
3. Factual Information 3.1.
We received around 50 complaints about 'caravan sites' during the period 2009–11. This figure is based on a code which is applied to complaints on arrival, to identify the product which is subject to complaint.
3.2.
Most complaints relate to holiday caravan sites, with only a few about residential sites. Although I refer to 'caravans' throughout, the implications are relevant regardless of the physical form of the 'park home', and they would therefore apply to 'lodges' and similar units too.
3.3.
Consumers have reported various problems including: a.
Being unable to sell their caravan privately. In some cases there is a clause in the pitch licence which purports to ban private sales of caravans with the benefit of the pitch licence. However, in most cases, private sales are permitted under the terms of the licence but are obstructed by the park owner. For example, we have received reports that a consumer has found a buyer, or a number of buyers, for their unit, but that the buyer withdraws after meeting the site owner. It is difficult to obtain evidence of what exactly is said during these meetings, as potential buyers generally have little interest in pursuing the matter further, but it has been alleged that site owners make it clear that the pitch 80
licence will not be renewed, or that life will otherwise be made difficult on site for the new owner. We have also received a report that a site owner has refused to allow a private sale on the grounds that the caravan is too old. However, the site owner then bought the caravan at a significantly lower price than the private buyer had offered, and then sold it on to the same private buyer at a significantly higher price than he had offered (the difference being well in excess of the commission which could have been charged on a private sale), and allowed the private buyer to keep the caravan on the same pitch. We have received reports that, ultimately, consumers have no realistic option but to accept a derisory offer from the site owner for the caravan. b.
Being unfairly tied in to the supply of goods and services. For example, when residents on one park decided to buy gas cylinders from an outside supplier instead of the site owner, they received a letter reminding them to buy from the site owner and stating that their licence was 'at stake'. Residents report that tied services are invariably more expensive, and usually much more expensive, than the same services on the open market. Other examples include building steps to access the caravan, or insurance services. Whilst some site owners create a semblance of competition by allowing the consumer to choose from an approved shortlist of contractors (as with the example involving the construction of steps), all contractors on the shortlist appear to be unusually expensive.
c.
Excessive price increases. We receive reports that some site owners increase fees in an unfair way. Sometimes, site owners purport to increase fees during the currency of a pitch licence, when there is no basis in the contract for them to do so. On other occasions, site owners increase fees significantly when the pitch licence is up for renewal.
d.
Vandalism and intimidation. We have received reports of site owners or their staff deliberately damaging caravans when residents have challenged their authority, for example by questioning unfair practices. Practices include the warning about gas bottles (see above), breaking windows, firing air gun pellets through windows and interrupting electricity supplies.
e.
Barriers to removing and relocating caravans. We have received reports that, where residents wish to move their caravan away from a site (whether to sell it privately or to relocate it), the process is difficult and expensive. For example, site owners may specify the contractor to move the caravan, and they may charge excessive fees for disconnecting utilities such as electricity. They may 81
also set out very specific formalities, for example regarding the time at which the caravan is to be removed. Once the caravan has been removed from site, consumers are unlikely to be able to locate it on a different site. Where consumers have made enquiries about relocating, site owners have told them that they are not prepared to allow a consumer to bring their own caravan on site. f.
3.4.
Lack of security of tenure. This is particularly a problem in the holiday park home sector, where pitch licences can be as short as 1 year (although some parks operate a 5-year or 10-year licence). Consumers make a large investment in a caravan with no guarantee that they will have anywhere to site it at the end of the licence term.
Based on my experience of handling consumer complaints, I would also add the following issues as relevant. a.
Lack of transparency in pricing. There is a large difference between the price of a static caravan on the open market without the benefit of a pitch licence, and the price of a caravan with a pitch. For example, a consumer reported to us that they wished to sell their caravan and were quoted a value of £2400 on the open market. The site owner in fact offered more than this (£3500) on the grounds that the caravan was in 'good condition', but the caravan was immediately offered for sale with a pitch on the site at £17,950. This price did not include the pitch fees, which may be in the region of £2000 p.a. Another consumer bought a caravan for around £30,000 with the benefit of a pitch licence. Just over a year later, the consumer decided to sell up. The site owner did not allow a private sale, and they offered £14,500, eventually increased to £17,500. However, when the consumer moved out, the site owner reneged on the offer and paid just £9000 for the caravan.
b.
3.5.
Some consumers use 'holiday' parks for residential purposes. A number of consumers who complain about their holiday park have advised us that the caravan is their only home. Although sites require (presumably as a condition of their licence) that consumers be off site for at least a month during each year, consumers either stay with friends during that time or site owners fail to enforce the condition.
I suspect that issues with park homes are under-reported to Trading Standards, as residents might not think of Trading Standards as the natural place to take complaints. When we have done publicity about unfair terms in caravan site contracts, we have noticed an increase in the number of complaints coming to us, sometimes about long-standing practices. This suggests that consumers may have 82
been reporting problems elsewhere or not at all before they were prompted by our publicity. 3.6.
There can be difficulties in investigating alleged practices at park home sites. Residents tend to be older people and in many cases financially vulnerable and/or in poor health. They have often tied up their life savings in their park home and, if they intend to stay on site, they are generally reluctant to 'rock the boat'. In some instances, consumers express their fear of the site owners and/or staff. Once a consumer has left the site, some of that fear might be dispelled, but many consumers simply wish to rebuild their lives at this point, and so they sometimes do not want to become involved in ongoing and sometimes long-winded legal proceedings. Potential buyers rarely wish to become involved in giving evidence after their deal has fallen through, as they generally have not suffered any direct financial loss.
4. The underlying problem: balance of power 4.1.
In the park homes industry, there is a very significant imbalance in bargaining power between caravan owners and site owners.
4.2.
The consumer spends a large amount of money, often their life savings, to buy a caravan. With the caravan comes the right to site it. However, that right is limited in time and in transferability.
4.3.
Without the pitch, the consumer is stuck with a large, expensive unit and nowhere to put it. The second-hand value of a caravan without a pitch is very low, and the likelihood of finding a site owner willing to accept the caravan owner and their caravan on site is also very low.
4.4.
Where there is a significant imbalance of power between the parties to a transaction, there is the potential for that power to be abused. Where there is the potential for site owners to abuse their power, it is almost inevitable that some will seek to do so, and our evidence is that a significant number do so.
4.5.
Given the negative consequences to the consumer of being without a pitch, consumers are under pressure to comply with site owners' demands, even if those demands are unreasonable, unfair or without legal basis. Given the near-impossibility of agreeing and completing a private sale of a caravan with the benefit of a pitch licence, consumers are under pressure to agree to sell to the site owner at a low value.
4.6.
All of the practices described above are intimately connected with the imbalance of power within the industry.
83
5. Current law and enforcement 5.1.
Currently, consumer law provides a number of protections for park home residents.
5.2.
The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. These regulations impose broad prohibitions on unfair trade practices, including aggressive and misleading practices. In theory, many of the practices above are prohibited by the Regulations. However, there are a number of barriers to effective enforcement: a. b. c. d. e.
5.3.
Consumers often do not think to come forward to Trading Standards at all. Consumers can be reluctant to give evidence, either through fear (current residents) or a wish to move on in life (those who have left the site). It can be difficult to obtain corroborating evidence from other residents, again because they fear repercussions. The definition of an 'aggressive' practice is drawn quite narrowly, so it is not always clear that a particular practice is within the scope of the Regulations. The legislation on practices which are aggressive and more generally unfair, rather than just misleading, is still relatively new, and there may be some reluctance amongst some Trading Standards Services to use the new legislation in a sector where Trading Standards has traditionally had little involvement.
The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. These Regulations restrict the use of unfair contract terms. The Office of Fair Trading has done a significant amount of work on holiday caravan site contracts, addressing a number of common unfair contract terms. Model terms were drawn up with the British Home and Holiday Parks Association, and most caravan sites appear to comply broadly with the Regulations. However, this work has been largely ineffective from the consumer's point of view because: a.
b. c.
Although the printed terms may have changed, site owners' practices have not. For example, contracts now generally state that a consumer can sell a caravan with the benefit of the pitch licence. In practice, site owners render the terms ineffective by ignoring them. Most consumers lack the financial or other resources to mount legal challenges to try to hold site owners to the printed terms. Even where sales on site are genuinely permitted, caravan owners have to pay a hefty 15% commission under the model terms. Even where sales are permitted, site owners are under no obligation to renew pitch licences at expiry, so new residents lack security of tenure. When this is pointed out to prospective buyers (for example on the basis that 'if you buy privately, we won't renew your pitch licence when it expires) it is understandable that they would wish to withdraw.
84
5.4.
Protection from Harassment Act 1997, Fraud Act 2006 etc. The general criminal law provides a number of potential protections for consumers. However, Trading Standards have limited or no powers of investigation in relation to general criminal legislation, making it difficult in some cases to prove an offence.
6. Redressing the balance 6.1. There are a number of ways in which, through policy, legislation and enforcement, Government can seek to redress this balance of power to give the consumer/resident. I would offer the following suggestions. 6.2.
Making it easier for residents to move onto another site. This measure alone could make an enormous difference. a.
b.
Public sites. This could be achieved through the direct provision of public sites for park homes, where anyone can in principle bring and site their own caravan. Such sites could be provided directly by local authorities, using local authority land, or they could possibly be provided through Community Interest Companies or Co-operatives with seed funding from Government. Any such sites should be constituted so as to accept 'incomers' either on a proportion of pitches or an all pitches on a non-discriminatory basis. Requiring site owners to accept incoming caravan owners, at least on a proportion of pitches, on a non-discriminatory basis (e.g., at the same price and not limited to the least attractive pitches on site).
6.3.
Providing security of tenure. Either requiring site owners to provide open-ended pitch licences or ensuring that renewal is the default position (and that site owners could not terminate without good reason).
6.4.
Improving transparency at the outset, by making sure that site owners explain the nature of the product clearly and honestly. If the price of the caravan includes, in effect, a subsidy on the pitch licence, this should be made clear. Ideally, the value of the caravan and the value of the subsidy should be separated out. For example, vendors should quote the price of the caravan with a pitch, and the market value of the caravan without a pitch. Alternatively a statutory warning required in every transaction. This could be done by providing information about the true resale values of caravans, and making it clear that the resident will have no right to renew their pitch licence on expiry unless invited to do so.
6.5.
Facilitating a genuine second-hand market in caravans. This could include: a.
Ensuring the transferability of secure tenure. 85
b.
c.
6.6.
Separating sales of caravans from the management and ownership of sites. This could in effect be achieved by requiring site owners to accept incoming caravan owners. A simple provision prohibiting sales of caravans by site owners is unlikely to be effective as it is easily circumvented by selling caravans through separate companies (whether owned by the site owner or separate but supported by financial arrangements). A ban on sales and a ban on commission might be more effective. Ensuring that the default position is that pitch licences are transferable to new residents, with security of tenure, and at a lower rate of commission than the current 15%.
Limiting ownership of sites. The market is a complex monopoly (as found by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission (Cmnd 8966, 1983) in their study of the industry in Northern Ireland). In my view, in today's market in Norfolk, I consider that this market structure is likely to operate against the interests of consumers, notwithstanding the Commission's findings that the market in Northern Ireland in 1983 (which included several municipal sites) did not act against the public interest. I have no reason to believe that Norfolk is anything other than representative of the market across the UK. Consumers are likely to want to pitch their caravans within a particular geographical area, either because they like to holiday in that area or because the caravan will be their home. There may therefore be merit in restricting concentrated ownership of sites within geographical areas. However, such a provision would only be worthwhile if genuine competition would then arise, rather than all operators engaging in unfair practices. Again, requiring operators to open a proportion of pitches to 'incomers' and/or facilitating public or community-owned sites which are constituted so as to accept incomers, would provide the necessary underpinning for such measures.
6.7.
Licensing of site owners ('fit and proper person' licensing). Such a measure might have merit, but it is not clear that its costs would be outweighed by the benefits. It may well be that many current site owners would be considered 'fit and proper persons' even though we suspect they are engaged in unfair practices. If we can prove those practices, then they would feel the force of the law in any case. In the case of serious unfair and illegal practices, the law already provides (e.g. via criminal anti-social behaviour orders) a mechanism to remove individuals from the industry. Rather than a separate licensing system, there may be more merit in seeking to deal with the conduct of site owners through a change to the site licensing regime. If a site could lose its licence as a result of its owners' conduct, then maybe this would provide sufficient leverage. There is a risk, however, that the revocation of a site licence could lead to residents having to leave the site with nowhere to go. If the reason for revocation is founded in 86
the owners' conduct, then a safety net should be provided. I would suggest that, in such circumstances, residents should be given the opportunity to take over the management of the site, in effect holding the site in trust for its owners (who would not be permitted to supervise its management). This would be done, for example, via a Co-operative or Community Interest Company. The ultimate safety net would be a public body to pick up management of sites where the residents do not wish to do this for themselves. Such a body would be entitled to run sites as a going concern and to operate on a cost-recovery basis before remitting net profits to owners. 6.8.
Consumer Protection legislation. This does provide some protection to residents, but there are difficulties in enforcing it as discussed above. It provides a useful backstop in individual cases, but it does nothing to correct the overall balance of power. The efficacy of the legislation could be improved by ensuring that park residents are aware that they can complain to Trading Standards, possibly by way of publicity, encouragement of residents' associations, and work with national groups (e.g. the National Association of Caravan Owners).
February 2012
87
Written submission from Trelawne Cottage Gardens (PH 171) 1. We have owned our park of 14 homes since 1985 and were in our late twenties when we purchased the park. The park is a retirement/semi retirement park. Over the years we have bought and then replaced 10 homes, replaced one due to a house fire for the same resident, renovated one and then re-sold it and still have two homes that were originally sited before 1985. We currently own three homes that we rent, having purchased them from a resident or their family. We have had approximately 22 private sales in 27 years. We do not have a residents’ association and have never been taken to court. • • • • • •
Site fees and other sources of income Legislation regarding supply of services Site licences and fit and proper persons The economics of park business Resale of park homes The sales process and information required by purchasers
2. Site fee increases are currently restricted and have not kept in line with other property rents, which are market driven. A park owner has invested a large sum of money to purchase the park and pitch fees barely, if ever, cover this investment. Although classed by Inland Revenue as an investment and not a business, my husband and I have worked many hours unpaid to maintain and upgrade the park for the benefit of residents. Some years we have no other income from the park to pay for electricity supply maintenance/upgrades, water and sewage maintenance/upgrades, gas supply maintenance/upgrades, upgrades/maintenance of parking areas, hedging, boundary walls, grass cutting, or general maintenance and gardening of the park’s common areas. Our only other source of income from the park is commissions and new sales. On our park one home changes hands approximately every fifteen months. 3. One of the poor decisions made in the past was the pass through system for electricity, as this does not give the park owner any incentive to obtain a reduced cost for the resident. There is already legislation to prevent overcharging. This current law should be enforced. Residents have the right to purchase gas from any supplier. Enforce this law. The gas I currently supply cannot be delivered by anyone in our area any cheaper. I regularly ask our residents if they are aware of any cheaper gas available and if so, let me know. I am able to do this because I make a small profit which in turn will maintain the gas compound where gas is stored, the amount invested in gas and our costs in checking residents’ levels of gas, delivering and connecting the bottles etc. Everybody on our park purchases their gas through us, by their own free will. If I was not allowed to make that small profit I would stop selling gas and each resident would have no bargaining power with the gas supply company. I believe their gas would, in a very short period of time, become more expensive. The poor decision (pass through system for electric) was made because not enough thought was given to this process. Those who overcharged for services before the law was changed, probably still are. Those who didn’t overcharge, but cannot make any profit now, are worse off or have stopped supplying. (Residents and Park Owners) 88
4. The awarding and revocation of site licences is very worrying. Our Council is a complete shambles. It changed to a unitary council some three years ago. I understand that they lost our site licence. The Council contacted me to ask for a copy of it. My experience with the Council in the past three years, which is very limited, is that they have little or knowledge of Residential Parks, have their own agendas (can’t make a decision for fear of losing their job) and pay lip service to extremely infrequent visits. We have been asked to lock a manhole cover which is 9” deep and contains stopcocks. When we refused we were told ‘put a plant pot on it or something’. We have always felt (although we do not have any complaints from residents or the Council) that their visits were to ‘catch us out’ not to help. I believe in 27 years we have had three or four visits. How can a body of people, who has this lack of knowledge, be responsible for awarding or the revocation of site licences? 5. The ‘fit and proper person’ idea is understandable in principle. But I cannot see how this could be enforced even if a lot of red tape and cost to the park owner and subsequently the resident were introduced. It is unacceptable that a person, who is of good character, should not be free to buy into a business without going through a ‘test’. This does not happen in most other industries. There are rogue people in all walks of life. It is those people who should be directly targeted. It is equally unacceptable for residents to be terrorised by a park owner or manager. I understand that mostly the rogue park owners are known. Legislation is already available to prevent the vast majority of the crimes they commit. Any type of harassment, for instance, is against the law. Enforcing these existing laws would be a very good start. The Residential Tribunal was set up to allow people to cheaply seek recourse. However this has already been publicly criticised saying the tribunal has no teeth. 6. I am aware of many parks, with holiday caravan licences, that are being used, in full knowledge of the council, for residential purposes. The Council have and probably still are, paying housing benefit to the people living illegally in holiday caravans. The Council does not understand this situation. I recently asked an employee of our council (who was at a meeting, to answer questions) if they were doing anything about this issue and the person just groaned, flapped his hand a bit and said ‘are there any further questions’. I would be extremely concerned if our Council were deciding on a ‘fit and proper person’. 7. A committee made up equally of local residents’ associations/residents and park owners, the BH&HPA and a national residents’ association representative would be best placed to work out a decent and WORKABLE agreement/set of conditions. Some residents and residents associations do not seem to understand the complexities of operating a park in a profit making and sensible and fair way to all whom live on a park. Some residents/associations seem to insist on a very short sighted, knee-jerk re-action to problems that arise on a small number of parks, with an even smaller number of park owners. Unfortunately, on the other hand, a very small percentage of park owners consider ONLY the profit of any action, regardless of fairness, sometimes disregarding the current laws. It is in the best interest of all residents and park owners alike to ensure that the ‘business’ is profitable. I wouldn’t expect anyone to work for little or no return. 89
8. The only way a residential park (or any other business) is going to be properly maintained and managed, is if money is sensibly spent on it and the person organising that work is adequately paid for what they are doing. Pitch fees, commissions and new sales are the only form of income for a park. 9. In my own experience, we have recently installed a new electricity system. The cost was in excess of £30,000. All residents were consulted (this would have happened regardless of the law) from the very beginning. Many months later, when the work started, everyone was in full agreement. Each resident was asked to contribute approx £1,200 towards the work. We agreed on two methods of reimbursement. By far the majority of residents paid in advance and in full, three others wanted to pay over 5 years. We as park owners contributed £15,000 and many, many hours of our time. The money had to be raised somehow. Would it have been fair or reasonable to take money from elsewhere or from money raised from past sales and commissions? 10. Had we not been able to charge commissions etc, we would still be struggling with an unreliable, insufficient and antiquated electricity supply that no-one else wanted to take over. The same applies to our water and sewerage supply. 11. Sales of park homes, whether from the park owner or the resident should be dealt with in exactly the same way. On completion of the sale a person/s is a resident on a park, has an agreement and a financial arrangement with a park owner and a responsibility to maintain his home and pitch and to abide by the park’s rules, which have been agreed and accepted by the other residents. We have always considered the park rules as a protection for residents, not a list of do’s and don’ts. It may become a list of do’s and don’ts if it is thrust upon an unsuspecting, ill informed new resident. 12. The park owner still has the same responsibility to the rest of the residents as he had prior to a home being sold. The outgoing resident is unaffected by any statements he/she may have made to the prospective resident and may even be being sold by relatives who have no knowledge of park life. Our park is for retired people and although there are some older, vulnerable people everyone is like-minded. I have come across some prospective purchasers who would definitely NOT fit in with the ethos of our park. Fortunately we did not have anything for sale at the time. A park owner needs to ensure that ALL prospective purchasers can fulfil their obligations of the agreement that is assigned to them, are willing and agree to the park’s rules, willing to maintain their plot and home and can pay the financial responsibility to the park owner, including the commission, when they sell. 13. An outgoing resident has no incentive whatsoever to ensure the above. They or their family just want to sell the home. This type of home is not bricks and mortar and what makes this type of living attractive and unique is that, mostly, a park is maintained in accordance with a pre agreed set of rules and everyone should know where they stand. This can only be achieved by private sales being regulated in the same way as site owner sales and the 90
incoming resident knowing, in full, his responsibilities and obligations as well as who he will be dealing with. If people do not want to live within agreements, previously and freely agreed with the original residents of a park, then park home living is not for them. There may be rogue park owners, but there are also rogue residents. I am very concerned that residents are able to hide the fact that they have issues with their park owner. If the park owner is so bad, is it then fair to the incoming resident for this to be hidden from him/her? At least with an interview the incoming resident can make his/her own mind up, with all the facts in front of him, including the attitude of the park owner. By pushing a sale through without a proper meeting with the park owner, the incoming resident will be in exactly the same situation as the vendor. He will have been conned and purposely misled into purchasing the home, totally unaware of what is to follow. Disputes with neighbours in a bricks and mortar sale have to be disclosed prior to exchange of contracts. Why should park homeowners be treated any differently? 14. The making of new laws, when there are existing laws that are not used, is a public relations exercise that could put the majority of good park owners and their residents in a worse position. We, the park owners and residents, take pride in our park, as we are sure many other park owners and residents do. Most parks would eventually fall into disrepair and chaos if the park owners found it too difficult or expensive to operate as a successful business. The benefit to residents (on our park) is a secure, friendly but independent, environment in which to live. Knowing that a family with children or barking dogs or musicians or works vehicles blocking the road etc are not going to move in next door. The cost to the park owner, after a sale, to remove this type of family would be astronomical (if even possible) and should be a genuine concern to all, park owners and residents alike. 15. The re-sale of park homes should be simple there is already legislation to say that residents have the right to sell. Using the current legislation should stop the park owners who unlawfully prevent sales. However, I firmly believe that an incoming resident has a right to know, if they want to, the condition of the home in the form of a survey, the agreements and park rules that apply to that home and anything that may affect the incoming resident’s peace and quiet enjoyment. How many building societies’ lend money on a bricks and mortar house without a survey? How many people buy houses without a solicitors search and questions of this nature being asked of the vendor? Why should unsuspecting residents on a park invest vast amounts of money without knowing these details? I am concerned that legislation to stop rogue park owners (and as I have said these are usually known and already acting unlawfully) will in fact give LESS information to incoming residents, which in turn will cause more problems. 16. One example that has occurred on our park is planned work on our drainage system on one part of the park. This affected one residents’ garden requiring some major disturbance. Her home was for sale. When we met the prospective resident we were able to inform her of the extent of the work and that it was necessary, reassure her that, although there will be some mess and a little inconvenience, we would do the work as quickly as possible and re-instate her garden. The sale went ahead without any problems but the 91
incoming resident was aware of what would happen sometime in the future. Which in my opinion is only fair and reasonable. Not meeting an incoming resident (park or private sale) is ridiculous. 17. Illegal eviction and harassment is already unlawful. Act on the legislation that already exists. The money spent on this campaign already could have helped quite a few people.
February 2011
92
Written submission from Cheshire West and Chester Council (PH 172) This submission covers the following areas of concern to this local authority in relation to Park Home sites. Further detail and explanation is included below the summary headings. This response is not intended to be adversarial to business however this council has experienced pockets of bad practice since 2009 that give the park home industry a bad name. These elements require effective legislative tools, including an effective regulatory financing regime to ensure that the basic needs of park home residents are met both now and in the future. Summary Headings 1. The cost implications of this regime to the local authority. In summary the costs to the local authority have been high in officer time and interventions and benefits resulting from this significant effort operating within the existing regime, very limited, when viewed from both the perspective of the local authority and park home residents. Smarter preventative interventions are required and a license fee that covers the cost of necessary preventive checks for new sites, site inspection for existing sites and an insurance scheme, or the like, that can be called upon to meet basic sanitary or safety interventions on a site where the legislation fails to deliver an effective solution. 2. Site fees/ Pitch fees and the need for park home residents to understand what they represent. Park home residents require information to enable them to see how pitch fees are broken down to enable them to assess what level of maintenance is to be expected / affordable on the site. Annual maintenance plans and cost breakdowns should be posted on the site notice board along with billing arrangements if these are managed by the site owner. 3
The awarding and revocation of licenses. Existing arrangements should be changed to enable pre-issue tests, enforcement notice provisions with significant fines for non compliance and land charge rights in the event of non-payment. Swifter routes to revocation should be available where necessary with the consequences of revocation on site occupants being clearly laid out.
4. The need for the manager of a site to be a “fit and proper” person and the enforcement of this requirement; Experience has shown and is showing that some park home owners do not have arrangements in place to take on board and respond to reasonable resident concerns and lack in some cases the administrative skills to effectively manage the site. Both the owner and manager of the site need to meet a fit and proper person test and meet some basic training requirements. 5 The protection of occupiers of park homes against harassment and illegal eviction. The existing framework enables a lack of clarity between what the resident can expect from their pitch fee and what a site owner means by the condition of a unit. This creates an environment in which genuine harassment is difficult to prove. 93
6 The need for a clear legal position to be stated regarding the proper enforcing authority for fire risk matters on Park Home Sites. Presently the legal framework in this respect is unclear and site residents are unnecessarily at risk as a result of this ambiguity. This needs to be clarified or the legislation altered to make it clear that both the LA and Fire Authority can enforce fire safety matters on a Park Home Site subject to appropriate consultation. 7
The need to take an integrated approach to Park Homes Construction standards. In recognition of the elderly occupancy of Park Homes, future units need to be built to accommodate the needs of an older population, meeting higher insulation standards, supporting disabled modification and meeting high standards of fire retardant to address some of the historic consequences of poor site management and reduce risk due to fire. (No expanded content below)
Detailed Comments 1 The cost implications of this regime to the local authority 1.1 There is no income stream associated with the licensing of Caravan Sites under the Caravan Site and Control of Development Act (CSCDA) 1960 in relation to Park Homes and no statutory duty on the Local Authority to inspect sites. The pressure within the Local Authority is to not inspect sites giving way to statutory priorities. Failure to inspect can be proved to lead to poor standards of site management and maintenance leading to the steady reduction in fire safety standards on sites due to reduction of separation distances between units. This carries significant risks to residents of park homes, the majority of whom are elderly. 1.2
Licensing of Park Homes under the CSCDA is the only licensing regime that does not incur a fee despite relating to part of the housing market which is poorly regulated for the reasons stated above.
1.3
This work area needs to be properly resourced to prevent vulnerable groups of people being exploited by some site owners who take advantage of what is now old and no longer “fit for purpose” legislation which is slow in effecting a remedy and doesn’t include the financial disincentives to encourage compliance.
1.4
Staffing costs to this authority since April 2010 are difficult to fully quantify however reasonable estimates suggest at least 0.5 FTE has been involved in this activity routinely over the past year including significant other manager and cross service. Since August 2010 the authority has received 49 different caravan site service requests (this excludes multiples of similar issues), the majority of which relate to 12 park home sites, most have been complex in nature. The reason for the contact tends mostly to be due site owners not having properly managed and liaise with residents to ensure compliance with site license conditions. The result has been to compromise site safety which understandably residents are reluctant to change if it involves cost or affects their home. 94
1.5
Debt is also a cost carried or potentially carried by the Local Authority. Works in default carried out to preserve basic sanitary conditions on a site subject to investigation has resulted in unpaid debt in the order of £4000 over two years. This debt was only repaid on land sale however these are costs that the Council Tax payer ought not to carry and reasonably could if land sales do not occur. Means of reducing this risk within any change framework needs to be considered possibly by a statutory national insurance scheme that is a requirement as part of any license application or maintenance fee.
1.6
Reputation. Some site owners will seek to blame the Local Authority for their own poor management leading to reputation issues to the authority. If the site manager takes responsibility for his site and residents reasonable concerns then the local authority impacts will be manageable. The legislative framework needs to support this to ensure trust for residents and site owners alike.
2
Site fees/ Pitch fees and the need for park home residents to understand what they represent. Many of the service requests and related matters received by this Authority have been due to ambiguity over what the pitch fee represents and how much will be reinvested in site maintenance and services. There is no requirement currently for a site owner to provide a breakdown of the proportion of site fees that will be allocated to pitch rental, site maintenance, site services or service rental.
2.1
2.2
Furthermore within the terms of the model standards for Park Homes there is a wide range of standards that would meet compliance. To a great extent the nature of the site is determined by the site owner and many of the service requests received by the Council have related to a mismatch of expectation by a pitch holder as to the standard of services that should be provided by the fee and the owners assessment of minimum compliance. This is particularly of concern where a site owner has not invested in the site and the site suffers from deterioration yet without, in some cases, becoming noncompliant under the terms of its license. The home owner experiences a reduction in service for their pitch fee and their concerns can fall on deaf ears if the site owner is content with the standard of provision provided. It would help if site owners were required to publish a site minimum service standard that can be expected for roadways, lighting, response to drain blockages and similar on renting a pitch, and to publish, on the site notice-board an annual pitch fee breakdown and maintenance sum and maintenance list so that residents can see and appreciate what they can expect for their fees. On purchasing a unit prospective purchasers can then assess whether they think standards that they consider appropriate are likely to be continued over time. In the absence of openness about the breakdown of the pitch fee the park home owners have no basis for assessing whether they are receiving value for money.
2.3
Due to poor billing practice the Local Authority reluctantly took over the billing of the electricity on one site since the site owner was irregular and late with passing on bills 95
and residents found it hard to budget. Again billing arrangements can be stated on the site notice board to assist residents understand arrangements and provide a baseline from which residents can challenge any variation. 3. 3.1
The awarding and revocation of site licenses The legislation should be changed to enable the local authority to carry out police checks, finance checks and require underwritten references about a prospective site owner prior to the issue of a license, the “fit and proper” person test, in a similar manner to the checks on taxi drivers. Currently unless a park home owner has had a license revoked the local authority is duty bound to issue a license, this requirement is not well understood and undermines the licensing regime giving no prior control. Due to the constraints applied to revocation in the legislation and carries a significant risk of failing to protect park home residents. Under current legislation it is only after the third conviction under the Caravan Site and Control of Development act 1960 that an application for revocation can be made. Applying reasonable enforcement protocols the minimum timescale for reaching such an application would be in the order of 18 months. This often leads to a site owner selling the site before revocation and with a duty on the authority to issue a license provides no protection to residents in warranted cases.
3.2
Over the past two years this council has, in one case, moved towards a revocation of license and seen a site sale immediately prior to the final action. The site history of intervention has been lengthy and the primary concern of residents, which relates to the adequacy of site drainage, is still unresolved some 30 months later despite using a range of legislative tools and taking firm and decisive action using the legislative tools available. Under these circumstances it is clear that the current legislative framework is failing the park home residents many of whom are elderly.
3.3
License revocation is an extreme step for both a Local Authority and Site owner. Furthermore, the current fine under the Caravan Site and Control of Development Act 1960 at £2500 per offense creates little incentive to any unscrupulous site owner to comply.
3.4
The regime should be amended to allow for “remedy/ enforcement notices” to be issued requiring elements of non-compliance to be remedied. The fine for failure to comply with a remedy notice should be similar to that of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 of £20,000 in relation to commercial premises to create a sufficient incentive to effect a repair with the capability of a Local Authority being able to carry out works in default and recharge the costs through the redirection of pitch fees, by order of a court, until costs are paid. This is an extreme suggestion however the only way that in serious cases this authority can envisage a necessary remedy being achieved. This council has incurred debts of £4000 over the past two years on one site due to works in default undertaken in the public interest. Multiplication of debts of 96
this nature cannot be sustained by Local Authorities in the current economic climate where the fault rests with a site owner. This approach may obviate the need for revocation since necessary site works can be undertaken and costs recovered. The loss of income from a site owner involved with this approach 4. 4.1
The need for the manager of a site to be a “fit and proper” person and the enforcement of this requirement; The site manager should also be subject to the same checks as the site owner. This can be managed through a personal site manager license and managing a site without a valid license could be an offense, similar to other licensing regimes. In many cases the site manager will be the site owner and this would not include additional business costs. It would also create an incentive for owners to manage which will increase accountability. In the experience of this council over the past two years the record keeping and administration skills of site owners can be poor for a range of reasons and this leads to poor standards of site management and financial control of bills. Part of any fit and proper person test should include a basic qualification in business administration and book keeping. This can be easily vetted through site pre-checks and all site managers to apply in a similar way to the personal and premises licenses under the 2003 Licensing Act.
5. 5.1
The protection of occupiers of park homes against harassment and illegal eviction. This authority has not undertaken any investigations to date for harassment and illegal eviction. Whilst allegations have been raised, to date, insufficient substance has been established to support further investigation. The absence of stated clarity about what a resident should expect from their pitch fees and what standard a park home should meet on a given site introduces significant ambiguity to any harassment claims suggested so as to prevent a local authority taking these matters forward except in the most clear cut cases. Required service standards would assist clarity and the investigation of any claims of harassment.
6 6.1
Fire safety on park home sites Since the introduction of the Regulatory Reform Order it is clear that strict enforcement responsibility for fire safety, at Park Home Sites is ambiguous. The site owner is required to carry out a fire risk assessment and the agency responsible for its enforcement is unclear, this should be rectified by legislation to ensure that an effective remedy can be invoked for this crucial area of park home safety. If action rests under the CSCDA 1960 the fine levels are poor whereas under the RRO, Health and Safety at Work Act remedies apply which are fit for purpose. Locally we are working with the local Fire and Rescue Service to ensure a seamless and helpful approach however we see a real risk of a court action failing. This Council would hate to be arguing matters in court where an improvement in site safety is the actual 97
remedy needed. We hold a copy of a barrister opinion on the matter that is inconclusive. 7.
The need to take an integrated approach to Park Homes Construction standards. In recognition of the elderly occupancy of Park Homes future units need to be built to accommodate the needs of an older population meeting higher insulation standards, supporting disabled modification and meeting high standards of fire retardant to address some of the historic consequences of poor site management and reduce risk due to fire. (No expanded content below)
February 2012
98
Written submission from Torbay Council (PH 173) I am writing with regard to the above inquiry. This is Torbay Council's submission to that inquiry. Summary of key concerns & recommendations for legislative changes • Introduce a lit and proper person' test for occupier • Introduce a comprehensive five yearly licensing system similar to Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO) licensing under Housing Act 2004. This includes a person to be responsible and designated on the application form • Introduce as part of a new licensing regime, a requirement to list all sites that the owners already manage. This would facilitate far better knowledge than any CRB or other official check • Introduce Local Authority set application fees for new and variation applications to pay for the licensing work • A five year licensing system would allow for a degree of consistency in site licence conditions, which does not exist at present as licences last the life of the site • These proposed five year licences should not be transferrable • Introduce legislation requiring Local Authorities to link planning and site licence policies for effective management • Introduce stronger penalties for non compliance with site licence conditions • Introduce alternative enforcement tools such as Enforcement and Prohibition Notices • Giving Local Authority default powers for works in default and the ability to redirect rents and pitch fees • Introduce a risk rating system for frequency of inspections • Review the power of revocation to answers key questions about site post revocation and management as these sites often remain people’s homes • Consideration given to self management by a management committee or residents association • Include harassment into the revocation process as it is at present excluded • Introduce a referral process to a mediation body for minor disputes between residents and/or owner • Include the Mobile Homes Act 1984 as an relevant Act under the Enterprise Act 2002 for ease of use • The Mobile Homes Act 1983 is a civil piece of legislation so not enforced by the Local Authority • The Mobile Homes Act 1983 incentivises unscrupulous site owners into harassment, as money can be made out of changing residents or the buying out of their homes • The Mobile Homes Act 1983 needs whole scale review to remove these incentives • The Mobile Homes Act 1983 either needs criminal offences placed within it, or those offences need to be placed in the Caravan Site and Control of Development Act 1960 and linked to the application/revocation process for the site licence
99
•
•
Consideration need to be give as to whether park home sites need to be brought within the scope of the Housing Act 2004 Housing Health and Safety Rating System to protect the tenants of sites Give the local authority the lead for fire safety on park home sites, as with Houses in Multiple Occupation, but a requirement to consultant with Fire Authority
Torbay Council has 28 Park Home sites, of which 7 are residential and the rest are either static or touring holiday sites. The main piece of legislation designed to licence these sites is The Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960. Part I of this Act requires all caravan sites to have a site licence, with a few minor exemptions. However the 'occupier' of a site, the site owner in effect, can make an application and can expect that to be granted if he has the relevant planning permissions or certificate of lawful use for the site. So the Local Authority has no legal process for assessing the 'occupier'. Local Authorities have plenty of experience of doing this within their taxi licensing sections, as all driver need to be 'fit and proper persons'. They also have experience in their House in Multiple Occupation (HMO's) teams with HMO Licensing, introduced under the Housing Act 2004. Whilst a 'fit and proper person' check would be a significant improvement, it would be easy for site owners to 'hide behind' family members or associates so should not be classed as an answer to poor management alone. Having said that the introduction of a comprehensive application form, similar to that used to licence Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO), and a licence fee (both for the initial application and for any subsequent variations) would help. If this is coupled with a time limit on their licence, perhaps five years as with HMO's, would give Local Authorities a level of control to help protect the residents of these Park homes. The need to renew the licence would be a positive incentive for site owners to maintain their sites. These licences should not be transferrable so each new site owner can be properly checked and any changes to conditions added to the new licence. The best form of information about a possible owner is talking to Local Authorities who already have experience of the site owner. This information should form part of the application process. Local Authorities should have the ability to set fees and consideration should be given to cross border working which would help in consistency and expertise. Local Authorities should have effective policies for linking planning with site licensing and ideally the legalisation would link the two to help focus co-ordinated action. At present the Local Authority has power to add licence conditions regarding the site and quite properly the site owner can appeal that. However the legislation is 50 years old and is arguably in need of review. This has resulted in differing conditions on each licence, 100
depending on the age of the licence. If, as suggested previously the licences were only valid for five years, then this problem and inconsistency could be overcome. The ideal solution would be to review or use the existing model conditions, therefore providing an absolute minimum standard for sites, for example the need to display test certificates, provision of fire precautions, spacing etc. These could be added at renewals so within a five year period all sites will have the new conditions. Owners would also be aware of those potential changes in preparation of renewals. At present the only recourse available to Local Authorities in the event of a breach of licence conditions is prosecution. This is the most expensive and time consuming form of enforcement which does not necessarily resolve the issues subject to the action. Furthermore a successful prosecution due to a breach of a site licence conditions has a maximum £2500 fine. This provides no incentive to do responsible works or ensure compliance. Recent experience at one site in Torbay resulted in geotechnical works needing to be done on an earth bank. The 'occupier' was prosecuted twice, but the sanction isn't strong enough to force the work to be done. The matter is now being addressed under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, where the sanctions are much more severe. This has been a costly process for all involved, with the risk of land slippage continuing. The introduction of other forms of enforcement, such as Enforcement! Improvement Notices as under other legislation, but similar to the Housing Act 2004 would provide an easier step for enforcement. Local Authorities are very experienced at using this approach with it available in Food, Health and Safety and Housing legislation. It is also far less burdensome on a Local Authority and would be seen by site owners as fairer than instant prosecution. Giving the Local Authority the powers to do the works in default would be an additional power, although significant costs might be beyond what the Local Authority is prepared to risk, unless powers can be introduced to allow the redirection of rents and pitch fees. Set programs for annual or other frequency inspections so all parties would know when inspection is anticipated. This should be based upon risk and can then be incorporated into a proactive inspection regime. The current revocation provisions are ineffective and too narrow, with the result that they are never used. The requirement for two successful prosecutions for breach of conditions before an application can be made is limiting and disregards the harassment provisions of the Caravan Sites Act. There being no revocation provisions associated with harassment. This is important and links with one of the key weakness with the Mobile Homes Act 1983. There are a number of questions that arise if the site licence was revoked by court warrant under Section 9. What happens to the site? Who runs it? If it is residential, then there maybe 100+ caravans on a site illegally. What happens to them, since these sites are their homes? So although the power exists, the practicable implementation is difficult and the resources potentially beyond what a Local Authority can easily find. 101
The amalgamation of all the Caravan Site legislation could be prove helpful to overcome some of these issues, especially around harassment but more importantly proper consideration needs to be given to the whole process and if revocation is decided to be the correct course of action, what happens post revocation. Consideration needs to be given as to whether the Local Authority takes on the site management. This is unlikely to be the Local Authorities preferred option due to the cost implications and may dissuade them from the revocation process, however these types of provisions already are available within Housing legislation. Consideration could be given to management by a residents association for an interim period or even permanently. A referral mechanism to a mediating body to deal with minor disputes between either residents and/or owners could be a way of resolving minor issues, particularly since many of those issues fall within the civil side of the law for Park Homes. The second major piece of legislation is the Mobile Homes Act 1983, which was amended by The Mobile Homes Act 1983 (Amendment of Schedule 1) (England) Order 2006. This is a civil piece of legislation and therefore not enforceable by the Local Authority, unless a Court Order is made under the Enterprise Act 2002. This has occurred with the management of some Park Homes, of which two are in Torbay. It would be helpful to have the Mobile Homes Act 1983 sited under the Enterprise Act 2002, so to allow an undertaking to be applied for where Local Authorities get significant numbers of complaints. The Mobile Homes Act 1983 creates a situation where it incentives some Park Homes owners to harass residents. As it stands the ability of site owners to veto sales and charge a commission provides a positive disincentive for site owners to manage parks to a high standard, with high turnover of residents being more profitable to them. It would seem reasonable that site owners would want some control over who resides on their parks and these are controlled by site rules. Anything beyond reasonable restrictions, for example age, pet ownership etc would seem unnecessary and open to abuse. The right of a site owner to charge 10% commission on the value of a home, which is the sole property of the resident, puts them in a unique and inequitable position. The existing tenancy agreements under the Mobile Homes Act 1983 allows for a retail price index rise in the ground rent each year and no more. However if the site owner was to buy or/and dispose of the mobile home and put a new one on site, then they can charge a greater ground rent. This is another incentive for harassment, often against very vulnerable residents who only want to enjoy their latter years in peace. The Mobile Homes Act 1983 needs whole scale review and these incentives removed. Criminal offences need to be placed within the Act, or into the Caravan Sites and Control Development Act 1960, to make such activities a criminal offence linked to the site licence 102
and site conditions. This would allow the Local Authority to intervene at a much earlier stage than it can at present. Rented mobile homes currently fall outside the scope of the Housing Act 2004 and the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, thus placing those tenants of mobile homes in a weaker position than any other tenants. Mobile homes need to be brought within the scope of the Housing Act in the same way as house boats have been, however consideration should be given to applying the rating scheme to the whole site. My understanding is that fire matters on Park Home sites would be considered a lower priority than other types of accommodation. There could be an argument that the enforcement of fire provisions is returned to the Local Authority as part of the site licensing provisions, however requiring liaison between the two authorities, so fire become a statutory consultee or similar.
February 2012
103
Written submission from Devon Private Sector Housing Managers Group (PH 174) The awarding and revocation of licences: Currently the awarding of a licence for a mobile home site is, on the whole, a formality and licences are not time limited. Whilst a fit and proper person check would be the ideal, in practice it would be fairly easy for a site owner to ‘hide behind’ family members or associates and should not be classed as an answer to poor management. Having said that the introduction of a comprehensive application form, similar to the used to licence Houses in Multiple Occupation, and a licence fee (both for the initial award of the licence and for subsequent variations) coupled with a time limit on the licence, perhaps 5 years as with Houses in Multiple Occupation, would give local authorities a level of control. The need to renew the licence would be a positive incentive for site owners to maintain their sites. LAs should have the ability to set fees and consideration should be given to cross boarder work. This would help with consistency and also expertise, as this area is little covered in the wider field. The regulation and enforcement of site licence conditions At present the only recourse available to local authorities in the event of licence conditions being breached is prosecution, the most expensive and time consuming form of enforcement which does not necessarily resolve the issues subject to the action. The introduction of other forms of enforcement, such as Improvement Notices used in Housing legislation, would provide an incentive for local authorities to enforce standards more actively. Enforcement activity of this type is far less burdensome on a local authority and would be seen by site owners as fairer than instant prosecution. Giving default provisions associated with the enforcement notices, where by the local authority can undertake the works specified in the default of the site owner, would also ensure that defects are rectified. Consideration should be given to be able to redirect the rents and pitch fees from residents. Set programs for annual (or other set frequency inspections) should be part of the LA proactive set programs based on risk. Inspections outside this time could be charged if requested by residents. Similar provisions for residents to take their own improvement or remedial action (as contained in the EPA Act for nuisance) could be a tool for residents to resolve their own issues, if the LA do not prioritise that action. 104
Referral to a mediating body to deal with minor disputes between either residents and or owners could be a way of resolving issues which often LAs become involved in. The move to enforcement by the Residential Property Tribunal should be reviewed and carefully considered prior to any expansion of their role. Their ability to oversee the main provisions of the Housing Act 2004 are questionable both in efficiency, knowledge, consistency and understanding their specific role. Revocation of licence The current revocation provisions are ineffective and too narrow, with the result that they have never been used. The requirement for two successful prosecutions for breach of conditions before an application can be made is limiting and disregards the harassment provisions of the Caravan Sites Act. There is no revocation provision associated with harassment. If revocation is to remain as an option provision should be made for an application to be made following any prosecution. The amalgamation of all of the Caravan Site legislation would prove helpful in this respect Having said that, the permanent nature of mobile homes these days makes the revocation of the licence, which could result a site being closed down, an unrealistic option. There is a need for the introduction of control provisions, such as seen in housing legislation, where by the local authority can step in and take over management in the event of serious failings. Many local authorities have experience of managing sites of one sort or another. Re-sales As it stands the ability of site owners to veto sales and charge a commission provides a positive disincentive for site owners to manage parks to a high standard, high turnover of residents being more profitable to them. It is understandable that site owners would want some control over who resides on their parks and these are controlled by the site rules. Anything beyond reasonable restrictions, for example age, pet ownership etc would seem unnecessary and open to abuse. The right of a site owner to charge up to 10% commission on the value of a home, which is the sole property of the resident, puts them in a unique and inequitable position. Better knowledge amongst estate agents and solicitors about the different ownership status and the types of surveys needed could be part of a professional body advice or part of the qualification for membership of either academic or professional qualifications. (NAEA).
105
Duty on the unit owner to provide details on responsibilities of ownership to prospective purchasers of units. Site licence conditions Due to the differing nature of sites, and the dates in which sites became licensed, it is understandable that there is a lack of consistency of conditions between sites. The introduction of model site licence conditions can prove unhelpful in this regard. The ideal position would be for a set of conditions, containing the absolute minimum requirements, for example the need to display test certificates, the provision of fire precautions, spacing etc to be introduced which could be attached to conditions upon renewal. In that way the same conditions, which would not be substantially different to those now in place, would be attached to all licenses within a 5 year period (if that was taken to be the life of the licence). LAs should have effective policies for linking planning with site licensing and ideally the legislation would link the two to help focus co-ordinated action. Information on all sites owned by potential owners should be a part of the application stage. This would facilitate far better knowledge than any CRB or other official check. Rented mobile homes At present, mobile homes fall outside the scope of the Housing Act 2004 and the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, thus placing the tenants of mobile homes in a weaker position than other tenants. Mobile homes need to be brought within the scope of the Housing Act in the same way as house boats have been. This has also happened with disabled facilities grants. However the HHSRS would not be without its difficulties in applying it to these types of structures.
February 2012
106
Written submission from Exeter City Council (PH 175) The awarding and revocation of licences: Currently the awarding of a licence for a mobile home site is, on the whole, a formality and licences are not time limited. Whilst a fit and proper person check would be the ideal, in practice it would be fairly easy for a site owner to ‘hide behind’ family members or associates. Having said that the introduction of a comprehensive application form, similar to the used to licence Houses in Multiple Occupation, and a licence fee (both for the initial award of the licence and for subsequent variations) coupled with a time limit on the licence, (perhaps 5 years as with Houses in Multiple Occupation), would give local authorities a level of control. The need to renew the licence after a certain term, as is the case with many other forms of licence, would be a positive incentive for site owners to maintain their sites. The regulation and enforcement of site licence conditions At present the only recourse available to local authorities in the event of licence conditions being breached is prosecution, the most expensive and time consuming form of enforcement which does not necessarily resolve the issues subject to the action. The introduction of other forms of enforcement, such as Improvement Notices used in Housing legislation, would provide an incentive for local authorities to enforce standards more actively. Enforcement activity of this type is far less burdensome on a local authority and would be seen by site owners as fairer than jumping straight to prosecution. Giving default provisions associated with the enforcement notices, where by the local authority can undertake the works specified in the default of the site owner and then recover the cost would also help ensure that defects are rectified in timely fashion. Revocation of licence The current revocation provisions are ineffective and too narrow, with the result that they have never been used. The requirement for two successful prosecutions for breach of conditions before an application can be made is limiting and disregards the harassment provisions of the Caravan Sites Act. There is no revocation provision associated with harassment by the owner for example. If revocation is to remain as an option provision should be made for an application to be made following any prosecution. The amalgamation of all of the Caravan Site legislation would prove helpful in this respect.
107
Having said that, the more permanent nature of mobile homes these days makes the revocation of the licence, which could result a site being closed down, an unrealistic option. There is an argument for the introduction of control provisions, such as seen in housing legislation, where by the local authority can step in and take over management in the event of serious failings. Many local authorities have experience of managing sites, commercial and residential property of one sort or another. Re-sales As it stands the ability of site owners to veto sales and charge a commission (e.g.10%) provides a positive disincentive for site owners to manage parks to a high standard, because a high turnover of residents becomes a profitable exercise. It is understandable that site owners would want some control over who resides on their parks and these are controlled by the site rules. Anything beyond reasonable restrictions, for example age, pet ownership etc would seem unnecessary and open to abuse. The right of a site owner to charge up to 10% commission on the value of a home, which is the sole property of the resident, puts them in a unique and inequitable position. Site licence conditions Due to the differing nature of sites, and the dates in which sites became licensed, it is understandable that there is a lack of consistency of conditions between sites. The introduction of model site licence conditions can prove unhelpful in this regard. The ideal position would be for a set of conditions, containing the absolute minimum requirements, (for example the need to display test certificates, the provision of fire precautions, spacing etc.) to be introduced which could be attached to conditions upon renewal. In that way the same conditions, which would not be substantially different to those now in place, would be attached to all licences within a 5 year period (if that was taken to be the life of the licence). Rented mobile homes At present, mobile homes fall outside the scope of the Housing Act 2004 and the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (which is used by officers to judge the relative risks from disrepair, poor insulation, etc.), thus placing the tenants of mobile homes in a weaker position than other tenants. Mobile homes need to be brought within the scope of the Housing Act in the same way as other forms of accommodation such as house boats have been. February 2012 108
Written submission from the Park Home Residents Action Alliance (PHRAA) (PH 176) The list of subjects the committee require information on. •
Site Fees
•
The awarding and revocation of site licenses
•
The need for the manager of a site to be a "fit and Proper " person and the enforcement of this requirement
•
The regulation of parks owned by local authorities; the protection of occupiers of park homes against harassment and illegal eviction; and
•
Resale of park homes and resale fees.
The Park Home Residents Action Alliance (PHRAA) has over the past 10 years of its existence, as a Stakeholder, has constantly forwarded countless representations to successive Government Ministers, All Party Working Groups for park Homes, etc., on behalf of Park home owners nationwide on all, and many more, of the ongoing problems included in the above list. Unfortunately to no avail. PHRAA is convinced that commenting on the matters set out above will serve no purpose whatsoever as we, the officers of PHRAA are park homeowners ourselves, living, or to be more accurate, are trapped on a site owned by one of the worst examples of an unscrupulous park owner, well known to the DCLG officers and notorious throughout the industry, and know that amending any of the above listed clauses to the MHAct is absolutely useless, which has been proven by the fact that rather than improving the protection of park homeowners and holiday caravan owners, the 2006 Amendments have made the situation far worse than it was before and declining even further. The current, ever growing band of UPO's are laughing at the unenforceable legislation and know very well that they can continue to exploit, (to put it mildly) the most vulnerable members of society with absolute impunity. PHRAA is calling for the Government to immediately cease tinkering with the Mobile Homes Act it is proven to not work. TEAR UP THE PRESENT LEGISLATION (MHAct) and start again with brand new ENFORCEABLE LEGISLATION, even if it does involve PRIMARY LEGISLATION, but above all, END FOREVER THE CURRENT DEFINITION OF A CARAVAN CRITERIA FOR RESIDENTIAL PARK HOMES. PARK HOMES ARE OUR HOMES THEREFORE SHOULD BE RECOGNIOSED AS SUCH AND FULLY INCORPORATED INTO THE 109
HOUSING ACT PROPER WITH ALL THE LEGISLATION FOR THE HOME OWNERS.
ACCOMPANYING
PROTECTIVE
The park owners and the industry have it all their own way at present. IT IS NOW TIME THE PARK HOMEOWNERS ARE GRANTED SOME RIGHTS. SURELY WE DESERVE BETTER? If the Select Committee wish to find out why PHRAA has not addressed the items in the government list, they should visit the PHRAA Website www.phraa.co.uk where all the information on the present state of this industry is featured.
February 2012
110
Written submission from [***] (PH 177) Introduction - Anger, a shattered dream turned into a nightmare and fears of worse to come. The beginning - The promise of a happy future, the pitch fee, the garage, the Agreement. Bitter argument - Realisation that we were ‘conned’ about the pitch fee. The Qualified Residents Association (QRA) - Worried about trees, establishment of the QRA. Rubbish - Withdrawal of a long standing collection of garden rubbish. Justice? - Pitch fee review, Court case etc. Bankruptcy - Attempt to make us pay another’s costs. A list of issues on our Park - Some of the things Residents have experienced. Conclusion - The existing legislation is not working. Introduction I live in a Park Home - and I am angry. I am angry that, after so many years it is necessary for me to spend time preparing this submission in the hope that, at last, the Government will listen - and address the many problems and injustices that Park Home Owners face, from greedy, incompetent and downright criminal Park Owners - especially the so called Unscrupulous Park Owners (UPOs). Like many others, my wife and I bought our Park Home intending it to be our last home - a place of relative comfort and safety in which to enjoy our retirement. We did not expect, instead, to be spending these ‘twilight’ years involved in a constant battle with the Park Owner over our lawful rights and promised idyllic ‘lifestyle’. Nor did I expect to learn that the problems and injustices we have personally experienced pale into insignificance compared with the experiences of others. “Do not buy a Park Home!” has recently become a common piece of advice from a number of well informed sources. This is because, as many are now realising, living the ‘idyllic lifestyle’ with a ‘good’ Park Owner is no guarantee that it will last. If a park is sold, there is a growing risk that it will be taken over by one of those UPOs and life will change from a dream to a nightmare. In fairness, our own Park Owner can only be described as a ‘borderline’ UPO - the most serious problems, reported on some parks, have not occurred here (yet). But, as my later list shows, our Park Owner most certainly can’t be considered ‘good’ either. Even so, the fear that our Park might be sold to a UPO hangs over us too. Not least because our Park Owner wrote to all Residents stating that the time spent dealing with the representations of our (then) Qualified Residents Association (QRA) was leading them to consider selling the Park “on the open market”.
111
Just one of many attempts to discredit the QRA and its Officers. In keeping with many other Park Home Owners, our bad experiences could fill a not so small book. I can only touch the surface here. I structure this submission as a story of our lives in a Park Home, in the hope of providing a flavour of what the current legislation, and in particular its failings, has meant to us. I state categorically that the contents of this submission are true to the best of my knowledge and can be supported by boxes of evidence - written, photographic and recorded. I will happily supply full evidence to the Inquiry if required. The beginning This is our story - just one of thousands - of regrets, misery and worse. My wife and I both have professional backgrounds. My wife had retired after years working for solicitors as a qualified paralegal. I was a semi-retired electronic systems engineer. Heading towards retirement, we were considering moving home and looking at both residential narrow boats and Park Homes as interesting alternatives to our semi-detached house. We appreciated the significant differences in purchasing and living in these compared with ‘bricks and mortar’. Or rather, we thought we did! Using our savings, and equity from selling our house, we decided to go for the best of both worlds and bought a small, non residential narrow boat and then looked for a Park Home. We found our Park Home, which was the show home on the Park at the time. We made the usual enquiries about price, contracts, rent etc. - knowing that, unlike purchasing a house, this was simpler, effectively like buying a caravan, with an agreement to keep it sited on the Park. We were given a copy of the Agreement we would sign, but no Park Rules at that point. Asking about rent, we were told that we would initially pay a ‘pitch fee’ of about £20 per week and that this would increase annually by RPI. We also looked at the Park, the Home and the Park Owner on the Internet. This confirmed the details of the home, also stating that it included a garage. We put down a £500 deposit which we were told was returnable if the sale did not go ahead. We visited the home from time to time while we waited for the sale of our house to go through. On one of these visits, the saleswoman asked if we also wanted to rent the garage, as this would be an extra £8 per week. I was very annoyed about this, as I had understood from the 112
beginning that the £20 ‘pitch fee’ included the garage. I was also concerned that this was a significant extra cost that would grow with time. However, after discussions, my wife and I decided to go ahead with the purchase - now expecting to pay £28 per week ‘pitch fee’. Other details were discussed, including our planned erection of a fence around the garden to keep in our two dogs. We were told that that was OK. We had looked carefully at the Written Agreement and noted various matters, including that any disputes could be settled by arbitration. We felt that the Agreement was reasonable and provided adequate protection of our rights to ‘pitch’ the home and enjoy all its benefits. We did not, therefore, consult a solicitor. In due course, in 2004, we purchased our home. On the day of purchase we checked the Written Agreement carefully. It was entirely as expected and stated the pitch fee as the annual equivalent of £28 per week. We were very happy with our new home. There were admittedly a few teething troubles, but these were generally minor and quickly put right. The only significant concern was that we were told that we could not erect the fence, as previously agreed with the saleswoman. But, after speaking to the General Manager, a satisfactory compromise was reached. The fact that, on other Parks, and even our own Park, things were not so rosy for other people completely passed us by. TV programs such as BBC’s ‘Inside Out’ were already exposing some of the ‘horror stories’ on other Parks - but we didn’t see those then. We lived in blissful ignorance, like most Park Home Owners, even today. Bitter argument Sadly our blissful ignorance did not last. The first dark, gathering storm clouds came about 18 months after buying our home. In moving home we had also re-organised who paid what bills. My wife was paying the pitch fee and I had paid it no attention since the day we moved in. On a still very memorable day, I happened to notice the payment card that logged our monthly payments and idly had a closer look at it. I was amazed to find that we were paying a pitch fee of over £36 per week. I questioned my wife over this and thus instigated a bitter argument about the pitch fee we should be paying. It transpired that, on the day after moving in, she had been given a payment card that recorded a pitch fee of £28 per week and a separate ‘garage rent’ of £8 per week - totalling £36 113
per week. My wife told me that when, querying this, she had remembered us being told about the extra £8 per week to rent the garage - so everything was correct. I pointed out that the £8 garage rent was on top of a quoted £20 per week - so it had been added twice. But, unlike my clear memory, my wife could not remember the initial figures with any certainty and so had thought it was correct when given the payment card. After heated discussions, it appeared to come down to my word against the saleswoman’s, with no back up from my wife. We did not speak for two days. From an initially expected £20 per week, our pitch fee had nearly doubled by the day we moved in - and it appeared there was nothing we could do about it. The Qualified Residents Association (QRA) After the initial ‘honeymoon period’, things began to turn sour. Although we had no particular problems with the local Park Manager, we noticed that it usually required some effort and ‘nagging’ to get things done, even to the extent of involving the General Manager. We, and other nearby Residents, became concerned about very large trees on our pitches. These appeared to be going rotten and moved alarmingly in high winds. When we raised our concerns, the local Park Manager appeared unwilling to do anything about this. So we and a small group of Residents got together to make a united approach to a new General Manager. While we were not entirely happy with his response, he did arrange for a program of cutting down some trees, rather than just cutting them back as we had requested. Promised timescales were not kept to - but the job was completed recently. By now we knew many Residents on the Park and were beginning to hear some disturbing opinions and stories. In particular, it was felt that the local Park Manager was very ineffective and was rumoured to spend a lot of time off site on personal business - even taking and using some materials from the Park. We learned that there had previously been a Residents Association on the Park, but that the Park Owner had refused to have anything to do with it. It was now 2006 and the 2006 amendments to the Mobile Home Act had come into effect. With encouragement from neighbours and friends, my wife and I set up a new Residents Association with the intention of it becoming a QRA. The Park Owner was very hostile to this and the local management tried hard to ‘rubbish’ the idea. The Park Owner’s General Manager stated that a Residents Association would only be useful for social purposes as “the company does everything by the book”. Finally, only after threats of legal action, the Park Owner properly recognised our Residents Association as a QRA. Then our troubles really began. 114
Rubbish Setting up and running a QRA, faced with hostility from the Park Owner and years of frustration built up among Residents, is a story in itself. Suffice to say here that I was the Secretary of the QRA and that, initially, we appeared to make progress - holding meetings with the local Park Manager and discussing various issues. Some were even dealt with eventually. Then, with only 3 days notice and without consulting with either Residents, or the QRA, the Park Owner withdrew a long standing garden rubbish collection - initially expecting Residents to take such rubbish to the Local Authority tip. We viewed this as a breach of our Agreements, a failure to consult and a reduction in amenity. Discussions continued about this for the rest of the year. The Park Owner refused to re-instate the collections. Justice? By the next pitch review there were various issues that Residents were not happy about and that had been discussed at QRA meetings. A vote was taken that the proposed pitch fee increase would be resisted and attempts were made, by the QRA, to consult with the Park Owner on these issues. The Park Owner refused to discuss such matters with either the QRA or Residents. Instead, all Residents received a letter, decrying the QRA and indicating that any Resident that did not agree with the increase would be offered arbitration. Most Residents now paid up. My wife and I, and a few other homes, refused to agree. Consequently, the Park Owner issued a Court Claim - there was no discussion, arbitration etc. - simply pay up or go to Court. At the first hearing, the District Judge, with agreement from both sides, directed that the parties go away and try mediation. The Park Owner later refused mediation, saying that the Judge had made a mistake and really meant binding arbitration - which had been discussed before the Judge and already rejected by us. A Trial was set before a Circuit Judge. I did most of the work for us, taking legal advice and engaging a public access Barrister. We appeared to have a winning case on various points. At Court, both sides submitted skeleton arguments, in addition to bundles of evidence previously lodged. 115
Before the Trial began, the Judge called both Barristers to his chambers and told them that he was ‘minded’ to find for the Park Owner. We had no idea how much of the evidence he had looked at and felt that this action was a travesty of justice - giving a clear advantage to the Park Owner. We insisted that the Trial go ahead anyway. The outcome was that we lost the case. The Judge ruled that the admitted loss of the rubbish collection was not a reduction in ‘amenity’ - ruling that amenity refers only to the prettiness of a place. He also ruled that elderly Residents now having to carry their garden waste up to 200 metres to a central skip was too minor to warrant a reduction in the pitch fee increase. The Judge ruled that there was no requirement for the Park Owner to ‘consult’ with a QRA over a pitch fee increase. The Judge awarded full costs of over £20,000 to the Park Owner - subject to assessment if not agreed. When we asked to be heard on costs the Judge stated that there was no time then, and would consider that later. He never did. At this point the other Residents involved gave up. Only my wife and I continued to fight. We took further legal advice and gained legal aid for an appeal, which was out of time. The result of that was that we were given permission to appeal out of time, but the Judge then decided to continue and weigh the arguments further. He then indicated that he felt we had little chance of success. That was the end of the appeal - leaving us feeling cheated once again. I do not believe that the arguments for an appeal were fully prepared at that hearing, which was ostensibly to get permission for an appeal only. Prior to the appeal hearing, with the help of our solicitor, my wife and I had gone to Court, on our own, for the Costs Assessment Hearing. By this time the Park Owner was trying to claim costs of around £40,000 - despite the summary costs being given at around £20,000. This time however, the Judge listed carefully to our arguments - particularly about the Park Owner’s refusal of ‘Alternative Dispute Resolution’ at every stage and the Trial Judge’s failure to hear us about costs. In a sympathetic ruling, he reduced the costs claimed to about £21,000 - stating that he could not go further because of the Trial Judge’s decision to award costs at 100%. It had cost my wife and I around £8,000 to fight for our justifiable rights - and lose.
116
Bankruptcy Last year, one other couple involved in the case simply refused to pay their share of the costs (about £6,000). Instead of pursuing them for payment, the Park Owner tried to force us to pay their share. We received Statutory Demands, threatening us with bankruptcy, and my wife’s bank account was frozen as they tried to use a Third Party Debt Order. Legal advice suggested that there was nothing we could do but pay up. We didn’t pay - but fought back in a completely different way - another story. . . . A list of issues on our Park This list covers a period from about 2002 to the present day and is not comprehensive. It serves to illustrate the kind of things which occurred on an average Park - where the Park Owner is NOT generally viewed as a UPO. We believe it shows a need for ‘fit and proper’, management of all Parks. We don’t care who owns the Park - as long as it is managed properly and fairly. Filling a large hole with various rubble and rubbish and then covering it with a concrete base for a new home - risking an unstable base. The Occupier of the pitch is unaware of this. ‘Persuading’ a couple to allow their home to be moved, for Park development. Then moving them from their protected site to an adjacent site with limited planning permission, due to possible new road development. (That site now has no current planning permission.) During Park development: failing to clean up the roads of fallen mud and concrete, so that a Resident (one of the couple above) tripped and fell, breaking a number of teeth. Failing to tell buyers of a brand new home, that it had been significantly damaged earlier by a falling tree. Forcing a Resident to remove a garden model railway (built with prior permission) and pitch boundary hedge, then making the cleared portion of the pitch part of a new pitch being developed. Verbal threats to that same Resident that “We will tow your home off the Park!” in demanding an apology from the Resident - following a complaint made by the Resident to the Park office. Charging the buyer of a second hand home a higher pitch fee than had been paid by the seller. Then, when ‘correcting’ the pitch fee some years later, failing to return the resulting overpayment of £1,500. 117
Various failures to complete skirts, paths, steps etc. on many new homes, being handed over to new occupiers. Residents had to wait weeks or even months for such work to be completed. Misleading multiple buyers of new homes about the pitch fee they would pay after purchase. Misleading buyers of new homes about future developments to the Park. A significant area near new homes was due for development, stated to be due for completion in 1 year to 18 months. 7 years later, the development is not complete and Residents still look out onto an area of wasteland. Failing to provide a copy of the Park rules to buyers of new homes until months after purchase. Failing to correctly complete paperwork - including Written Agreements. Some are even missing the pitch fee completely. Increasing the originally stated pitch fee during the buying of a new home - only informing the buyers as they moved in. Discriminatory use of the Park rules, regarding buyers of new homes bringing dogs onto the Park. Telling some that dogs were not allowed, whilst allowing others. Telling prospective buyers of new homes that they could erect fences around their pitch then adding various restrictions after purchase. At the time, any fence at all was in breach of the Site Licence - the Park Owners knew this. Using a number of ‘new’ homes as ‘The Show Home’. Using the furniture and facilities for months, even after taking a deposit to buy, effectively making the homes second hand. Then making another ‘new’ home the new show home. Failing to display the Site Licence conditions at all. Recognising the Residents Association as a QRA (>60% Owners) - but only after writing to all Residents, asking them to individually confirm their membership, despite being warned that this was pointless and illegal (on advice from IPHAS and elsewhere). The withdrawal of a long standing garden rubbish collection, with just 3 days notice and without consulting Residents, or the QRA. Failing to take appropriate action against Park Owner’s tenants causing serious nuisance. The local Park manager admitting moving, rather than removing as promised, a tenant who had caused many earlier complaints. 118
Writing to all Residents regarding a pitch fee review offering arbitration (as provided for in the Agreements) to any who did not agree, then explicitly refusing arbitration when some Residents did not agree with the pitch fee increase - due to the withdrawn garden rubbish collection and failure to take action over nuisance tenants. Taking Residents to Court over a pitch fee review, after refusing to discuss it, negotiate or go to arbitration as they themselves had previously offered in writing. Refusing to negotiate with Residents or accept ‘mediation’ - despite this being ordered by the Judge at a preliminary hearing of the pitch fee review case. Offering to discuss the Residents’ grievances in the pitch fee review case - only if the Residents agreed in advance to pay the demanded increase. Storing of petrol mowers, petrol cans and a drum of diesel in the garages of unsold homes, resulting in a leak of fuel into an adjacent Resident’s garage. Development of a fenced in yard, as part of the extension of an office building, in breach of the planning permission obtained. The dangerous and illegal storage of propane gas cylinders. Failing (for months) to repair a reported, broken manhole cover on a common, grassed area used by Residents. Failure to correctly connect the gas supply to a new home handed over to Residents. Work done by unqualified staff resulted in a completely missing internal connecting gas pipe and no heating or hot water for the new occupiers, for many days. Failure to complete the Park’s infrastructure before selling homes. The driveway and access road to the home above were not completed until weeks after the Residents moved in. Verbal abuse of Residents by the local Park manager (reported to the QRA and Head Office by a number of Residents, but not pursued further). Alleged physical assault of a Resident by the local Park manager (reported to the Police but not pursued). Physical assault of a Resident by the local Park manager in the Park office - who then gained a criminal record by refusing to apologise, thus receiving a formal caution. (This one was pursued.) Failure to take any known action against the local Park manager for his admitted physical assault. (He left a year later to run his own business.) 119
Refusal to provide a copy of the company’s complaints procedure. (The company’s solicitors later confirmed in writing that the company has no formal complaints procedure.) Years of failing to provide a working emergency telephone - in breach of the site licence conditions. (Now corrected, by removal of the condition at the suggestion of both Residents Association and Company.) Years of failing to repair broken street lights - an ongoing breach of the site licence conditions. No warning of numerous, non emergency interruptions to the water supply for repairs, Park development etc. Failure to update statutory notices, such as fire equipment safety certificates (more than one year out of date). Unsafe working practices by Park staff. One staff member had to take time off work after falling through a garage roof on to a Resident’s car. Conclusion The existing legislation is not working. A complete review of the existing legislation is required. (This is just a fraction of our story! It’s cost £60,000 so far.)
February 2012
120
Written submission from the Office of Fair Trading (PH 178) Summary The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) is responding to an invitation for written evidence issued by the Communities and Local Government Committee on its inquiry into park homes. This paper sets out the role of the OFT, the relevant consumer protection law which applies to park homes, and the OFT’s outline views on the adequacy of the applicable law and proposals to tackle consumer protection concerns, as follows: • • • •
Complaints to the OFT about park homes are low in volume, but do indicate that harm where it occurs may be serious. Current consumer protection law, enforced at a local level, is able to deal with many standard consumer protection issues in the market. Further steps may be needed to deal with issues of serious harm, in particular to allow regulators to remove or ban ‘unfit‘ traders from the market. There is therefore merit in considering whether a local licensing regime may be a costeffective means of preventing consumer harm. If this is done, the cons as well as the pros of licensing regimes should be considered.
Role of the OFT 1. The OFT’s mission is to make markets work well for consumers. Our goal is for competitive, efficient, innovative markets where standards of consumer care are high, consumers have choice and are empowered and confident about making choices, and where businesses comply with consumer and competition laws but are not disproportionately burdened by regulations, or restricted and harmed by market abuse. We achieve this goal by using tools within the consumer and competition law regimes which enable us to look at all aspects of markets to ensure that they are working well for consumers and taking appropriate, proportionate enforcement action. 2. Also currently part of the OFT is Consumer Direct (CD)34, the national telephone and online consumer advice service. CD provides clear, practical, impartial advice to help consumers sort out problems and disagreements they may be having with suppliers of goods or services. The OFT records and collates the complaint data from CD as a useful indicator for potential areas of consumer harm. Where appropriate complaint details are sent to the relevant Local Authority Trading Standards Service (TSS). Overview of 2011 compliant data from CD 3. CD received a small number of complaints (fewer than 100) about practices involving park homes in 2011. The main areas of complaint were: 34
Note: at the end of March 2012 the functions of Consumer Direct will be transferring from the OFT. On 1 April, responsibility for providing consumer advice and information will pass from OFT to Citizens Advice and Citizens Advice Scotland.
121
• • • •
the sale and supply of goods and services both by park owners and third parties, in particular work undertaken on individual park homes; control of utility provision by park owners including the cost, and additional charges associated; the sale of park homes, such as park owners reserving a right of first refusal and the price offered; the commission charged by the park owner on the sale of park homes, often quoted in complaints at 15%.
Relevant consumer protection law 4. As the Committee will be aware, there is specific legislation under the Mobile Homes Act 198335 covering a number of issues relating to park homes, in particular the area of sales and commission. Other concerns are covered by existing general consumer protection law, in particular Sale of Goods Act 1979 (SGA), Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994 (SSGA), Sale and Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 (SSGSA), Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs) and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (UTCCRs). OFGEM also specifies a maximum resale price (MRP) at which gas and electricity supplied by Park Owners can be charged. 5. The CPRs ban traders from using unfair commercial practices, including misleading and aggressive practices that either do, or are likely to, distort a consumer's decisions (whether these occur before, during or after a commercial transaction) and set out broad rules outlining when commercial practices are unfair. 6. The UTCCRs protect consumers against unfair standard terms in contracts they make with traders. The UTCCRs can protect consumers from terms that reduce their statutory or common law rights and from terms that seek to impose unfair burdens on the consumer over and above the obligations of ordinary rules of law. An enforcer cannot determine whether a term is or is not unfair but has powers to ask a court for an injunction to prevent it being used or recommended for use. Only the courts can finally decide whether a term is or is not unfair. Unfair terms are not binding on consumers and it is also open to consumers to challenge terms they consider unfair independently through the Courts. 7. The SGA and SSGA provide protection when buying goods. Under SGA and SSGA goods must be as described, of satisfactory quality, and fit for purpose. If this is not the case a consumer is able to seek redress from the supplier. The SGSA requires a supplier of a service to carry out that service with reasonable care and skill and, unless agreed to the contrary, within a reasonable time and at a reasonable cost. 8. OFGEM states that the maximum price landlords or ‘resellers’ are permitted to charge for gas or electricity is the amount they have paid for it, plus VAT at the appropriate rate. Any 35
Mobile Homes Act 1983 is DCLG legislation, the consumer regime legislation is implemented by BIS
122
standing charges can be recovered by the Landlord by dividing it on a pro-rata basis according to usage between all the tenants. Under the Mobile Homes Act 1983 these additional charges should be set out in the written agreement between the park owner and the resident. Park Homes - enforcement of consumer protection legislation 9. Most consumer protection law is enforced by TSS or the OFT through injunctive action in the civil courts or prosecution of criminal offences. 10. Local TSS have effective partnerships with local agencies and in-depth knowledge of local market, businesses and housing issues. Coupled with their wider fair trading functions, such as business advice on compliance, they are often able to secure quick behavioural change from individual traders and to achieve resolution for consumers. They are also well placed to take effective criminal or civil action where this is appropriate. For example, Cornwall TSS recently obtained a court order in Plymouth County Court against park owners for breaches of the CPRs, Mobile Homes Act 1983, Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and their duty of care to consumers under the law of tort, including negligence. For these reasons it is the OFT’s view that in most cases the relevant local TSS is best placed to investigate breaches of consumer law by individual local park owners and to take action in respect of those breaches as appropriate. 11. In general the OFT takes enforcement action when there are issues of national significance or market-wide concern. We also take cases on novel issues to create legal precedents which have wider impacts across the economy. The OFT and TSS work in partnership and will assist each other on appropriate cases. OFT initial views on areas of concern raised by park home residents 12. Based on our understanding of the concerns raised by park home residents with CD and TSS, it appears to us that many of the instances of consumer harm raised would already be covered by existing consumer protection rules banning unfair, misleading or aggressive practices. 13. That said, it does also appear that the most serious problems may be caused by site owners who might be considered to be ‘unfit’ to run such businesses, for example where unfair practices are repeated with disregard for the law or move into other areas of criminal activity. The position of people who live in park homes, in particular a common inability to move to other locations or other forms of accommodation, or to change utility supplier may make them more vulnerable to this type of ‘unfit’ behaviour. As you will be aware, park home residents do not have similar rights to leaseholders to force the transfer of management functions to a management company set up by residents, or to collective enfranchisement. 14. We note that one of the areas the Committee is considering is a suitable licensing regime. Given the issues set out in para 13 above, we believe that there may be benefit in exploring the various options which might enable authorities to prevent ‘unfit’ owners from 123
operating park homes where injunctive action or small-scale criminal sanctions may not succeed in preventing or deterring harm. 15. Various options for licensing regimes exist – national or local, and positive or negative – each with associated benefits and costs. National licensing regimes (such as those operated for claims management, estate agency, consumer credit, and financial services) operate from a national licensing authority, taking action centrally. These can be effective when it is important to have an overview of all companies involved in a market, and where costs need to be spread across all providers. Licensing regimes run by local authorities (such as those regimes operating in alcohol provision, taxis, scrap metal and street trading) can conversely be tailored to regional needs and issues. Positive licensing regimes (such as in consumer credit or financial services) operate from a starting point that businesses need a licence before they are permitted to trade in the sector, with upfront checks carried out into matters such as the integrity and competence of the traders to operate in the sector. They are usually self-funding regimes with all traders paying licence fees towards the operation of the gateway of the regime and its enforcement actions. They tend to be most effective where rigorous competency standards are preferable for market entry and where a national register of traders and trader data is beneficial. Negative licensing (such as with estate agency) operates purely as a ‘banning’ regime, where anyone can enter the market, but enforcement bodies can take action to ban and exclude from the market any traders who breach relevant rules. 16.
Other issues that the OFT believes should be looked at when considering licensing are: Increase in regulation and costs to business – licensing represents an increase in regulation which comes at a cost. In a positive licensing system, businesses will usually have to meet the direct administrative cost of the licensing authority through a licence fee. In a negative licensing regime, the costs may be lower, but the enforcement authority will have to meet them from its own budget. The overall cost depends on the character and scope of the regulatory requirements imposed by the licensing system. Barriers to entry - the costs to business associated with a licensing system and the use of a positive licensing approach may also act as a barrier to, or inhibit, market entry though the extent of this will depend on the market and the regime. Unnecessary regulatory controls or controls that are out of proportion to the problems to be dealt with, will raise business costs and ultimately consumer costs, and may well deter “fit and proper” businesses from entering the market.
17. The OFT has not looked at these issues in detail, but based on experience of consumer protection regimes, we would put forward the initial view that should it be deemed necessary 124
to introduce a licensing regime for park homes a local, negative system may be most appropriate. This is not without its issues. Consideration would need to be given to how an ‘unfit’ owner would dispose of the park to ensure its continued existence is protected. Closure of the park and eviction of the residents would not be in the interests of consumer protection. 18. However, a local, negative system would allow local enforcers to use their in-depth knowledge of local areas, markets and businesses; to create operational synergies with current controls operated at a local level; and to take the ultimate action to ban unfit owners and to exclude them from the market where other action has failed. This has the potential to be less burdensome on fair dealing businesses whilst at the same time removing unfit people from the market. February 2012
125
Written submission from Councillor Roger West (PH 179) Summary 1. Insistence on the Local Licensing Authority fully accepting their responsibilities to residents living in Residential Park Homes as regards the Site License Conditions 2. Need for a clear English version of the Express Terms which I regard as being the contract 3. Need for greater clarity on the 10% “Commission”. Introduction I very much welcome this approach by our Coalition Government. My name is Cllr Roger West and I was first elected in May 1999. I have represented the Redhill & Northbourne Ward for over 8 years and prior to that the Ensbury Park Ward which merged into my present ward in 2003. This is relevant because from 1999 to 2003 I had 1 park home site in my ward but after 2003 I had 4 more making 5 in total. A very unusual situation and one that has enabled me to get a very good insight into the advantages and problems associated with living in Residential Park Homes. It is also important for the MPs to realise that Bournemouth is a Unitary Authority and is responsible for the licensing of the 9 park home sites in the borough. All 54 Councillors in Bournemouth are responsible for the way in which this function is enforced and must make sure there are sufficient resources allocated. I have attended 2 campaign meetings in London where we presented petitions and had meetings in the Houses of Parliament. I also accompanied 2 residents when they arranged a meeting in the House of Lords with Lord Graham of Edmonton. He was delightful, knowledgeable and very supportive. He was of the opinion, in general terms, that there was enough legislation, it just needed to be better enforced. I have very similar views with a few exceptions. Before I get into more detail about specific issues I think it is important to say if more elected Members had taken an interest in their residents’ concerns from the start we should not be nationally in the mess we are now in. We must never forget that residents living in Residential Park Homes pay Council Tax, their home is their principle residence and they are on the Electoral Register. They have very similar rights to those of us who live in homes made of bricks and mortar. Finally, purchasing a park home is probably the last big financial decision that a resident will make. The home will cost between £70k-£200k and the pitch fee at about £150/month equates to £1800 p.a. Therefore expecting to live for at least 25 years in the home amounts to, on average, say £100,000 for the home and about 25 x £1800= £45,000 for pitch fees totalling a staggering £145,000. This is a serious amount of money and it is imperative that residents, when making this commitment, do fully understand the implications. Living in a park home 126
should be a great way to live as the sites should be secure and safe to walk around and the maintenance costs should also be low. Ideal for retirement. The following section of this report is divided into two sections, Site License Conditions and the Written Statement Site License Conditions. It is the Council who is finally responsible for ensuring that Park Home Sites are well managed. It is the Council who issues the Site License and therefore should ensure that the Site License conditions are adhered to. It is too easy to blame Site Owners; acts of intimidation can be dealt with by the State. One also has to ask, what have the ward Councillors been doing? In my opinion, too many Councils do not take their responsibility to this section of our population as seriously as they should. The Council also handles Trading Standards issues and Environmental Health (possible noisy neighbours’ issues). The emergency services like the Fire Service and the police should all play their part. The site of a policeman on foot patrol is very reassuring as I have found out when I initiated it locally. I would recommend that at the entrance to the site there must be clearly displayed, the name of the Local Authority which has issued the license and the contact details (I think that this would ensure that the licensing authority is recognised as the controlling body). The contact details of the site manager should also be clearly displayed. The Site Licence Conditions, which the site owner must comply with, are very clear on most basic things. Residents have the right to:1. Quiet enjoyment of their home 2. Compliance with basic access and disability issues regarding roads, paths, trip hazards and lighting 3. Provision of car parks which should be hard surfaced and well marked out. 4. Roads on site to be hard surfaced with traffic calming if necessary. 5. Good site maintenance including boundary treatment of all hedges and shrubs not part of the pitch. 6. Provision of notice board. 7. Ensure that the electrical cabling on the site complies with the latest standards and that certificates of safety are seen at least every 3 years. 8. That the electrical provision is adequate. It is difficult to ascertain what is meant by adequate. However a simple solution is if residents assume that they can have any reasonable electrical equipment like their neighbours in a bricks and mortar home, unless expressly and clearly prohibited in the contract between the resident and the site owner- referred to as Express Terms. I have one site owner who prohibits electric showers, electric hobs, will only permit 2 cars by prior permission and very sensibly says no fire-arms. In my opinion these conditions should have no weight unless 127
included clearly in the Contract (Express Terms) and brought, at time of purchase, specifically to the prospective owner’s attention Written Statement. I have copied the headings below directly from the May 2011 edition of this document. It is published by British Holiday and Home Parks Association (BH&HPA) and is used as the basis of the agreement between the site owner and the proposed purchaser. (I do hope the Committee gets a copy of this Statement.) • • • •
Part 1 the information about the rights of occupier of a pitch Part 2, the particulars of the agreement Part 2 Annex. This sets out the implied terms which automatically apply to the agreement Part 3 Express terms of the agreement. This part of the written statement sets out other terms of the agreement which may be agreed between you and the site owner in addition to the Implied Terms
I find it confusing to say the least. Please note the word “may” in Part 3 above! This document is the reason why there is so much confusion and arguments between site owners and home owners. It is the basis of the agreement which could be a commitment to a contract worth at least £145,000 and it should be crystal clear with no room for mistakes. The Site owner must be completely transparent in his dealings with residents. This is, in my opinion, the residents’ fundamental right under the rule of law. The basis of the agreement is this Written Statement which is, I quote, “required to be given to a proposed occupier of a pitch”; (please note the word proposed which implies that prospective residents should receive it before agreeing and also fully understand it). I have recently contacted many residents on park homes about their Written Statement: the Committee would be surprised at the number of residents who do not have one and will say they have never been given one. One resident showed me his “contract” written on the May 2011 BH&HPA agreement form. 1. He had received it after he had paid. 2. He was not told that his home did not have a water meter which he expected, coming from bricks and mortar, where on change of occupier the local water company insists that a meter is fitted. 3. He did not know that the electricity came as a resale item from the site owner 4. The 10% commission on resale of the home was not clearly explained.
128
Another resident who had very recently purchased a park home on a different site had the contract written out on a very old style of contract using language that is archaic. Park home rules. Both documents old and new clearly refer to them. May 2011 BH&HPA form states at 3(h) residents “must comply with the park rules. A copy of the current park rules is attached to this Written Statement”. The older agreement at 3(j) states (if you can understand this jargon) “ The occupier undertakes with the owner as follows:- To comply with the park rules from time to time in force a copy of the current park rules being annexed hereto.” What does this mean? More importantly, no one gets a copy of the rules as promised. I realise that to change the Written Statement might possibly require changes in the law which could take a lot of time but to insist that a clear English version is agreed and signed by both site owner and new park home owner before the home is paid for and occupied, should not be too difficult to organise. Before the agreement is signed by the site owner and prospective purchaser of a park home the differences between living in a park home and living independently in a bricks and mortar property should be made absolutely clear. Provision of Water Does the home have a water meter? YES/ NO How is water charged for? Is it based on number of occupants in the home? YES /NO Where are the bills the site owner pays displayed so that residents can understand how they are being charged? Use of Hose Pipes. These should be permitted providing they are hand held. Any restriction on this is a variation in the “Contract” and has to be agreed by both parties. How is the use of water by site owner paid for? This should not be included in the resident’s charge. The booklet written by OFWAT entitled “A guide to water resale” is very helpful. Example of good practice Residents on a Berkeley Home (BH) site recently received a letter regarding the cost of water which they (BH), had by negotiation, managed to reduce as follows. Year from Jan 2011, Water and Sewerage Charges 23.10 plus admin 0.40 equals £23.50 129
Year from Jan 2012, Water and Sewerage Charges 20.90 plus admin 0.40 equals £21.30. Sewerage Is this included in the pitch fee? YES /NO If yes how is it calculated for each home? If the sewerage charge is paid direct to the Water Company, specify name of Water Company Electricity. Are there any restrictions on appliances that can be installed in the home, for example power showers and wet rooms, electric ovens and hobs? YES/NO Supply This is a complicated subject as there are pros and cons with having the supply direct from the Electricity Company as opposed to buying it from the site owner. Purchasing from the Electricity Company enables residents to take advantage of dual fuel accounts with direct debits etc. However I have one site in my ward where a large nationally based company has secured an excellent deal. Example of good practice Berkeley Homes have managed to negotiate the following excellent deal for their residents. Unit price up from 7.33p to 8.37p per unit and the standing charge will increase from 4p to 27p per month plus 5% vat. They said that their existing supplier wanted 9.31p. They say that the average resident will be at least £100.00 per year better off than if they were a direct customer. Many site owners claim to do their best for their residents but do not display the site bill. Heating. This is a very difficult subject and again I think that complete transparency is necessary. Modern Park Homes seem to me to be very energy efficient with good insulation in walls, roof and the floor. However many older homes do not have these advantages which increase dramatically the cost of heating. If the home is connected to town gas then the cost of heating should not be too excessive. But if the home is all electric (unlikely) or relies on calor gas it is not only very expensive but also difficult to manage. For the prospective purchaser to be fully aware of this problem a possible solution could be to produce the heating bills for the previous 2 years for the home for any home more than 3 years old not using town gas.
130
Porches It should be clearly stated in the contract that enclosed porches are permitted of a size 1m x 2m provided the space between homes is the recommended 6m. Porches on older homes are a very important feature as not only do they help retain heat but also add greatly to the sense of security so essential for our more elderly residents. Pitch Fee This is again something requiring complete transparency. I have come across almost identical homes on similar sized plots on the same site paying up to £40 per month extra in pitch fee. This only happens because the site owner likes to keep this confidential. The only beneficiary is the site owner and it is against the interests of the home owner. Pitch Fees normally increase on a percentage basis so this gap will always be increasing. However it will also have an effect on the resale value which will not be pointed out to the purchaser at point of sale. Sale of the mobile home Please look at Page 23 of the May 2011 form published by the BH&HPA. You will find a reference to a “commission” payable to the site owner. This had been previously mentioned on Page 11 of the Statement at section 8 sub section 2 where it states “the owner shall be entitled to receive a commission on the sale at a rate not exceeding such rate as may be specified by an order made by the Secretary of State.” Section 3 further down the page seems to qualify the above statement using the word “may” and then states the maximum rate currently fixed at 10%. This jargon is completely unacceptable in today’s society. Why should the Secretary of State be involved in a contract like this? Why is this payment referred to as a “Commission”? Surely one has to earn a Commission. As Park Homes increase in value this commission is reaching unacceptable levels. The wording implies that this “commission” is negotiable; therefore this should be made clear to the prospective purchaser at the time of the initial purchase discussions. A clause this fundamental to the performance of the contract should be clearly highlighted and specifically brought to the attention of the prospective purchaser. It has also been pointed out to me by a resident that refurbishing park homes is becoming more popular. Why should the site owner gain financially from this extra investment by the home owner? 131
The Written Statement suggests that if the “proposed occupier” does not understand something they should get advice from a solicitor or a Citizens Advice Bureau. Most homes to my knowledge change hands with no legal advice and therefore it is essential that the Agreement (Written Statement) is crystal clear. Key Points It is the Council who is finally responsible for ensuring that Park Home Sites are well managed I would recommend that at the entrance to the site there must be clearly displayed, the name of the Local Authority which has issued the license The Site owner must be completely transparent in his dealings with residents. The site owner should be responsible for the provision of steps and handrail to each park home. They should be well built and designed to comply with normal building regulation standards. This I have been informed is not part of the Site Licence conditions but should be.
February 2012
132
Written submission from Mrs Shirley Dodd-Clark (PH 180) •
Resale of park homes and in particular impact of a ruling under 1983 Mobile Homes Act: Currently 10% is paid to all Park owners on resale of any properties.
•
Question of mobility i.e. lack of provision to re site a ‘ Mobile’ home
I write as a private individual who has been assisting the owner (my mother) of a Park Home currently sited at in St Ives Cambridgeshire. My mother and stepfather (now deceased) have owned their Park Home in St Ives since 1999 when they purchased it new from Berkeley Estates who own and run the site. (www.berkeleyparks.co.uk). Sadly my stepfather died in September 2010 and this left my mother alone in that area of the UK. (I live in South Wales). My mother is 82 and has some health issues which mean she needs greater assistance now that her husband has died. Therefore, she is currently in the process of moving to this area and I have been assisting her with the sale and purchase of a new property in this area. This situation has led me to delve deeper into the workings of Park Homes and I feel that the 1983 Act needs amending regarding the current 10% that is paid to the owners of the site when a Home is sold. I make this statement as in view of the current economic climate and in particular the state of the housing market, I consider this amount as excessive and feel it should be reduced to 5%(or abolished entirely) and if need be reviewed every 5 -10 years to take in to consideration present economic trends i.e. inflation and house prices. 10% of current prices make it very difficult to enable another home to be purchased in the circumstances that we find ourselves. Park owners are not obliged to offer to buy the park home and therefore it is incumbent on the owner or Executors in the case of the previous owner’s demise to sell the property. All ground rent and heating bills have to continue to be paid until such time as the property is sold. (Park Owners will only buy back at a greatly reduced price and then remove the home to bring in a new home for greater profit). This can leave families in very difficult financial circumstances. My second point regarding the mobility of mobile homes is mentioned because, In the case of Berkeley homes, they own sites all over the UK and coincidently have a site 3 miles from our home. I therefore spoke to their head office to ask if I could pay to move my mother’s home to this park. However, though it is feasible to move Park Homes they do not operate this policy. I also checked out more local individually owned sites and this was the response by all. Obviously, the owners wish to make profit from selling new homes and are not willing to be flexible in these circumstances. By continuing my research in this market I contacted Stately Albion, Newport who construct a fair proportion of the Park Homes currently sold I was given new prices of Park Homes 133
similar to my mother’s (Tredegar 44X10) @ £46000.00. A new similar construction is currently available on the Berkeley Site near us @ £85500.00. Though I appreciate that all companies have to make a profit and the incidental costs of setting up such a property could reach around £10,000 (my estimate) with transportation and set up base etc this is a very good profit margin indeed! In conclusion, though I appreciate that this is a business market, these companies are not charities and an individual’s circumstances does not oblige them to do anything more than follow their company rules, I feel that the main point I have raised regarding the 10% needs urgent reviewing. In my mother’s case, in particular her needs and age means that our hands have been tied until we could sell her property and find something affordable in this area. As a family we have fortunately been able to offer some financial assistance towards buying another property but this is not always possible for some. I look forward to hearing the outcome of this enquiry and would be grateful if you would keep me informed.
February 2012
134
Written submission from [***] (PH 181) 1) Site fees are unfortunately rising yearly but do not reflect any improvements to a very tired site. 2) The awarding and revocation of a site license can only be truly implemented if complaints or otherwise are addressed by the relevant councils and acted upon. 3) The director/manager of this site being of a despotic nature and totally unapproachable is not in any way concerned with the feelings or requests of any of the park home residents. The more vulnerable owners [i.e.] sole elderly ladies living alone are a prime target to his bullying and confrontational nature. Any improvements to homes are in the main rejected unless carried out by associate friends of the owner. Example. Because of the age and condition of boiler heating system we decided to install a more efficient central heating system. We contracted a local gas engineer to carry out this work; before this work commenced I removed the wooden surround around the gas fire to enable the engineer easier access to the removal of the boiler/fire because we decided to use our own engineer and not one of the managers associates he cut our gas supply stating that we had breached gas regulations. On contacting the gas safety council it transpired that we had not broken any rules or regulations on the contrary that this being my own dwelling that it was quite within my rights to remove the appliance. When we are sometimes away from our home on shopping trips etc. he wanders around our property and others when confronted he replied that he owned the site and we had no rights and he could go we he wished and if we didn’t like it get of the f****** site. 4) Because of the attitude of the owners we would dearly love to get of this site. BUT BECAUSE OF THE OBSCENE LEVY ON THE SALE OF OUR HOME TO THE SITE OWNERS WE TRAPPED AND UNABLE TO AFFORD TO MOVE.
February 2012
135
Written submission from South Derbyshire District Council (PH 182) Summary 1. That a comprehensive guidance document is needed as to the definition of structure; given the unusual nature of some residential structures found on park home sites. Particular emphasis on the emerging ‘log cabins’ and chalets. 2. A new approach is needed for the enforcement of both site license contraventions and hazards found within park homes. 3. a). The need to acknowledge that some park home sites comprise of units which are ‘let’ to private individuals; essentially as private rented housing and that they frequently have deficiencies which present hazards to tenants, thus, demand better regulatory control to protect potentially vulnerable persons. b). A ‘stream lining’ of the existing protection from eviction (currently CSA 1968) legislation which governs privately renting tenants who reside in caravans. 4. That Local Housing Authorities have a ‘duty’ to inspect park home sites in addition to ‘powers‘. Presently, the CSCDA only sets out a power to inspect. 5. A method of ensuring that the caravan site license holder are ‘good’ and competent individuals and such are appropriately evaluated as fit and proper persons to be the bearer of such a license. 6. That LHA’s can charge a administrative fee for the inspection of park home sites (including touring sites and static holiday sites). This should include administrative costs when ‘formal’ enforcement intervention is required i.e. the service of a statutory enforcement notice. Glossary Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 - CSCDA Caravan Sites Act 1968 - CSA Mobile Homes Act 1983 - MHA Environmental Protection Act 1990 - EPA Public Health Act 1936 (as amended) - PHA Housing Act 2004 - HA 2004 Local Housing Authority - LHA Environmental Health Officer - EHO ‘Site operator’ means the person to whom a Site License has been given and mentioned therein. 136
For the purpose of this document the term ‘park home’ includes touring caravans, mobile homes (including static ‘holiday’ caravans), twin-units within the definition of CSA 1968, MHA 1983 and the CSCDA 1960. and all structures which meet the requirements of BS3632. The term ‘unit’ has been widely used within the following text - generically meaning ‘park home’. Principle response 1. Definition of Park Home Structures. The construction of park homes can be obscure and consequently be difficult for EHO’s to interpret and legislate. It is appreciated that the Caravan Sites Act 1968 (s.13) sets out the dimensions of legally defined park homes and further perimeters (though ambiguous) are set out under the CSCDA (s.29(1) ). And yet there remains much uncertainty when council officers attempt to define some structures e.g. is it a ‘building’ or a ‘caravan’. Further, it has been noted that the popularity of ‘log cabins’ has grown in recent years. Whilst some of these structures are constructed in accordance with BS3632 (the British Standard for a caravan) many are imported or constructed as bespoke structures. This creates uncertainty as to the quality of structure – particularly given matters of fire resistance (classification of the external envelope to withstand the surface spread of flame) and thermal performance. It is well understood that park homes (as lightweight structures) can burn rapidly increasing the likelihood of harm to any occupier. With increasing case law on this matter it is suggested that an operating guidance document is produced to assist council officers (EHO’s and Building Control Officers) in matters of structure interpretation. 2. A new regulatory approach for park home contraventions. New regulatory powers should not mean burdensome regulation. Fairer regulatory powers which can be directed to park home owners (occupiers) as well as site operators (land owners). Currently, site contraventions are directed only to site operators. Whilst in many situations this is appropriate, it is not always helpful and can create ‘ad hoc‘ enforcement interventions. N.B. Whilst there are unscrupulous park home site operators, it is recognised that there are also very good operators. Currently, where site contraventions occur (a deviation of the Site License Conditions) site operators can, at times, be accused of ‘weaponising’ LHA enforcement interventions as a method enabling the eviction of site residents. It is suggested that a better regulatory approach is one where the LHA act as an intermediate between site operator and site resident.
137
Current intervention EHO Inspection. ⇓ Contravention identified (relating to specific residential unit/s). ⇓ Letter/notice to site operator. ⇓ Site operator to sanction occupier to rectify contravention. ⇓ Court action by either the site operator - against unit owner Or Court action by LHA - against site operator .
Suggested intervention EHO Inspection. ⇓ Contravention identified (relating to specific residential unit/s). ⇓⇓ Letter/notice to site operator. Letter/notice to unit occupier. EHO provides a Statement of Reason and sets out the nature of the contravention/deficiency, the remedial action required and time periods for compliance. ⇓ LHA works in default (following service of notice on both resident and site operator). And /or Court action/RPT adjudication. Example. A typical contravention entails a site resident erecting a combustible garden shed or a structural conglomeration - porches and lean-tos ; the location of which encroaches the necessary fire separation distance between an adjacent park home. 138
The perspective of the resident; the shed is their property and situated within the curtilage of their ‘home’; for which they have a right of quiet enjoyment- and pay ground rent fees. The position of the site operator; a failed obligation to ensure compliance with license conditions and facing having to apply unpopular sanctions to their residents. To assist council officers new guidance regarding the function of the LHA in situations of site disputes, including a greater use of the Residential Property Tribunal as an arbitrator would be beneficial. 3. Privately rented park homes. a) For clarification, these circumstances contrast to regular residential park home tenure in that the occupiers of a ‘unit’ do not have any ownership of the dwelling within which they live (nor the land upon which that unit is sited). Experience has shown that such people are often socially excluded, and at the lowest level of housing accessibility. Matters influencing this include, debit (often including a history of rent arrears ), drug use and anti social behaviour. Privately rented park homes often serve as the lowest common denominator in housing. Often these park homes are purchased second hand from coastal holiday parks and are already in poor condition. There is little understanding by owners (landlords) of ensuring maintenance obligations are met, including the requirements of annual Gas Safety Certificates as required by Regulation 36 of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998. The enforcement of private rented units (which are likely to be prejudicial to health) are actioned under EPA 1990 s.79 (1) - Public Health Act 1936 s.268(2)(a). It is suggested that this legislation is examined as to its appropriateness as a ‘cover-all’ for rented park home deficiencies. b). A considerable number of evictions on park home sites appear crudely executed and have little regard for the rights and welfare of tenants. The inadequate eviction requirements also make the enforcement of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 difficult for EHO‘s. It is understood that the CSA 1968 offers protection from eviction for persons living on a ’protected’ site - whether they own the unit or rent it from a site operator. In circumstances of privately rented units, the provisions of the Housing Act 1988 should be considered as means of a clear and fair eviction process. 4. Duty to inspect. Presently, requirements for local authorities to inspect park home sites are discretionary; and such inspections are generally regarded as the ‘poor relation’ to general regulatory work. 139
Greater supervision by LHA’s should help to limit many potential site conflicts and contraventions. 5. Fit and Proper Person Test. Parallels can the drawn from the management of Houses in Multiple Occupation and Residential Park Home sites. It is suggested that the competence and appropriateness of site operators are a factor of the licensing process and that the fit and proper person test (HA 2004 (Part 2 s.66) is considered as a model when developing regulatory reform. However, it is recommended that the application of the fit and proper principle (or equivalent) should relate only to commercial site operators (those sites which accommodate persons not forming a single family unit). This makes an important distinction between commercially operated sites and those which are occupied by a family group, as frequently found within the gypsy/traveller community. 6. The ability for a LHA to charge a license fee (including a cost when formal intervention is needed). The inspection of park home sites, whilst necessary, is time consuming and can demand a great deal of council resources particularly when formal interventions are required. It is requested that officer time, including overheads, be scheduled for the administration of enforcement interventions. In the interests of fairness and proportionality, they are available to relevant persons for scrutiny and if necessary challenge (a function of the RPT).
February 2012
140
Written submission from the British Holiday & Home Parks Association (PH 183) Summary Caravan Sites: • All caravans (touring, static and residential park homes) share the same legal definition. • All caravan sites (holiday, residential and touring) are regulated under the same two Acts from the 1960s. • Residential parks and pitches are regulated under the Mobile Homes Act 1983 (as amended). • Holiday and touring parks are important to the UK’s tourism economy. Abuse: • The majority of residential park owners are honest and decent, but their reputation is damaged by the activities of rogues whom they want eradicated from their industry. Enforcement: • Priority should be given to enforcement. • Increased fines would only serve as a deterrent if there are prosecutions. • Determinations of the Residential Property Tribunal should provide deterrents against bad practice. • Police should investigate and prosecute known criminals within the industry. ‘Fit and proper’ licensing: • The industry supports the principle of personal licensing, but a practical means to achieve this has yet to be established. • Criminals should be banned from owning and managing parks. • Legal and practical difficulties need to be overcome to make it possible to ban criminals from park ownership/management. Park home sales: • Any change should focus on protecting the interests of purchasers and the community of existing homeowners, as well as sellers. Funding: • Residential parks are funded from three sources (homes sold by park, pitch fees, commissions). • Pitch fees and commission reduce the initial purchase price. • If one source of income were reduced, another would need to increase to sustain the business. • Greater transparency is required.
141
Introduction Caravan Sites 1. British Holiday & Home Parks Association (BH&HPA) members own 2,918 holiday, touring, residential and mixed-use caravan parks accommodating 384,137 pitches36. 2. In law, touring caravans, static caravans and residential park homes share the same definition as ‘caravans’ and all caravan parks are regulated under the: • •
Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, and Caravan Sites Act 1968.
3. The dual control of caravan parks through planning and site licensing has allowed the development of an important sector of the UK’s tourism economy; holiday and touring parks account for £4b in turnover and expenditure, 53,000 jobs and 19.5 m visitors.37. 4. 591 BH&HPA members own 969 parks accommodating 47,612 residential pitches. Residential parks (and residential pitches on mixed-use parks) are regulated by the •
Mobile Homes Act 1983 (as amended).
The majority of these parks are family-owned micro-businesses. 5. Whilst the Association’s evidence to the CLG Select Committee focuses on the adequacy of the law in respect of residential park homes, it is important to bear in mind the 1960s Acts apply to all caravan sites. Abuses 6. There has been publicity suggesting that the majority of park homeowners live under ‘unacceptable conditions’. However, the most recent independent survey found ‘The proportion of residents satisfied or very satisfied with life on their park is 76%.’ (2002)38. We contend there has been insufficient change to support the figures now being quoted for the level of park homeowner dissatisfaction. 7. CLG Minister, Andrew Stunell, said residential parks provide ‘an economical and very successful choice for many people… Many sites are properly managed and maintained, and decent, honest and professional site owners deliver a good service for people on their sites. Unfortunately, the good work is masked by the unacceptable conduct of others.’39 36 37 38 39
BH&HPA database, January 2012 ‘UK Holiday Parks – Economic Impact’, Peter Brett Associates LLP, January 2012 Economics of the Park Homes Industry: ODPM 2002 Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Andrew Stunell, Westminster Hall, 29.11.2011
142
8. Good park owners’ business and personal reputations are damaged by the activities of a minority of rogues. BH&HPA supports measures to eradicate abuses, but this through changes which will not compromise the operation of well-run, quality parks. Any abuse is too much abuse, yet our evidence is perhaps best summed up in the words of one industry member who said, ‘unless the government are very careful indeed, they will dig a huge hole for the industry with a loophole for the rogues and a blank cheque for the lawyers’. Site Licensing and Protected Sites 9. Under the Caravan Sites Act 1968, park homeowners who station their mobile home on a ‘protected site’40 and occupy that home as their main residence, have the benefit of a residential contract, security of tenure and are protected from harassment and unlawful eviction from the park. 10. Many parks trade exclusively as holiday, residential or touring parks; others have a mix of holiday, touring and residential pitches. Local authorities issue all parks with site licences which have conditions attached; such conditions have regard to Model Standards41. It is for the park owner to comply with these conditions. 11. The current site licensing system is relatively effective in achieving its objectives to regulate the physical layout and infrastructure of residential, holiday and touring parks. 12. Many government agencies have powers to enter parks to ensure the health and safety of customers. These include Health & Safety inspectors, utility suppliers, the Environment Agency, fire service, planning officials, Environmental Health Officers, Trading Standards Officers, and the Police. These officials should be tasked with responding to park homeowners’ complaints and proactively pursuing park owners who fail to meet proper standards. Sanctions 13. Increased fines for breaches of site licence requirements may serve to improve physical conditions on parks and as a deterrent against any failures. However, sanctions would have no impact in the absence of successful prosecutions.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm111129/halltext/111129h0002.htm 40 A ‘protected site’ is defined as any land where a site licence is required, which is not a holiday park (where planning permission or site licence is expressly granted for holiday use only or where there are conditions that prevent caravans being stationed on the land at certain times of the year). 41 Model Standards 2008 for Caravan Sites in England: Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 – Section 5
143
Enforcement 14. Since park homeowners have had specific legal protections from harassment since 1968, the law alone is insufficient in the absence of effective enforcement. We therefore urge that priority is given to the enforcement necessary to safeguard park homeowners’ rights and serve as a deterrent to any criminal operating within the industry. 15. The resolution of the majority of disputes on residential parks in England was transferred to the Residential Property Tribunals (RPT) on 30 April 2011. The objective of a quicker, affordable and straightforward means for disputes to be resolved seems to have been achieved; homeowners facing abuse have gained the means to seek swift redress. Fifteen RPT Determinations have been published and the Association has disseminated these and the lessons to be drawn from them, across the BH&HPA membership. 16. However, much as the RPT allows the homeowner to achieve a relatively quick determination, to date the RPT has not awarded damages sufficient to create a deterrent. For example, four parks’ failure to observe the requirements for park home sales has been identified by RPT Determinations. If the RPT ordered the park owner to compensate the homeowner for the financial cost of the loss of their buyer, that deterrent could resolve many of the issues reported with park home sales. ‘Fit and proper’ person licensing 17. It has been proposed that a ‘fit and proper’ person licensing system should be established. Whilst following consultation the last government decided in favour of a ‘fit and proper’ person requirement as part of site licensing, it was unable to offer a practical route to achieve this. The Association has long supported the principle of a ‘fit and proper’ regime as measures are necessary to prevent those who abuse homeowners from continuing to purchase and manage parks. However, this support is given with the caveat that a workable solution must be identified that is practical and sufficient to deter the rogues. Personal vs. Premises 18. If parks’ licensing is to be developed to include ‘fit and proper’ licensing, ‘personal’ and ‘premises’ licences should be separate. The ‘premises’ element already exists as site licensing under the 1960 Act. A personal licence regime should be established separately. Such a ‘fit and proper’ person licensing regime should: • be established through a national (ideally, UK) framework to avoid duplication, create suitable expertise and save cost • be applied consistently across all parks and pitches within an individual’s control so that where a park owner is shown to be unfit, protections are put in place for homeowners on all of that individual’s parks • use transparent criteria, capable of objective application. 144
19. Consultations have proposed criteria against which applications for a ‘fit and proper’ licence should be assessed. Some are entirely reasonable such as: • unspent convictions for violence, arson, sex offences, fraud, deception, other dishonesty or drugs • convictions for harassment or eviction. 20.
Other criteria that have been proposed are more problematic such as: • failure to comply with any obligation or requirement under the Mobile Homes Act 1983. There would need to be guidance about the relative weight that should be applied to such failings. • failure to comply with any requirement under any Health and Safety or Fire Safety legislation or with any obligation or under the 1960 Act. Again, we have concerns about degrees of seriousness in relation to such offences and the weight that should be attached to them. Offences may be absolute and while ‘guilty’, the park owner may not have contributed to the offence. For example, a Fire Point vandalised after the park owners’ inspection, just a short time before the Environmental Health Officer visited the park. In such cases, a ‘due diligence’ defence should protect park owners who had taken all reasonable steps to avoid the offence.
21. There are also questions around who would be ‘fit and proper’ licence holders. For example, would they be directors of park-owning companies and/or managers responsible for individual park operation? It would be important to prevent criminal families passing responsibilities between them to circumvent the regime. 22. It would save cost if ‘grandfather rights’ applied to park owners with a good record. The ‘fit and proper’ licensing schemes proposed to date lay the onus on the park owner to prove their fitness, placing a burden on the majority of professional park owners. This contradicts the principles of better regulation and could create an unnecessary burden on a park business and its customers. An alternative to a ‘fit and proper’ licensing regime would be to tackle the issues from the opposite direction. Could those who are unfit be banned from park operation? Criminals 23. Reports indicate a criminal element is purchasing residential parks. The Association calls for greater priority to be given by the police to tackle criminality in the industry. We support the words of Detective Inspector Mark Colquhoun of West Mercia Police (responsible for the prosecution of the Doherty brothers at the Glen Residential Park) in his
145
guidance42 which says ‘allegations of park home criminality should be referred to a criminal investigation department for initial assessment.’ 24. He noted that not every incident reported will involve a crime. There are reports of harassment and abuse by park owners. At one end of the spectrum is the case which resulted in the prosecution of the Doherty brothers, convicted of conspiracy to arson, defraud and blackmail. The Doherty brothers’ activities were criminal and, where similar activity is encountered the full force of the law should rightly be brought to bear on the perpetrator. However, were it not for the arson involved in the Doherty case, it is questionable whether the police would have become involved at all. 25. The other end of the spectrum finds good park owners accused of harassment by park homeowners when, for example, they are seeking compliance with the local authority’s demand that a homeowner’s porch is altered to comply with site licence requirements. There are also cases where vindictive homeowners pursue their park owner with vexatious complaints, frequently upsetting neighbouring homeowners in the process. 26. Disputes also arise between neighbours on a park, with the park owner being accused of failings where this arises. A case recently before the RPT found that the park owner had not acted unreasonably in his inability to resolve a dispute about wheelie bins between two neighbours. Instead, the Tribunal urged the applicant to seek an amicable resolution with her neighbour. Preventing criminals owning and managing parks 27. Detective Inspector Mark Colquhoun attended the All Party Parliamentary Group for the Welfare of Park Homeowners (APPG) on 7 December 2011. The Minutes43 note: ‘Andrew Turner MP asked whether Mark Colquhoun would support bringing in a ‘fit and proper person’ test for park owners. In response Mark Colquhoun said that he didn’t think it would achieve what some members of the APPG would expect. It was his view that, for example, the Dohertys would have passed such a test because they didn’t have any convictions.’ 28. There is a small number of criminals who own parks whose names are well known. Their names are often cited at meetings of the APPG. Many have been named in Parliament. Dr Sarah Wollaston MP noted ‘the relatively small number of names cropping up all over the country’44. It is this handful of criminals who give rise to the vast majority of harassment and abuses reported, and the priority is to address these.
42
Criminality within the Park Home Industry : Best Practice Guidance, Detective Inspector Mark Colquhoun, West Mercia Constabulary 43 Minutes of the APPG for the Welfare of Park Homeowners – 7.12.2011 44 Westminster Hall Debate 29.11.2011 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm111129/halltext/111129h0002.htm
146
29. For example, The Daily Telegraph reported on 14 December 201145: ‘In 2005 residents of Ladycroft Park in Blewbury, Oxfordshire, obtained a court order against [***] in which he agreed not to threaten, abuse or harass residents, and not to block sales. In 2006 local MP Ed Vaizey told Parliament that he had made residents’ lives “a living hell” through intimidation.’ In the context of residential parks, police and local authorities appear unwilling to act yet, The Guardian reported on 14 December 201146: ‘Maurice Sines and James Crickmore, both former racehorse owners, were found by the BHA [British Horseracing Authority] to have been at the centre of the corruption of 10 races …. Both were banned from racing for 14 years.’ It is wrong that despite the Court Order against Mr Sines, he can continue to own parks, whilst the horseracing fraternity receives greater protection. 30. Or, the Doherty brothers are serving lengthy jail sentences; upon release, there is seemingly nothing to prevent them from purchasing a park and starting their evil work again. 31. Rather than an expensive system obliging all park owners to prove their fitness, the ability to ban individuals from park operation (not only residential parks, but a ban on all ‘caravan sites’ as defined by the 1960 Act) would halt the harassment and provide a strong deterrent to other criminals who might be attracted to the industry. Licence revocation 32. It is important that the difficulties of banning an individual from park ownership and management are not underestimated. Local authorities already have powers to revoke site licences (1960 Act). However, we believe such action has only ever been taken once, perhaps due to important implications needing to be taken into account, including: • establishing a suitable manager (management company) to continue running the park for the wellbeing of park homeowners • financing, including funds to pay bills (for example, for utilities) and enable essential maintenance work to be carried out (pitch fee income alone would be insufficient: see later, paragraph 48.) • the criminal would own, and may live on, park land. Park home sales 33. Park homeowners are lobbying for a change in the law to address private park home sales. The APPG minutes report Detective Inspector Mark Colquhoun’s view that ‘The key regulation in question, has to be the site owner’s ability to effectively block the sale of residents’
45
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/horseracing/8957436/Maurice-Sines-and-James-Crickmore-have-neverbeen-far-away-from-controversy.html 46 http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/dec/14/british-horseracing-authority-corruption-bans
147
homes’47. Determinations by the Residential Property Tribunal Service have identified four park owners who have abused their role in private sales. 34. Therefore, reform is necessary. However, whilst not seeking to disadvantage a seller, the focus in the sale process should also be on the purchaser’s interests. A good park owner undertakes this role today. Any proposals to prescribe or limit the role of the park owner in the sales transaction need to take full account of the purchaser’s requirements, for their protection and in the interests of the community living on the park. 35.
Transparency is essential to ensure an informed purchase, including that buyers: • • • • •
can review the Written Statement that would be assigned to them with their purchase, outlining their rights and responsibilities are aware of the condition of the home through an independent survey are advised by the seller of any issues concerning the structural integrity of the home or breach of site licence understand their financial obligations in terms of future payment of the pitch fee, commission and utilities charges etc. are aware of, and can comply with, any requirements of the Park Rules (for example relating to age, pets, children, maintenance of the home etc.).
36. Good park owners endeavour to ensure a buyer has the information necessary for their purchase so they can understand the legal relationship that will be assigned to them. A departing homeowner does not have the same interest in the future of the park. For example, to understand the rights and responsibilities of park home ownership, it is essential a purchaser is provided a copy of the Written Statement that will be assigned to them. The law requires that the Written Statement is provided 28 days before commitment to purchase for sales by a park owner, but there are no similar provisions for sales by a homeowner. 37. The condition of the home can give rise to difficulties for an incoming purchaser. Park owners are criticised for recommending that a survey should be conducted before purchase (yet no Building Society would be criticised for requiring a survey before granting a mortgage). To avoid criticism of the park owner and to protect the incoming purchaser, an independent survey should be a requirement for all purchases of second-hand park homes. 38. There should be a requirement (with appropriate sanctions) for the seller to inform the purchaser of any issues with regard to the condition of the home. Again, the law already provides protections for a business-to-consumer sale which do not apply to these consumerto-consumer transactions. 39. The clarification of the park home sales and assignment process should spell out the grounds on which the park owner should reasonably withhold approval of a purchaser, in the 47
Minutes of the APPG for the Welfare of Park Homeowners – 7.12.2011
148
interest of the community resident on the park. These criteria for withholding approval would include: • • • •
inability to prove identity inability to meet the ongoing cost of park homeownership (pitch fee, utilities charges, maintenance of the home etc.) inability to comply with any Park Rules (relating to age, pets, children etc.) evidence of an individual’s or family member’s criminal record or other anti-social behaviour.
40. Sufficient time is necessary for such transactions on purely practical grounds, including the 28 day requirement to review the Written Statement (which could be curtailed by mutual agreement). 41. Whilst the debate becomes polarised with all park owners characterised as unscrupulous and all homeowners as innocent victims, the evidence and common sense indicate that this is not the case. Many park owners are honest, decent people and some homeowners are unreasonable. When selling their home, many have no interest in the future of the park and protections are essential in the interest of the purchaser and the existing community of homeowners. Economics 42. The economics of the industry have been the subject of government research and consultation. Pitch fees and commission cannot be considered separately. Funding 43.
Residential Parks are funded through three sources of revenue: • homes sold by the park owner • pitch fees • commissions on sales by assignment. These allow park business to obtain a ‘return on its considerable investment in the site and the infrastructure’48.
Homes sold by the park owner 44. Through the initial purchase price, the purchaser buys the park home along with rights and responsibilities on the pitch and park. The price paid is a market rate which is considerably lower than the price for the freehold of a bungalow of equivalent size because, instead of a higher price, there are ongoing payments of pitch fees and commission to be met. 48
George and Loochin vs. Commissioners of Inland Revenue 2003, Judgement of the Court of Appeal
149
45. This opportunity to pay less now is one of the key attractions of park home living (given the release of equity, human nature etc.). Pitch fees 46. The homeowner is required to pay the pitch fee as long as they wish to keep their home on the land. 47.
The pitch fee is payment for both • •
the services received (e.g. infrastructure for utilities, sewerage, roads, lighting, ground maintenance etc.) and a rent for the use of the park owner’s land.
48. Given the close tying of annual reviews with the RPI, pitch fees have not kept pace with real cost increases over time so many park business could not be sustained by pitch fee income alone. Commissions on sales by assignment 49. Commission income funds the lower initial purchase price and lower pitch fees (both intrinsic to the attraction of park home living). It recognises the park owner’s investment in land and infrastructure, rights over which are sold when the park home changes hands. 50. When the park home is sold by assignment, the purchaser acquires the park home (property of the park homeowner) and rights over the land (property of the park owner). 51. At no stage has the park owner sold the title to the land. In 1983, in altering the balance of rights between park owner and homeowner, Parliament decreed that the park owner’s interest in the land should continue to be recognised through the payment of commission in sales transactions, to a maximum value of 10% of the transaction. 52. Commission income has allowed the initial purchase price and pitch fees to have been set lower than would otherwise have been required to ensure the viability of the business, thereby increasing the attraction of park home living (‘pay less now’). 53. Different park businesses are at different stages of their lifecycle and this will have considerable bearing on the proportion of income from the different sources, as well as the different costs to be met. With little opportunity for new park home development and the lengthening life-span of park homes, parks are becoming increasingly reliant on income from pitch fees and commissions. 54. It is a common misconception that the commission payment is akin to an estate agent’s fee. As explained above, this is wide of the mark. 150
55. The Government’s survey (2002)49 confirmed that if one source of income were reduced, another would need to increase to sustain residential park businesses. Transparency 56. Transparency of the tripartite payment system is essential to ensure park home purchasers and homeowners understand their obligations. 57. The Implied Term relating to commission is prescribed in the Mobile Homes Act 1983 but should be more clearly and prominently stated in plain English. This would make it easier for buyers to understand the obligation to pay commission when they eventually sell, whilst they review the Written Statement before commitment to purchase. Such understanding could be assisted by a mechanism to ensure that all, whether buying from a park owner or from an existing homeowner, were given the same opportunity to review the Written Statement in advance of their purchase. Conclusion 58. BH&HPA calls for measures to rid the sector of rogue park operators. The Association is equally committed to ensuring good park businesses and their customers are not penalised with unworkable requirements or unnecessary costs and administrative burdens. February 2012
49
Economics of the Park Homes Industry: ODPM, October 2002
151
Written submission from Hullbridge Parish Council (PH 184) Where it is appreciated some park home site owners are better landlords than others, evidence that has been gathered shows that tighter controls and monitoring is required on site owners. • •
•
•
• • •
•
Licenses should be reviewed every 5 – 7 years to assess their current suitability and there should be a power for Councils to vary the license if deemed necessary. More powers should be given to Licensing Authorities to ensure sites are maintained to a safe standard and there should be a compulsory annual inspection of the site by the Licensing Authority. The site owners should be given an agreed period in which to rectify faults and if not completed by a required time the Licence could be revoked. However, there should be some built-in safeguard for residents’ security of tenure if the Licence is revoked. It is considered this regulation is needed as some of the sites in this parish have unmaintained common walkways, access roads between units too narrow for emergency vehicles and unclear and illogical numbering of units which delay response times during emergencies. Following from this and the fact that many park home site owners do not observe regulations the revocation of site licences should be made easier for the Licensing Authority. Site managers should be licensed, trained in basic first aid and particularly on age restricted sites should be trained to deal sympathetically with residents that are vulnerable. Site owners should not have the power to dictate on selling units or purchase of replacement units by residents. Commission which the site owners are allowed to charge residents on a sale is too high and should be capped as this on occasions acts as a block on sales. On some sites it is not possible for residents to shop around for the provision of utilities and on those sites that provide services there should be a cap on the administration fees. Although there is an Arbitration Tribunal, a number of residents have reported intimidation by the site owners and threatened eviction. The Tribunal is not suitable for vulnerable residents and is also too costly.
Case History 1
Resident of a mobile home site in this parish.
1.1
He purchased a Park Home on the site in the 1980's
1.2 During his occupation of that Park Home the resident was never late with any pitch fees or payments of any sort. However in the early 2000's he became very ill with, he believed, only a few years or even months to live. At this point the owner of the park offered to buy his Park Home from him for £2,000. This was far below its true value but as the resident was not really 152
in his normal state of mind he accepted. A new Park Home was put in its place and sold for £68,000. 1.3 The resident acceptance was conditional on a promise made to him of a new Park Home where he could stay for the rest of his life. He occupied the Park Home for one year (it was an old dilapidated one not a new one as promised), paying rent and all bills on time with no problems. In around 2006-7 however he was moved to another Mobile Home (very poor state with rotten windows and a hole in the floor) which he has continued to occupy to date, again paying the rent and all bills on time with no problems. 1.4 The same Park Home he currently occupies has now been sold, without the resident being notified, and he is currently being evicted. In summary, there is insufficient protection against site owners who flout the rules and intimidate residents, insufficient powers given to Licensing Authorities to regulate the sites. There should be a built in protection for those residents who are vulnerable
February 2012
153
Written submission from the Turners Hill Park Residents’ Association (PH 186) This submission is made on the adequacy of the law as it currently affects park home owners. Ø Site fees – It is assumed that this subject refers to the proposal put forward in 2011 to consider enabling Local Authorities to charge site owners for their licensing functions. It is further assumed that such a levy would not be retrospective, but only for new parks or licences. We have no further comment on this proposal, other than to express concern that site owners may attempt to pass such a levy on to residents by using section 7(a) (iii) of the Express Terms. If such a proposal were to be considered, then this section of the Express Terms would also need to be reworded to stop owners attempting to pass on this fee. Ø Site Licences – Legislation is needed to ensure that Local Authorities meet their obligations in ensuring that site license conditions are met. Particularly if site fees are introduced. Ø Fit & Proper person – This is welcomed but, the fit & proper test should be applied to the Park Owner as well as to the Park Manager. Ø Protection of occupiers of Park Homes against harassment and illegal evictions. This is already dealt with through the County Courts, however, it is necessary that some change in legislation enforces local police to action these cases rather than them being viewed as civil matters. Ø Resale of park homes and resale fees – this is probably the largest problem suffered by park home owners. Legislation is urgently required to block this practice. The vetoing of sales across a park must be stopped as must the practice of insisting that certain works must be carried out, or that a home is ‘unfit’, thus allowing the park owner to offer a paltry sum for the home. Park homes are the residents main home, and are therefore their main investment, however in law, our homes are seen as ‘chattels’ not property. Residents of parks pay council tax and in the main pay for their own utilities. What would make a momentous impact would be for our homes to be recognised as ‘property’ in the same way as leasehold properties are recognised.
February 2012
154
Written submission from A L & A E Lee & Sons (PH 187) We are a park in Mid Cornwall with approximately 110 Park Homes, we have owned the park for25years and belong to the British Holiday & Home Parks Association. There is a Residents Association with whom we work very closely. During the time of our park home ownership/ living we have found the day to day running of the park absolutely fine. Each year we send out our pitch fee increase letter (it did decrease on 2009/10 reflecting the negative RPI) and we have never received any written letters of complaint about increases. When each prospective resident comes to visit the park and view the homes for sale (either direct to us or with an estate agent) we always let them have a copy of the Agreement (Mobile Homes Act 1983) that they will be signing and a list of the charges related to living on the park, they then have an opportunity to read and peruse the agreement / reassignment and a chance to ask any questions, either from ourselves or a professional body. When we assign the Agreement, we always ask if they have read and understood the conditions. We feel that over the years the amount of changes and legislation to the running of the park has increased significantly and that there are plenty of laws rules and regulations already in place for the running of a park. The local environmental health officers have control of the site licence and need to have the resources to ensure all of the conditions are being adhered to by all parks with licences. We would have no problem with the idea for a fit and proper person, but to our minds it would be an absolute nightmare to enforce, that is if everyone co-operated, would it be the Owner, Owners, management, Manager/ess partnership etc.etc, It’s those who breech the current rules and legislation that are giving the park home industry a bad name. We are strongly in favour of enforcement by Police and local authorities to deal with the Rogue Owners who harass and abuse park home residents. We have first-hand experience that park owners may also be harassed, In 2003 we tried to resolve a dispute between neighbours ( which did breech the MHA 1983) It ended up being taken to court in December 2007 by the resident, accusing us of harassment. Briefly;- in court we were supported by our residents of the park; the judge dismissed the case, ordered that the claimant met our legal cost and issued an injunction to prevent them harassing us further. We would be pleased to provide details of the case. Injunction Order In The Bodmin County Court Claim Number 6BJ01184. 155
In 2007 there was a study done by the government on the 10% commission, which felt that it is justifiable. Please see http://www.communities.gov.uk/archived/publications/housing/parkhomecommissionrate Park home living is an ideal way for persons to retire / semi retire in a safe and controlled environment with neighbours that know one another. We used to have about 10 enquiries a week, due to the current housing sales situation we have had 1 so far this year we are very concerned at present about the bad press that is being generated towards Park Homes and the negative effect it will have on the value of the owners of the homes.
February 2012
156
Written submission from Mr T G Scott (PH 188) I fully support the submission made by our Residents Association but would like to emphasise some of the major points. SUMMARY • Site Fees – increases should be based on CPI • Site Licence – closer control by local authority with involvement of Residents association • Fit and Proper Person – support proposals put forward by the Park Home Owners Justice Campaign • Sale of Homes – site owners involvement in sales be strictly controlled and the 10% commission abolished DETAILED POINTS Site Fees The CPI is generally lower than the RPI which is presumably why the Government and others have chosen to apply it to income, pensions etc. In the pursuit of fairness and consistency, the 1983 Act should now be amended to refer to CPI as the maximum increase allowed. In addition, at the annual review the site owner should be obliged to produce audited Annual Accounts to justify any increase at all. Site Licence Now that Residents Associations can become “qualifying”, they should play a part in the review of licence holders. I believe there should be compulsory meetings of the Council, the site owner and the qualifying Residents Association every year to review management of the site with a statutory duty to agree and implement joint action plans. Fit and Proper Person I fully support the views recently put forward by the Park Home Owners Justice Campaign. It is imperative that proper controls are put in place to safeguard the interests of vulnerable home owners. In recent parliamentary debates many examples have been given of dubious and sometimes illegal practices by a minority. Nevertheless suitable legislation should be introduced even if only a small number need to be reined in - most citizens in the UK are not thieves but we still need laws to control the small number that are. Sale of Homes There is far too much opportunity for unscrupulous or even illegal action on the part of site owners at the time of sale. The buyer and seller should have the legal protection of all actions, views etc of site owners only being allowed in the presence of an independent solicitor. The 10% commission should be abolished. It was introduced in 1983 to protect site owners who were trying to convince the government of the day that they could not survive financially without it and who probably threatened to torpedo the act without this sop. If a tenant leaves 157
a rented property they do not have to pay a 10% tax to the landlord. Why should park home owners? February 2012
158
Written submission from Warfield Park Homes Limited (PH 189) • • •
•
•
• • • •
•
Park operators are already subject to many rules and regulations — pitch fee RPI cap, cost pass-through cap for utilities, site licence conditions Park home owners have many avenues to pursue grievances — the local council, Consumer Direct, residential property tribunal, small claims court These avenues cover overcharging for services, non-recognition of residents associations, blocking of sales and health and safety standards within parks, combined with criminal law which covers matters such as harassment and illegal eviction Local councils already have significant powers, with the ability to set standards, ensure those standards are enforced and to revoke the site licence after 2 breaches A national licensing scheme with a fit and properness test is likely to be expensive and is unlikely to be the panacea that many see it as Where existing legislation or methods of recourse are deficient, small, well judged tweaks to close loop-holes and ensure that methods of recourse have sufficient "bite" seem the best course of action — very much as the Government is currently doing with the residential property tribunal In this vein, increasing the maximum fine applicable for a breach of site licence from £2,500 seems sensible There must be a focus on enforcement of the current legislation, with local councils willing to make use of their significant site licensing powers A focus is also needed on consumer education so that people know the proper route to take to pursue their grievances effectively Any new legislation required must seek to simplify, have sufficient "bite" as to be effective and be properly enforced, but should also take into account the majority of upstanding park operators and seek to minimise any cost or further restriction to them It seems sensible that any new legislation ought to mirror/make use of what exists and has proved effective in related sectors, rather than attempting to re-invent the wheel for the park home industry
1. Park Income Across the industry, park income is based around a tripartite system of streams: 1. Pitch/site fees 2. Commission on second hand home sales 3. Sales price received for newly developed homes Any consideration of the park homes industry must be sure to remember all of these elements, rather than examine any one in isolation, It should also be remembered that in a "mature" park50, the revenue stream will comprise of just 1 and 2.
50
One where no further new homes are able to be developed.
159
1.1 Pitch/Site Fees As noted in the Westminster Hall debate of 291 " November 2011, increases in the pitch fee are strictly limited to inflation, as measured by changes in the RPI. Separate charges may be levied for the provision of services, but are governed by strict cost pass-through regimes under Ofwat and Ofgem. Any administration charge that is to be charged must be reasonable and its method of calculation must be fair and transparent, with residents entitled to see the underlying bills. Administration charges also have strict caps imposed upon them. A park owner cannot recharge for anything except the supply to the home and the pitch; street and office lighting, for example, are non-rechargeable. Excessive charges can be recovered by the homeowner via the small claims court. This appears to be a very robust regulatory regime and certainly in our experience has been very effective. We would see any problems of excessive charging arising from a problem of enforcement and awareness, rather than a problem of legislation. 1.2 Commission on Second Hand Home Sales This is charged at up to 10% of the sale price agreed between two market participants. It is our strong view that this is a vital source of income for parks, particularly once they reach the "mature" stage, as the RPI inflation pitch fee increase cap severely limits any return on investment a park owner can achieve through the pitch fee. The commission charged also acts to further align the interests of the homeowner and the park owner in maximising the value of the property and the park environment. 1.3 Sales Price Received for Newly Developed Homes This is as with any new house sold on the open market. It should be remembered that this is only a source of income to a park while it is able to still develop new pitches. 2. Site Licensing 2.1 Awarding and Revocation of Site Licences Site licences are awarded by the local council and come with conditions (set by the council) attached which govern such matters as the layout of the park, provision of facilities and park maintenance. A council can alter the licence conditions at any time, with licence holders given the opportunity to make representations about proposed changes. The council can only refuse an application for a licence if there is no planning consent, or if the courts have prevented a licence being issued (having had a licence revoked in the past 3 years). 2.2 Regulation and Enforcement of Site Licence Conditions The local council are responsible for ensuring that the site licence conditions are met by the park owner. If people believe that there has been a breach of licence conditions, they can contact the council or can contact Consumer Direct. If a breach of licence is found, a maximum fine of £2,500 can be levied and the local council can apply to the courts to have the licence revoked after the second breach of a site licence. If any required corrective work is not done, or not done to the standard required by the council then the council can undertake such work and recover the costs from the park operator. It 160
could be argued that the maximum fine is too low and therefore doesn't act as a sufficient deterrent where unscrupulous behaviour could benefit operators by tens of thousands of pounds. However, the potential revoking of a licence after 2 breaches (recently reduced from 3) does seem a strong deterrent and seems a satisfactory method for ensuring compliance with licence conditions. The local council also has significant power to ensure compliance with its ability to perform inspections, undertake works and recover the costs from the operator. 3. "Fit and Proper" Criteria We concur with the point raised in the debate of 29`" November 2011 that good park home owners should have nothing to fear from a fit and proper person test. Our concern is that such a test would be expensive to administrate and would ultimately be subjective, allowing the system to be gamed by unscrupulous operators. We agree with the Government that the benefits of such a "fit and proper" licensing system are not clear enough, and certainly it is not close enough to being the panacea that some believe it to be, to warrant the cost such a system would entail. 4. The Unreasonable Blocking of Park Home Sales It is clear that this is a deplorable practice and cannot be allowed to continue. The current avenue for recourse by the property owner is to go to a residential property tribunal. The Government is currently in the process of ensuring that this tribunal has the necessary powers to be effective and we would sincerely hope that, once the Government's changes are complete, this forms a credible and effective solution to the problem. 5. Residents Associations We strongly feel that residents associations have a large role to play within the sectors just as they do within the social housing sector. We are aware that, just as with landlords, you can have both good ones and bad ones and we have experienced both. The requirement to obtain recognition from the park owner reflects the practice within the leasehold sector and if unreasonably withheld or terminated, can be taken up with a residential property tribunal. This seems a reasonable framework and it is sensible that it mirrors standard practice in the leasehold sector. Indeed, it seems sensible to us that if any new legislation is to be put in place, it ought to mirror what already exists and has proved effective in other similar sectors, such as the leasehold sector. 6.
Protection of Park Home Occupiers against Harassment and Illegal Eviction Our view is that both of these are crimes which should be reported to the police and dealt with accordingly, such as under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. We would also note that the experience in our area is that the unscrupulous operators also use harassment against local council members in order to prevent the rules being enforced. We should include in this evidence that we have had instances of park workers being harassed by residents. 161
In our own normal business experience, we have been accused of harassment when it was, in fact, simply a necessary method of communication. In the past we have increased our pitch fee and a resident disagreed with this increase. We exchanged several letters on the matter but were unable to reach an agreement. We therefore needed to take the matter to the next stage for resolution. We wrote to the resident informing them that this would be the case and that we had therefore instructed our lawyers to act as such and we were then accused of harassment by the resident. Such claims of harassment are thus misconstrued and reported as such in error. 7. Conclusions It is gratifying to see the acknowledgment in the debate of 29th November 2011 that "many sites are properly managed and maintained, and decent, honest and professional site owners deliver a good service for people on their sites". We agree that the same small number of names reoccur when bad practices are brought to light and would certainly like to see them brought to justice; they have caused our industry to be tarred with the same brush as them for far too long.
However, we are also keen to ensure that any measures taken to eliminate these practices from our industry do not also create a rod for the reputable park operator's back. Reputable park operators are subject to numerous rules, checks and regulations and park home owners have numerous routes to pursue grievances. Increased regulation is likely to lead to increased costs, which operators would necessarily seek to pass on to consumers if service levels are to be maintained. At a time where the profitability of the industry as a whole is under pressure, it is important that in seeking to eliminate rogue operators, the park home industry and the affordable homes it provides are not also eliminated as a result of cost increases. As was noted in the debate of 29th November 2011, "there is a complexity in knowing who residents should go to with their complaints". A prime concern of ours is that any additional legislation would simply add a further layer of complexity. The existing framework of legislation seems to us to have all the requisite parts, so only minor tweaks would be necessary to improve its effectiveness. Ensuring that, where possible, park home legislation matched that of the leasehold and other similar sectors would help to simplify matters for consumers and reduce the idiosyncrasies of the sector. Our strong view is that there should be a focus on enforcement, as any rule is only effective to the extent that it is enforced, and education, as homeowners cannot exercise their powers if they do not know they have them. Adding more rules and powers will not help if they are neither enforced by the relevant authorities nor known about by the consumer. This is apparent with the complaints of excessive utility charges, where an extremely robust regulatory structure exists and so if the problem continues, it can only be as the result of poor awareness, poor enforcement, or both. February 2012 162
Written submission from Mel Preston and other residents (PH 190) 1) Site Fees In respect of the site fees following the RPI, most people living in park homes are semi retired/retired and on pensions/fixed income. If the site fees keep pace with the RPI and continue to increase above the rate of inflation many residents will find themselves unable to afford the fees. There should be a ceiling for fees. Also, an itemised account of services included in the site fees should be standard as with council tax. 2) Resale of Park Homes and Resale Fees. From the sale of a park home one is expected to pay 10% to the park owner. This seems to be excessive and should be reduced by at least 50% if not abolished altogether. When you buy a park home, depending on where it is sited determines the cost. i.e.: Our home was well under £100,000 yet due to its location we paid £200,000. Therefore we have already paid for the plot that the home is sited on and yet should we sell we have to pay a further 10%. This can't be right. This email is also on behalf of our neighbours who do not have access to email.
February 2012
163
Written submission from Mrs Pamela Hutchins (PH 191) Please take note of this letter in to the Select Committee. SITE FEES should be separate amounts for a Single and Double Home. Site Licence should be displayed at all times.(Oar’s is not). Site Licence Conditions should be enforced. A Fit and Proper Person must be able to cope with ALL problems on the Park. Which is not happening here? We would like to see the Local Authority have more say in the running of the Park, if not to be able to take it over. Resale of Park Homes and Resale Fees. Owner is stopping SALES on this Park, and two families have just Sold to the Owner for a pittance, when they were both valued over £15,000. This is a DISGRACE and must be stopped.
February 2012
164
Written evidence submitted from Provincial Town Properties Ltd (PH 192) SITE FEES. These are linked to the RPI, whereas operating costs such as construction materials have increased in excess of the RPI. This results in older agreements being out of touch with current expenditure. As a park owner one relies on commission from sales to make up the shortfall. AWARDING AND REVOCATION OF SITE LICENCES. The site licence of a park tends to awarded to a new owner automatically. Revocation of a site licence is virtually unheard of as any local authority would have a large number of homeless people on its hands. REGULATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF SITE LICENCE CONDITIONS. There are a number of antiquated conditions that date back to the sixties, such as having fire extinguishers located on the park encouraging senior citizens to tackle fires rather than leaving it to the fire brigade. Also the requirement for site telephones in the era of the mobile phone. We have not had any problems with enforcement in fact the EHO have been helpful in dealing with spacing requirements which can take decades to resolve. NEED FOR MANAGER OF SITE TO BE FIT AND PROPER PERSON. We assume manager means management as in ownership. Our trade association, the BHHPA recognised the problem some twenty years ago and proposed some form of regulation but no action was taken. We have now had the high profile case where park owners have been imprisoned reflecting badly on the whole industry. We can understand the wish for some form of licence such as that for the licensing trade but will current human rights and resettlement of offenders legislation allow this? Will it be possible to bar the “gentlemen” who are serving prison sentences for intimidation and harassment from resuming their business once they are released? REGULATION OF PARKS OWNED BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES. From our experience, having offered to purchase one council owned park, these parks seem to be the least likely to conform to site licence conditions. Probably due to the difficult situation the EHO finds himself in where he has to deal with his own employers and political masters to enforce conditions. PROTECTION OF OCCUPIERS AGAINST HARASSMENT AND ILLEGAL EVICTION. The existing law has adequate measures to deal with this problem as shown by the recent high profile case already mentioned. However, it does need the authorities to co-ordinate their actions on behalf of residents.
165
RESALE OF PARK HOMES AND RESALE FEES. There are always a vociferous number of residents complaining about the commission on sale even though they have agreed to the payment in writing in the agreement. They have to be reminded that this was compensation for the owner on the taking of his land and the provision of a virtual freehold to the resident at no cost to the resident. The commission is a vital part of the park’s income and compensation for the far fewer sales that are able to be made due to there being no end term to the mobile home agreement. This has been explained and analysed in detail by previous government enquiries and always accepted as a necessary part of the park’s income. What these residents often fail to understand is that if the park is not financially viable and the park owner goes bankrupt the value of the park and the homes on it will decrease in value by a much greater amount than the commission. It is also necessary for the successful park owner to have funds to purchase older homes sited for say forty of fifty years and remove them so that the base and services can be brought up to modern standards and preserve the value of the remaining homes on the park. CONCLUSION. We believe there are sufficient rules and regulations to deal with the situations that can arise from the odd rogue operator or financially embarrassed owner but they are not always applied. A local authority has the power to deal with all the complaints but often does not. No doubt the end result will be more regulation and an increase in operating costs without any allowance for an increase in income. This will result in fewer funds to deal with problems and therefore more complaints. In difficult times the assumption that costs can always be taken from profits is a false premise as firstly one has to ensure that a profit exists.
February 2012
166
Written submission from [***] (PH 193) 1.
Introduction
•
This memorandum is provided in response to a request for submissions dated 21st December 2011. It makes the following points: ¾ broadly speaking, the current laws are adequate, but the enforcement of those laws is woefully inadequate, ¾ in my opinion, “rogue owners” are those park owners whose actions impact unfairly on individual residents, rather than residents as a whole, ¾ from my limited experience, their targets are the more vulnerable residents, who do not have the mental, physical or financial strength to stand up for themselves, ¾ “rogue owners” are not stupid; they behave the way they do because they think that can get await with it, and ¾ a national enforcement body is therefore required with a clear mandate to aggressively root out such owners, and the powers to do so.
•
I have spent an extended period with someone living on a mobile home park. Whilst that person has never suffered any problems from the park owner, some other residents do regard him as a “rogue”. Since this memorandum deals with general principles, it is unnecessary to identify that owner, but I do refer to specific events on this particular park to illustrate the more general points I wish to make.
2.
The players
2.1
Mobile home residents pay a considerable sum to purchase their homes (although rather less than bricks and mortar properties), but they only rent the land upon which their home stands. The effective lease period is effectively much less than in flat leaseholds, and they have fewer protections under the law.
2.2
Where I have stayed, the owners are retired or on low-pay. Either they have traded down (off the property ladder) to release equity, or they simply cannot afford to live in bricks and mortar. They own depreciating assets, with no real hope of exit, except to a home, or through death. For this site, both in terms of poverty and age, the vast majority of owners must therefore be considered as vulnerable.
2.3
Residents’ Associations can play an important role in ensuring that home owners are able to enjoy the “quiet enjoyment” of their homes that the law demands, particularly when they represent the majority of residents on any park. Just like any business owner, park owners will bend the rules a little from time to time, but properly constituted residents’ association can exert significant influence to mitigate any damage to residents as a whole. 167
2.4
Unfortunately, unrepresentative residents’ associations sometimes act with the wrong motives – opposing the park owners for the sake of it. This appears to have been the case where I have stayed. The consequence is usually to harden differences between the parties instead of resolving them.
2.5
Park owners are in business to make money; unfortunately, this is something many residents fail to appreciate. Nevertheless, the park owner’s best interests must be served by the smooth running of their parks and the contentment of the residents. Indeed, a positive “vibe” can enhance the attraction for new purchasers and increase the value of a park as a whole to potential bidders.
2.6
Park owners make their money in three ways: (I) pitch fee, (ii) onward sale fee (a maximum of 10% of sales value) and (iii) profit from new sales. In my view, income sources and the limits set down in the law are perfectly reasonable. In purely numerical terms, the park owner makes most money from selling new homes so, once a park is full, there is therefore relatively little opportunity for very substantial new income unless the park owner is able to find a way to regain control of individual plots.
2.7
Rogue owners may be characterised in my mind as those owners whose desire to maximise income from their investment in a park leads them to treat individual residents unfairly. This mistreatment can come in a variety of ways, including personal harassment, threats to move – or remove - homes, etc. Often, harassment comes from the local park management, which feels that it can operate outside the rules because that is (or is thought to be) the objective of the owners.
2.8
The rogue owner has the greatest financial incentive to make a resident’s life difficult when that resident wishes to sell. That incentive comes from persuading the resident to sell his or her home to the rogue owner at the lowest price possible, so that he can replace it with a brand new home that will command an income many times the onward sale fee due from that resident if the property was sold to a third party.
2.9
Local Authorities are assumed to be the first port of call when a problem arises since it is the local authority that provides the site licence that permits the park owner to operate the park. However, the problem may well be unrelated to the site licence itself. A lot of problems caused by rogue owners (e.g., unfair terms in contracts, or resisting a resident using anything other than “approved” contractors for maintenance work) are matters that are more properly dealt with by trading standards teams, which are run by county councils.
2.10
Where a resident is vulnerable, and something goes badly amiss, their limited financial means often leads to the victim seeking refuge and financial support from the local authority. Thus, it is the local authority that has to pick up the pieces; it is itself unable to resolve the problem, but still required to deal with the consequences. 168
3.
The problem
3.1
Park home residents are in a very exposed position financially. Their outlay has inevitably been tens or even hundreds of thousands of pounds, and they rely upon their remaining money to survive. This is a major difference from vulnerable tenants of rented accommodation. The latter will have made a relatively minor outlay (normally a deposit); if intimidated by a rogue landlord, they do have the right to seek redress but may simply decide to move on, and write off their very limited financial outlay.
3.2
As has been stated, a park owner’s greatest return comes from selling new mobile homes. A selling resident may not necessarily find it easy to find a buyer for their property in the first place, particularly if the rogue owner’s park has a poor reputation51.
3.3
If a purchaser is found, the resident knows that, under the law, the park owner may not unreasonably withhold consent to a prospective purchaser. In contrast, a rogue owner knows that, if he does withhold that consent (even if that is done so unreasonably), then ¾ if the seller does not challenge the refusal, there is a real prospect that another purchaser will be a long way off, during which time the seller knows that the rogue owner is determined to make his or her life difficult, ¾ when the seller does wish to challenge the refusal, the prospective purchaser is hardly likely to wish to remain in place when he knows that the rogue owner has objected to him, and ¾ in the meantime, the seller has little in the way of resources, energy or even faith that the law will protect him from further pressure (including possible physical abuse) should he continue to challenge rogue owner’s refusal. Thus, the fact that the seller has recourse to the law means little or nothing, even if he or she has the financial means and/or willingness to pursue it52.
3.4
In practice, there is plenty of protective legislation, relating both to the basis upon which areas of land may be used as mobile home parks (site licensing), and to the regulation of the relationship between park owners and residents (through the Mobile Homes Act, etc). Other legislation has been adapted to protect residents.
3.5
However, all the legislation in the world fails to recognise that most targeted individual residents are very vulnerable, and neither strong enough nor wealthy enough to protect themselves against sustained attack by a rogue owner. Access to the
51 Where I have been staying, the local estate agent no longer takes instructions on the park, given the number of sales that have fallen through. 52 In another case, an owner issued proceedings against the park owner for harassment, but then felt pressured into selling up. Having found a buyer, the park owner threatened to refuse consent to the purchaser unless the legal action was dropped. Because of the pressure on him, the seller felt that he had no choice but to agree.
169
Residential Property Tribunal Service may reduce the costs of challenging rogue owners, but it does not help any vulnerable resident. 4.
The reality
4.1
With all due respect to them, the clear failure by both local authorities and trading standards teams to keep rogue owners in check is proof in itself that the current system is insufficient to prevent the abuses that are still seen across the country.
4.2
The only weapon in the local authority’s armoury is the ability to revoke the site licence. However, the rogue owner knows that the local authority is extremely unlikely to do this; indeed, it appears that nobody really knows what would happen if a licence was revoked. It is unlikely that the local authority would take over the site licence itself, because ¾ it does not necessarily know how to manage a site, ¾ it lacks the staffing – and particularly financial - resources to do so, and ¾ if anything goes amiss whilst it act as site manager, there is a possibility that the rogue owner would have recourse to it for damage and loss.
4.3
Even if the law is clear about how park owners are supposed to behave, and what protections residents are supposed to enjoy, what is missing is the third piece in the puzzle: ¾ clear rules about what action can be taken against rogue owners, ¾ clarity about who will take that action, and ¾ a determination by that authority to act swiftly when necessary.
4.4
I believe that the best route to tackling this is based upon acknowledging one simple principle: Those who break the law do so either because they think they will get away with it, or because they judge that, if caught, the penalties will be insufficient to act as a deterrent.
4.5
A corollary of this is that, if rogue owners knew that action would be swift and determined, and that the penalties would be severe, this would encourage them to behave in a more equitable way or get out of the business entirely (in evolutionary terms, they would have to “adapt or die”).
170
5.
A “fit and proper” test
5.1
To state the obvious, it is hard to remove unscrupulous park owners without applying a test to determine whether this is appropriate. Fundamental to any new system must be the development of a consistent “fit and proper” test for park owners.
5.2
Parliament and the courts have developed criteria for what might be considered as “fit and proper” in other circumstances. However, in determining what those criteria might be in this context, there are important lessons to be taken from the following example that demonstrates why such a test is crucial if vulnerable residents are to be protected.
5.3
On the site where I have stayed, a sixty-something single lady’s mobile home was situated at the junction of a wide two-way road and a much narrower one-way road. For reasons that are not relevant (but justifiable), the mobile home sat on an unusually small plot, and there was no distance between the front of her home and the two-way road. Technically, both of these were breaches of the site licence; however, the local authority (in my view, correctly) permitted the property to be retained as an exception, but ruled that, if at some later date it was demolished, no new mobile home could be installed in its place.
5.4
The resident had been trying to sell since the park owner first acquired the park, had found a strong of buyers, but the park owner consistently refused to approve any of them, and she did not have the financial or mental strength to challenge this. Eventually, she found yet another arm’s length purchaser (at half the price agreed with her very first buyer), but yet again consent was refused. By that stage, she was no longer living in her home, she had been refused permission to rent it out until a sale was completed (but was still paying the pitch fee) and she could not afford to go to court. Finally, she agreed to sell to the park owner - for around 10% of her home’s then open market value.
5.5
The park owner then demolished the existing home, extended the plot some feet out into the two-way-road and the one-way road, and sold and installed a brand new mobile home, roughly three times the size of the previous property. This action breached a number of the site licence conditions, and other residents notified the local authority. Ultimately, to comply with the site licence conditions, the park owner “persuaded” the elderly couple living on the other side of the one-way road to give up a part of their own plot so that the one-way road could be widened again to comply with the licence terms.
5.6
In fairness to the local authority, the officers were presented with a fait accompli. By the time they became aware that there was a problem, the new owners were ready to occupy their new home. Requiring the new property to be removed or sited elsewhere on the park would have been manifestly unfair to the new owner - who probably had 171
absolutely no idea of the site licence breaches perpetrated by the park owner in order to secure the sale. 5.7
In analysing this case, it is important to distinguish what was acceptable behaviour and what was not. I see nothing wrong with the park owner deciding to convert what had been an unusable plot into a much larger one – this was simply making better use of the land, which is consistent with good business practice. Moreover, creating a plot large enough for a double unit meant that the park owner probably received £60,000 more in profit than would have been the case had the plot been adapted for a new single mobile home.
5.8
On the other hand, one resident was bullied into taking well over £25,000 less than would otherwise have been available from an arm length’s buyer (and well over £60,000 less than she would have received had consent for the original purchaser been given). In addition, the next door neighbours lost a small part of their garden (as I understand it, without compensation).
5.9
With so much profit, which would not have been possible without the resident being bullied into selling for next to nothing, a more equitable solution might have been for the for the park owner to pay (i) a figure close to market value to the seller, plus (ii) appropriate compensation to the couple persuaded to give up a small part of their plot. The park owner would still have made a considerable sum, once those fair payments had been made.
5.10
For my part, this willingness to offer a more balanced apportionment of the “pot” should be an important factor in determining whether an actual or prospective park owned is “fit and proper” to run a park. Another way of putting this is to say that: Good practice demands that a park owner should be free to make best use of the land that he owns, so long as • •
the park owner does not breach any conditions laid down by law or the site licence under which the park operates the park, and no resident is unfairly prejudiced as a consequence.
6.
Who regulates?
6.1
The split of responsibility between the local authority and trading standards teams does not help proper regulation. In practice, there may be cases where both are investigating a park owner; indeed, where that park owner owns parks in a variety of areas, several local authorities and counties may be undertaking independent, uncoordinated investigations simultaneously. At the same time, it is illogical to suppose that a park owner might be considered not “fit and proper” to run a park 172
home site in one part of the country, while still being permitted to run one in another part of the country. 6.2
It is hard then to imagine any proper coordination, which of course is a boon to the rogue owner. With all this in mind, I cannot see how any system to protect residents can be enforced without a national regulatory authority (a Park home Regulatory Authority – “PRA”) being established to do this. The PRA would deal only with the regulation of park owners and, in particular, it would have three specific remits: ¾ maintaining a register of park owners, ¾ considering and implementing the removal of existing licences from owners deemed no longer fit and proper to retain them, and ¾ determining whether new applicants are “fit and proper” to run mobile home parks, which work will include ensuring that new applicants are not merely reincarnations of former owners who have previously been struck off.
6.4
Park home owners, residents’ associations, local authorities and county councils will all expect referrals to be dealt with promptly, responsibly and efficiently. However, this does not mean that the PRA should become yet another overblown, overexpensive but ineffective governmental agency. The pressure to remain “lean and mean” is best served by requiring all stakeholders to financially support it, while benefiting from any income (fines, etc.) earned by it. I see these stakeholders as: • •
•
6.5
the Government, which has a duty to ensure that the vulnerable are not unfairly prejudiced, local authorities and county councils, who are let down by the current system, and have to pick up the pieces when things go badly wrong – they would benefit from being able to refer matters requiring urgent action to the PRA, a more appropriate regulator, and park home owners, who have an interest in improving their image – they would also have the opportunity to purchase sites removed from rogue owners, potentially at a significant discount to their true value.
If it is to remain efficient, the PRA cannot afford to be bogged down with unnecessary or frivolous applications. As I see it, this is best achieved by the PRA being sited on the top rung of a tri-level structure, with individual home owners and residents’ associations on the bottom level, and local authorities and county councils in the middle. The procedure would then operate as follows: ¾ residents and residents’ associations could only make formal representations to their local authority (in relation to site licences) and to the relevant county council trading standards team (for unfair practices matters); ¾ the local authority and/or county council would liaise in determining within a short time-frame whether the complaint was justified and, if so, whether an 173
investigative referral to the PRA is warranted, (any referral would be advised to the PRA for information purposes only, but the PRA would not action anything unless formally requested to do so). 6.6
The PRA would then seek reports from all other local authorities and trading standards teams with parks in their areas owned or controlled (directly or indirectly) by the same owners. With all information to hand, and within a short timeframe, PRA would make a rapid determination as to whether further action needs to be taken. If so, then the PRA would advise the target owner that it was being investigated.
6.7
During that investigation, a review of all of the concerns raised by local authorities and trading standards teams (most of which would have been referrals from residents and residents’ associations) would be investigated thoroughly. A scoring system would assist in setting the hurdle to be overcome before the PRA would be required to take decisive action; where a park owner has had a number of “flags” raised by different authorities, that hurdle would be considerably lower.
6.8
If that hurdle was met, then the PRA would be obliged to act immediately – from that point on, there would be no further opportunity on the rogue owner’s part to negotiate any remedial action. This action would have two parts: ¾ the PRA would seek an immediate court order that an administrator be appointed to run the site(s) until such time as a new owner was found, and ¾ the PRA would institute legal proceedings against the rogue owners seeking (i) their removal from a register of park owners, and (ii) their punishment for any offences committed. Any penalties would apply to the owners (controlling directors where appropriate) and also the relevant local park management. I imagine that a new penalty regime would include prison sentences, plus unlimited fines.
6.9
As for the park(s) themselves, during the administration, the administrator would be required to process applications for sales of existing properties according to the current legislation. He or she would not be entitled to sell any new homes unless the prospective owners had already contracted to purchase. All income relating to any such purchases or sales, plus all pitch fee revenues, would be retained by the administrator until the administration ended.
6.10
Within a period laid down in the legislation, the administrator would seek bids from bona fide parties to purchase the site. I imagine that this process would be akin to a receiver selling a repossessed property. The administrator could only sell to a party considered to be “fit and proper” (although that party could be the residents themselves).
174
6.11
Upon the final sale of the park home(s) to a new, approved, purchaser, the rogue owner would be entitled to the net proceeds of sale, after all of the administrator’s costs had been deducted, plus any fines imposed by the court.
7.
Conclusion
7.1
I summarise the foregoing as follows: ¾ the current legislation does not adequately protect vulnerable individual park home residents from rogue park owners, ¾ the piecemeal regulation by local authorities and trading standards teams are no threat to those who wish to take advantage of such vulnerable individuals, ¾ the government has a duty to protect such people, ¾ this failure can be overcome through an independent national regulating body (the PRA) and ¾ this body would be empowered to remove rogue park owners, both by taking their assets (through a process similar to administration) and by prosecuting both owners and local park management (with penalties to include imprisonment and unlimited fines).
7.2
I am confident that such a system would act as an incentive to rogue owners to mend their ways, or get out of the business before it is taken away from them. By the same token, I genuinely believe that respectable park owners have nothing to fear from such a system; in fact, it might open up opportunities to build their own businesses.
7.3
I see no reason why a system such as is outlined should not be successful in rooting out rogue owners, at an effective cost and in much more efficient manner. More importantly, it should be able to remove those who need to be removed swiftly, unlike at present. I acknowledge that the system proposed here would not necessarily compensate those who have already suffered under the existing system, but I believe it would do a great deal to prevent past and present abuses continuing into the future.
7.4
The challenge for Parliament is to stop talking about doing something – and actually get on and do it.
February 2012
175
Written submission from Ben Bradshaw MP (PH 194) My submission includes the following points: • Resale Fees • Fit & Proper person test for Managers of Park home sites • Recognition of Residents Association to help offer protection to park home owners against harassment from Park Owners. The information that I am submitting is taken from my experience from listening to Park home owners & Local Councillors with Park home sites within their wards. Resale Fees Under current legislation, a site owner can claim commission up to a maximum fixed by law. Currently this is set at 10% of the sale price. However, from listening to park home owners it would appear that 10% commission has become the norm. 10% is a substantial amount of money to pay to a site owner upon a sale, given that these properties now sell within the region of 80k-140k and it is also a large amount of capital that a Park Home owners loses. It would seem fairer to have a fixed commission as most park home owners accept that commission should be paid. However, on top of estate agents costs which are anything from 1.2% - 2% commission in total, a park home owner upon selling their property stands to lose up to 12% of the money from the sale of their property. The majority of park home sites (if not all) house residents from 55yrs of age, who have moved to release equity in order to enjoy their later years and therefore have limited savings (if any). Commission set (up to) 10% could therefore affect a park home owners future financial security. It has been argued that if commission on ‘original purchase price’ were to be used, rather than selling price, this would also be fairer. However, this would not prevent Site owners from still charging 10%. Therefore ‘fixed commission’ would be an amendment in The Mobile Homes Act that I would support. 176
Fit and proper person test for Managers of Park home sites Many Park Home owners employ managers to run their sites and the majority of park managers live alongside residents within the Park site. Currently there is no nationally recognized Job description/criteria for a Park site manager. Therefore, there is no criteria that must be met in order to ascertain whether a person applying or succeeding in gaining a job as a Park site manager, is indeed suitable for running a site which houses residents from 55 years upwards. Would we allow sheltered accommodation to be run by a person without adequate training, a nationally recognized qualification or a CRB check? Simply because the site is called a ‘Park Home Site’ it should not detract that many of the sites are for persons of more mature years, who may well be vulnerable and often living alone. I therefore feel it should be compulsory for a manager to undertake mandatory training, with a formal certificate / qualification and have undertaken a CRB check. This would clearly show that a manager is both committed to the role, and has been identified as having the necessary qualities and skills to deal with situations that might arise. It would also satisfy both the Park owner and residents that their manager is suitably qualified for running a Park home site. Recognition of Residents Association to help offer protection to park home owners against harassment from Park Owners. Under the Mobile Homes Act 1983, residents can request that the right for their Residents Association is recognized by the Park Site Owner. Residents can also make an application to the Residential Property Tribunal Service should recognition not be granted. However, once recognition is granted, many residents still feel powerless to enforce what they are entitled to under the conditions of the Site Licence and/or under the Recognition Agreement. Emphasis needs to be placed on Site Owners to consult on matters relating to the day to day running of a Site as recognition of a Residents Association should not be simply a paperwork exercise. Therefore the Recognition Agreement needs to benefit both Park Home owners and Park Site owners. Park site owners should be using the Association as a consulting body and the Residents Association should be using it as a way to deal with issues that arise. 177
Complaints that I have received include : Park Site owners failing to respond to letters sent by an Association ;and Park Site owners failing to consult with Associations on changes to the site. There needs to be clear guidance on the importance of a Recognition Agreement and some means of recourse should either party fail to adhere to the agreement.
February 2012
178
Written submission from residents of Eastern Green Park 2 (PH 195) •
Camper vans, according to a law made in the 1960’s, if parked on a mobile home site could be deemed as a residence and therefore liable for council tax. Also, camper vans could be classed as a residence on site and therefore be used to question the number of caravans/mobile homes in situ. Park Home and Holiday Caravan, February 2012
(p. 68) We would suggest that this ‘is a sledgehammer to crack a nut’. Surely, what should be put in place is an inclusion in contracts, which states that the owner of the camper van agrees not to reside or allow any other person/persons to reside in the van whilst parked on site. •
•
•
•
• • • • •
Tenants’ who choose not to keep their mobile home and plot in a reasonable and decent state, at present cannot be easily cajoled by Site Owner’s, to maintain them in a fit manner. We ask that laws be passed to facilitate and support Site Owner’s in their quest to a decent upkeep of all plots and Park Homes. At present 10% of the sale of a Park Home is awarded to the Site Owner. This rule in some cases hinders owners of Park Homes from the choice of selling and moving off site. We would therefore ask that this legislation be reconsidered. External sound, which breaks noise abatement laws, only takes into concern brick built residences. The walls of Mobile Homes are thin and therefore much less resilient to noise nuisance which emanates from external sources. We ask that the law be changed to take this factor into account, so that in future Park Home owners are afforded the same protection as other’s in society. Site drains, which are not situated on a plot, are the Park Owner’s responsibility, but there are few powers awarded to tenants to pressurise Park Owners to take up his/her responsibility. Park Owners should be available for open and honest dialogue with Park Home owners. Site Manager’s working hours should be stated clearly to enable Park Home Owners to contact him/her efficiently and quickly when required. Site Managers responsibilities with regard to Park Home owners should be set out clearly in writing. The maintenance of the site is of paramount importance to residents. It appears that the Park Home owner has few powers to insist on maintenance of the site. In our view as renters of a plot, we should have the right to examine Park Site owners’ accounts on an annual basis with regard to maintenance costs.
February 2012
179
Written submission for Cornwall Council (PH 196)
Introduction Cornwall Council would like to thank the select Committee for providing the opportunity to submit our thoughts on how best to improve the regulatory frame work for mobile homes in the future. Our response is split into two sections. Section 1 has been compiled by one of our Senior Environmental Health Officers from the Council’s Public Health and Protection Service, who has been involved with Caravan Site Licensing for over 13 years. Section 1 deals with public health and safety issues. Section 2 has been compiled by one of our, Senior Trading Standards Officers again from the Public Health and Protection Service, who has taken the lead in innovative legal action taken by Cornwall Council under the Enterprise Act 2003. This was in response to complaints from park home residents which led to the making of a court order in Plymouth County Court against a major park operator with sites throughout SW England. Section 2 deals with aspects of unfair trading and breach of residents’ contracts. Summary Cornwall Council is of the opinion that the current regulatory framework is outdated and inadequate to protect the health, safety, wellbeing and consumer rights of park home residents many of which are vulnerable. We therefore respectfully recommend a complete overhaul of the legislation governing park home sites and other caravan parks to provide regulators with effective tools to protect residents and to provide responsible park owners with an effective framework in which to operate. Section 1 Public Health and Safety issues 1.1
Summary
The current enforcement framework which provides protection of residents’ basic public health and safety is antiquated and outdated. The tools available to enforcement officers under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 are limited, as are the level of potential fines. Currently the legislation which covers Park Home sites is disjointed and is enforced by a number of professions/agencies.
180
1.2
Brief Description of Contributor
I am a Senior Environmental Health Officer and as part of my varied duties I have been involved with the enforcement and licensing of caravan sites for 13 years. I have dealt with numerous enquiries over this time and have had to intervene on countless occasions to ensure compliance with basic standards. The interventions have varied from basic letter writing requiring works to be undertaken through to service of Improvement and Prohibition Notices under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (HASAWA) and prosecution for breaches under HASAWA and Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960. 1.3
I would like the Committee to consider:
1.3.1
Residents who live in Park Homes tend to be of retirement age and although many are very capable, a high percentage are frail and vulnerable and may struggle to defend their basic rights.
1.3.2
The primary legislation for enforcing basic public health and safety on a residential site is the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960. This legislation allows for the maximum fine of £4000 per offence upon conviction in a Magistrates Court. The only sanction available to an Enforcement Officer is to take a prosecution. There is no provision to serve legal notices to carry out works or to prevent action being taken.
1.3.3
For larger site owners this appears to pose little or no deterrent, and is extremely timeconsuming for enforcement officers. Also it can appear to the Courts that the Local Authority is being heavy handed in bringing small matters to court for resolution.
1.3.4
The scope of Licensing Conditions is limited to a very basic standard. This linked with the limited fines and lack of Enforcement Notices leads officers to use other legislation wherever possible such as HASAWA.
1.3.5
Some of the complex cases I have been involved in which relate to disrepair and harassment have led to multiple agencies and officers being involved including: • • • • • •
Environmental Health Officers (Health and Safety, Licensing Conditions))(Local Authority) Environmental Protection Officers (Infestation and Drains) (Local Authority) Fire Officers ( Fire Safety Issues) (Local Authority) Trading Standard Officers ( Unfair trading practices) (Local Authority) Tenancy Advice Officers (Tenancy issues) (Local Authority) Police Officers (Harassment)
Numerous pieces of legislation were utilised but the tools available were still limited to satisfactorily resolve the issues. 181
1.3.6
In one case due to a dispute over the payment of Service Charges a threat was made by the owner of one site to refuse permission for LPG deliveries to enter his property, thereby posing the risk of over 50 homes being without heating and cooking facilities through the harsh winter of 2010, the residents of which, were in the main, elderly. The provisions of the legislation available to the local authority to effectively deal with and prevent this from happening were limited and in the main would only allow for prosecution after the event. The ability to intervene to prevent such action is needed in Park Home specific legislation. This would allow local authorities to intervene to protect vulnerable residents. Similar provisions are available under the Housing Act 2004 in Houses of Multiple Occupation.
1.3.7
Where Park Homes are rented out, the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 does not apply to the conditions within the home itself and if the home is purely a mobile home with no additional fixed extensions the Housing Act 2004 also does not apply, thereby leaving the residents with little or no recourse to the Enforcing Authority if the conditions are dangerous or unfit for occupancy. Other legislation which is not designed for this purpose has been utilised in cases of significant risk such as dangerous gas and electrical supplies. Section 80 of The Environmental Protection Act 1990 or the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, have been utilised, but these Acts can only be used in limited situations.
1.3.8
With regards to the fit and proper person test, I have had experience with similar provision under food safety legislation were by if prosecuted for food offences food business operators can be banned from running food business for a specified length of time. What happens in reality is that they put the business in a family member’s name and continue to run the business. This happened in the case I was involved with. Fit and proper person provisions prove difficult to enforce and are of limited effectiveness.
1.3.9
Currently a site licence cannot be issued unless planning consent is in place even if the site has been in operation for many years. This means a site licence cannot be issued which would provide a degree of protection for residents. The only option is to prosecute for running an unlicensed site. However, if the caravans have been in place for a significant length of time the Council can be perceived by the Courts as being heavy handed. It would be better to allow a licence to be issued and any planning contraventions dealt with under the primary planning legislation.
1.4
Recommendations for consideration
The Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 is amended or repealed and replaced with new legislation which should include:
182
1.4.1
Enforcement powers and powers of entry as per the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, sections 20, 21,22 and 25 and in particular the use of Improvement and Prohibition Notices.
1.4.2
The fines should also be in line with this Act, up to £20,000 per offence. (Alternatively the Caravan Act could be adopted as a statutory provision under HASWA)
1.4.3
The provision to require a site to be licensed should be maintained but the link to planning consent removed, as planning issues can be addressed under the primary planning legislation.
1.4.4
The ability to allow Local Authorities to step in and take control of a site in extreme cases, where residents’ health or safety is put at significant risk, should be included, as per the management orders for HMO’s under the Housing Act 2004.
1.4.5
Class a mobile home/caravan as a dwelling under the Housing Act 2004 or make provision under Caravan legislation to ensure mobile home are fit for purpose and free from hazards.
Section 2 Unfair Trading/ Breach of Contract 2.1 Summary 2.1.1
Following complaints from residents Cornwall Council has recently taken innovative action against a park home operator to combat alleged aggressive and unfair actions against park residents.
2.1.2
The action was taken under the Enterprise Act 2003 and the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs) http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/1277/contents/made and the Enterprise Act 2003 and resulted in a court order being made directing the operator not to breach the CPRs, express and implied terms of residents’ contracts under the Mobile Homes Act 1983 (MHA), the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and the tort of negligence.
2.1.3
The making of this court order has triggered many further complaints and inquiries from park home residents in Cornwall and across England, and also from owners of holiday homes, which have often been bought for use as the owners’ main residence even if this involves breaches of planning law. There is evidence that site operators have actively encouraged such breaches, and have profited through being able to charge the higher prices that ‘permanent’ homes command, as compared to true holiday homes. These complaints and inquiries, and contact with local authority enforcement officers (trading standards and environmental health) throughout the country, have identified widespread serious malpractice in the park home industry which is detailed further in this submission.
2.1.4
183
2.1.4
While trading standards legislation has made inroads into some malpractices, it is not a sure cure for all of them. A major contributing factor is weakness in the protections offered to mobile home owners by the Mobile Homes Act 1983, and the weakness of licensing legislation.
2.2
Brief description of Contributor
The contributor is a Senior Trading Standards Officer with Cornwall Council who was the investigator and case officer in Cornwall Council’s court action in Dec 2010 to February 2011 against a park owner operating over 15 sites in South West England. Since that time he has investigated further complaints against other park owners, and has received much information about such abuses throughout the UK. 2.3
Factual information for the committee to consider
I have received credible evidence of the following abuses. Most of them have occurred in Cornwall, but in a few cases I rely on reports from residents or local authority officers from elsewhere in the UK. 2.3.1 Blocking of sales The reason why a park owner may block ‘private’ sales by residents through estate agents is that he benefits by taking 10% of the price on such a sale, but if he can buy the home at a ridiculous undervalue from his current resident, sometimes a few thousand pounds for a property worth £50,000-£150,000 on the open market, he can pocket all the profits of resale or redevelopment (upgrading of the home, or even selling two homes where there was one before). Blocking can be easily achieved because the MHA gives the park owner a right to vet the incoming resident before the sale is finalised. Simply delaying this process, or even making it clear that he will be an oppressive ‘landlord’, easily deters would-be purchasers. Site owners may warn estate agents off by telling them there is little point in arranging sales because applications from new residents will be blocked. Another benefit for the park owner is that he can increase the pitch fee on any home he sells directly, whereas a new owner who has bought from a previous resident takes an assignment of the existing contract. But see below under Pitch fees for abuses even here. 2.3.2
Pitch fees
The MHA provides that a pitch fee is set at the start of a contract for the supply of a mobile home by the park owner. This contract continues until the park owner reacquires the home (see above), and will pass by legal assignment if the home is sold by the original resident and by any successor. The park owner’s right to increase the pitch fee is set by the MHA. If he maintains the park’s utilities he can increase the fee each year by the percentage RPI increase 184
for that year. If he has increased the park’s amenities (e.g. by building a clubhouse) with residents’ agreement he can charge the agreed increase for the provision of the new facilities. But if the utilities of the site have reduced, the residents are entitled to a reduced pitch fee. If a pitch-fee change is not agreed by residents a Residential Property Tribunal (RPT) can be asked to rule on the proper fee. 2.3.3 •
•
•
•
Owners who allow the amenities of a park to decline (closure of facilities like a clubhouse; failure to trim grass, hedges and trees; dumping of waste on vacant pitches; long-running half-completed building projects and resulting noise and nuisance) will never agree to any reduction in fee. Billing of ‘arrears’ of pitch fees contrary to MHA provisions that arrears can only arise if the resident has agreed the increase OR that the RPT has ruled that the increase is payable. When a private sale has occurred, forcing the outgoing owner to sign papers stating that he/she paid a higher pitch fee than was the case, in order to force the new owner to pay more than is proper. (The lever used to force the outgoing owner to sign such a document can be cancellation of substantial claimed ‘arrears’ invoiced on the final bill.) Threatening to call on residents in their own homes to pursue claims for arrears (Under MHA the park owner has no right whatsoever to enter residents’ homes without their permission, and very limited rights even to enter their pitch.)
2.3.4 • •
• •
•
Utility charges
Failing to disclose the operator’s own bills for utilities as required by MHA in order to hide overcharging (breach of MHA). Billing residents for water lost via leakage from pipes which the park owner is obliged by MHA to maintain, and at the same time double-recovering this money via leakage allowances made by the water company. Demanding payment of fictitious arrears left by the previous home-owner before allowing new owner to take up residence. Completely failing to pay a park’s utilities bills, even though residents have paid their individual bills to the owner, leading to the disconnection of the park’s electricity supply with risk of failure of residents’ critical medical equipment. Extortionate charges for LPG and private sewerage – residents have no choice but to pay because of site owner’s monopoly position.
2.3.5 •
I am aware of the following abuses of the MHA provisions:
Other aggressive/ unfair practices
Levying penal interest on allegedly unpaid bills, including on sums that residents have actually tendered in payment but site owner has refused to accept.
185
•
•
• • • •
•
• • • • •
• •
• • •
•
Where a resident has sold a home privately, seeking to procure a breach of this contract by taking the new owner, at the time he is trying to move in, to view homes being sold by the park owner and seeking to sell him one of these. Sending balaclava-wearing ‘security guards’ to drive round parks in 4x4s brandishing baseball bats so as to stifle complaints from residents, extort money and discourage formation of residents’ associations. Threats to disconnect LPG supplies to elderly residents at the time of the icy weather leading to a potential emergency re-housing issue for the Council. Actual threatening visits to residents, including those who had given adverse evidence in court in local authority prosecutions. Persistent late-night phone calls to residents to ‘encourage’ them to abandon their homes. Failure to recognise residents’ associations, obstructing their formation, attempting to access their meetings when MHA provides that the park owner cannot be a member. Failure to consult residents’ associations about major changes affecting residents, contrary to MHA. Pressuring residents to vacate homes on desirable pitches and swap to inferior homes which they will rent rather than own, in order to sell new homes on the prime pitches and pocket all the profits. Failing to maintain park roads, leading to residents’ injury in accidents (e.g. falling in potholes). Health and safety of residents being put at risk by failure to maintain underground cables giving electricity supply to homes, or to maintain water supplies. Failing to provide a useable electricity supply to a home (breach of MHA), even after a court has so ordered. Failure to pay county court judgments obtained by residents, in one case amounting to some £60,000 damages and costs for damage caused to resident’s home. Failure to keep site safe as required by licensing conditions. The trader subject to our Enterprise Act case has since been successfully prosecuted for such breaches in Cornwall, and has a history of such prosecutions by other local authorities in SW England. Misdescription of homes sold directly to consumers by the park owner. Legal action (including ex parte injunctions alter struck out by the court for lack of evidence) launched against ‘troublesome’ residents such as officers of residents’ associations which were eventually abandoned for lack of evidence, but caused serious worry and expense. Park owners photographing residents who confront them with complaints, creating fear that they will be targeted for assaults. Threats to and temporary detention of local authority officers. Moving rent-paying tenants with families into vacant homes on parks where owners must be elderly and park rules prevent children as permanent residents. Done to punish residents for resisting other demands, or to pressurise a particular resident into moving off site with minimal compensation. Threats to turn park into a shanty town, as above, to destabilise opposition to park owner. 186
2.4
I would like the Committee to consider:
The Committee must give very careful thought to the usefulness of a Fit and Proper person test. Rogue park home operators will always have some close relative who has no convictions. Because the licence is independent of the actual ownership of the land under the park, the rogue owner will always be in a position to manage the park’s operations by remote control even if he is not the holder of the licence. Limited companies might also be used to insulate the park owner/operator from the nominal licence-holder. 2.5
Recommendations for consideration
Major rewrite of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 to give residents proper protection of their statutory and contractual rights, and to assist trading standards action under Enterprise Act and Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations. (The current ambiguities and uncertainties in the interpretation of MHA mean that it can be difficult to be sure whether a park owner’s actions are a breach of the Act or not. This may undermine Enterprise Act action to restrain breaches of contract.) Empower a licensing authority to take over the operation of a site and recover its costs from residents’ pitch fee payments, with any surplus payable to site owner. Increase the involvement of residents or residents’ associations in the practical running of their parks.
February 2012
187
Written submission from the Cornwall Branch of the British Holiday & Homes Parks Association (PH 197) We are writing in response to your request for submissions on Park Homes. We are a branch (Cornwall) of the BHHPA (British Holiday & Home Parks Association). The association assists its members with the red tape and conditions of running a business within the industry. Its role is not to police the members but to encourage good practice. Recently, there has been some negative press coverage about park home living and as a result local MP, Stephen Gilbert is seeking to bring in legislation which would require owners of park home sites to undergo a ‘fit and proper person test’ (FPP) by introducing a national licensing scheme for individual owners of park homes site and related activities. As a branch, we have no problem with the proposal of a fit and proper person, our concern is how would it be enforced and by whom. We believe that there is already enough legislation and rules to adhere to. Also if the site licence conditions were enforced by the council when conditions were broken and convictions tougher, then less of the rogue trader element would be interested in owning parks. The majority of park owners are honest and law abiding citizens and as in every trade in this country, there will always be the odd ‘rogue trader’. The site fees have been in place for many years and the Mobile Home Act 1983 (MHA.83) states clearly the process for the increase/decrease of such fees. The site fees are agreed with the park resident when they move onto the park and sign the agreement. Awarding and revocation of site licences - It is local councils which decide and attach conditions accordingly. If the council had the resources perhaps those who constantly flout/breech the terms of the licence can be pursued through the judicial system, with tougher consequences. The need for the manager to be a ‘fit and proper person’ (FPP) and the enforcement of this requirement. Those who do not have a problem with being a FPP will go through the process, those who do not wish to be a FPP will find ways to avoid and dodge the process. With regard to the regulation of parks owned by local authorities - we have no knowledge of any such parks in Cornwall. The protection of occupiers of park homes against harassment and illegal eviction. Once again the MHA.83 clearly allows for quiet enjoyment of the pitch. Purchasers must do their 188
homework and should be advised to talk to other residents of the park and find out as much as possible about the owner and the park that they wish to live on. The resale of park homes and resale fees - MHA.83 clearly sets out the process and all the agreements contain terms and conditions which clearly state the 10% commission. In sales by the park owners the purchaser has 28 days to review the agreement. There could be cause for concern in the case of private sales where there is no such requirement and the agreement could be assigned by a private owner without the purchaser having a proper opportunity to review the agreement. Following twelve weeks consultation in 2006 the government in place did not believe that a change in the maximum rate of commission could be justified, nor would it be beneficial to either residents or park owners. Furthermore we are not convinced that a simple reduction in the rate of commission would alleviate the issues surrounding the transparency of the payment. Consultation on park home commission rate - Summary of responses March 2007 http://www.communities.gov.uk/archived/publications/housing/parkhomecommissionrate In summary we are aware that there is some bad practice going on, but feel that before home buyers commit to a purchase they should have access to full information about the home they are buying and the rights and responsibilities of park home owners. Existing home owners should be able to access information about their rights and obligations and also be aware that they may apply to the tribunal system to resolve issues of concern if they are unable to reach agreement with the park owner. It is important to protect the reputation of well-run parks from bad press coverage. Otherwise, this could hamper the sale of homes as no one will want to move onto any park, thus reducing the value of everyone’s investment
February 2012
189
Written submission from Elms Caravan Company (PH 198)
We are a small family run business consisting of two freehold Parks and one leasehold Park, amounting to a total of 79 pitches. When the sites were purchased in the 1960s they had no mains water, electricity, main drainage, roads or footpaths. Throughout the years all these services have been provided and improvements carried out at great expense. Our parks are now of a high standard and conform to all Local Authority Requirements. Site Fees Our pitch fees are increased annually in accordance with the RPI. The pitch fee has not been increased over and above this since the sites were developed over 30 years ago. We rely on commissions to fund all major repairs and improvements. Site Licence We have never had our site licences revoked and have a good relationship with the Local Authority. Enforcement of Site Licence Conditions Our site licence conditions were issued in the 1960s and 1970 and are only now being reviewed. The majority of our tenants, and hundreds more in the district, feel the enforcement of the Model Standards are a gross infringement of their Human Rights (namely Article 8 and Protocol 1, Article 1). The residents feel victimised and are at a loss to think of any other circumstance, in this country, where the state would intervene at such a level in peoples’ lives. We have been working closely with a Private Sector Housing Manager to reconcile some of the issues on behalf of our tenants’, most of whom are elderly and have found this process extremely distressing. The Model Standards are ‘recommendations’ not Statutory Law. New conditions should include variations to take into account local circumstances and historic agreements. Fit and Proper Person Our concern is that this would be based on the subjective judgement of one official. We have never unreasonably withheld an assignment. As a result we have had over the years several tenants who we consider to not be ‘fit and proper ’. For example, a professional shop lifter who funded his existence by selling stolen goods to the local community. We are not allowed to ‘vet’ prospective tenants (who may have criminal records) and yet we are to be vetted. This appears to be somewhat of a double standard. Protection of Occupiers
190
With regard to the law we feel that it is now very much in favour of the tenant. Our park rules are based on the BH&HPA Model Rules. We go to great pains to explain the rules to tenants before they move in so there are no surprises or misunderstandings. Some residents sign the rules and then proceed to break them. In the past we have had to resort to legal action to resolve these issues. The tenant gets legal aid, whereas we do not and the bills run into thousands. We have learnt the hard way being morally right is irrelevant and that justice and the law are totally disparate concepts! We are hopeful that Residential Property Tribunals will improve this situation, but are concerned that the people presiding over these will not be experts in mobile home park law. We understand that some site owners are unscrupulous and can even resort to intimidation. This can clearly not be allowed to continue. All we ask is that a balanced approach is taken. Mobile home parks are communities and like any community there are rules. We need some authority to protect the interests of the majority. It seems inconceivable that the industry is being reviewed yet again. The last government consultation was only in 2006 / 2007.
February 2012
191
Written submission from St James’ Park Ltd (PH 199) THE ADEQUACY OF THE OPERATION OF LAW AS IT AFFECTS PARK HOMES Further to the Select Committee Inquiry, we would like to comment on our experiences and would make the following submission. Introduction Site Licence Enforcement Residential Property Tribunals Pitch Fee Increases Payment of Commission Harassment and Illegal Eviction Fit and Proper Person Resale of Park Homes and Resale fees Conclusion Introduction We are Park Owners who purchased a rundown Mobile Home Park approximately 20 years ago and our expressed wishes were to develop it into a modern park, which met and even surpassed all the Model Standards. The law relating to the park home business has always been predominantly concerned with residents rights with very little balance to assist the business of operating the parks. Recent changes in the law have increased residents and local authority rights and put extra responsibilities on the park owner. They have also however, decreased the park owners authority and make it much more difficult to properly manage the park. Site Licence Enforcement The process of redeveloping our park has been extremely difficult, the local authority, although demanding improved standards, have been particularly obstructive. The residents, although wanting the improvements, did not want any disruption and were not prepared to be flexible enough to allow progress. Indeed may residents seemed content with arguing amongst themselves at their Association meetings. We feel it is important for all parties to work together and the law should allow for the Local Authority to help facilitate the necessary changes, not just instruct the issuing of enforcement notices. Residential Property Tribunals It should be noted that most disputes, which occur on the park, are caused by one resident's unreasonable actions creating upset to other residents. The park owner is often asked to mediate but, with little authority, and the process of courts being prohibitively expensive, the park owner is often unable to help. It is too early to tell if the Residential Property Tribunals will become a solution. For the tribunals to be effective they need to help all parties and need 192
the power to terminate Mobile Home Act Agreements and issue eviction orders. Initially, the tribunals seem to be very one sided and only introduced so that a resident can act against a park owner. Pitch Fees We are surprised that the Pitch Fees are limited to rate of inflation increases, when so many costs of running the business increase above the inflation rate. If the local authority and energy companies can justify above inflation increases to the business, then it is only reasonable for there to be a system that allows these increases to be passed on. The Payment of Commission The 1975 Mobile Homes Act considerably changed the tenancy of the Mobile Home Occupiers. Previously residents had no rights to sell their home with the benefit of its pitch. After the Act, they were given (without cost) the right to sell this benefit. The site owners unrestricted freehold was forever lost, greatly reducing the value of the land but increasing the value of resident's homes. In order to compensate the site owners for their loss and in order to maintain a financially viable business without increasing pitch fees, it was deemed correct that the site owner should receive a commission payment when a home was sold. Most residents do not initially understand this system but regard it as fair once the reasons for it are properly explained. More should be done to assure residents of the system's fairness. We are concerned that any changes in the finances of operating a park will render business unviable. We have considerable commitments and the park will not be able to meet its obligations if the commission structure or the rates change. It is not financially viable to operate a mobile home park if the pitch fees are the only source of income. Harassment and Illegal Eviction It is quite clear that harassment and illegal eviction breach the existing rights of the resident and we see no need for further legislation. There appears to be very few substantiated cases and residents should be reassured with the actions of the Police and the Residential Property Tribunal. We have ourselves been the object of harassment and threatening behaviour from residents, whilst they continually campaign for additional rights, residents can become very abusive when they themselves have to abide with the terms of the Mobile homes Act. Fit and Proper Person The requirement for a manager to a fit and proper person has failed to work elsewhere and we cannot see how it would work and benefit this industry.
193
Resale of Park Homes and Resale Fees Resident's rights have been clearly identified by past legislation. It is for the Tribunal to enforce these rights if they are breached. There are considerable costs involved in assigning the Mobile Homes Act Agreement. It is reasonable to expect the site owner to be paid a fee to cover these costs. The Assignment Commission should not be treated as this payment, as it is a separate compensation. If a park home resident chooses to employ the site owner as a sales agent, charges should be agreed separately. If a site owner is selling a home there is a requirement for him to supply a copy of the Written Statement Agreement to any prospective purchaser, however problems are caused because this requirement does not currently apply to an existing park home resident who is selling their home privately. Conclusion It is important that a fair and balanced approach is taken with legislation. Residents already have extensive rights and this is causing problems because park owners no longer have sufficient authority to properly manage the parks. The many legislation changes that have occurred in recent years need time to ascertain their effectiveness. It is vital that the parks remain manageable and can maintain financial viability, so as to encourage professional operators. The well-publicised activities of a few rogue operators appear to be in breach of existing legislation and we should be careful not to introduce excessive further legislation that could actually discourage legitimate business operators.
February 2012
194
Written submission from the Wayside Farm Park Residents’ Association (PH 200) The below report with its findings are submitted for and behalf of the Residents of 45 homes who reside at Wayside Farm Park, Ravensden, Beds. If there is a personal view it will be added at the end. The intention is to take each bullet point on the message in order. Site / Pitch Fees. We have no real issues on this park with Site/Pitch Fees as the correct figures and procedures are used by the Management. There is some concern though in relation to the change by the Government to use the CPI figure in the calculation of annual Pension increases etc, when the relevant RPI figure is still being used in the calculation of the Site / Pitch Fees. We appreciate, there may be no intention to consider any change to this current piece of legislation with regard to the use of RPI, but feel it should be something to bear in mind for the future. In its self this puts pressure on income against expenditure and if ignored will be critical or become critical for most Pensioners, who after all, make up the majority of Residents in Park Homes throughout the country. Awarding and Revocation of Site Licences. There is a general feeling the Local Authority should be reminded of their responsibilities, as after all they are responsible for awarding and where necessary the Revocation of a Site Licence. There is a need for the Local Authority, to be more diligent when awarding a Site Licence. As it is, it appears a Site Licence is granted to anyone legitimately applying, (under Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960) with little or no problem. As for Revocation, the Local Authority would have to make the time to carry out the necessary routine checks on Parks with regard to the conditions attached to the Site Licence, this is something as far as we are aware is just not being followed through, due to lack of local Authority resources.
Regulation and Enforcement of Site Licence Conditions. We are made to believe from the relevant department of the Local Authority that due to staff pressures and the current climate, it is not possible to regularly carry out the necessary checks on each and every Park Home Site in the County especially with regard to the Enforcement of the Regulations surrounding the Site Licence. Fit and Proper Persons. There is a definite need for some method to be put in place which would allow the Local Authority to make any necessary checks on any person, Male or Female who intends to become the Owner or Manager of a Park. Having said that, there is no easy answer to this 195
problem, as apart from a man power situation it will not be as simple as just implying what is required. The interpretation of the definition Fit and Proper Person will differ from person to person depending in which context it is read. Harassment and Illegal Eviction. There have been little or no problems here at Wayside with this type of behaviour. Nationally, there is awareness of a wider problem with certain Owners/Managers causing some of their elderly and vulnerable Residents real, unnecessary and worrying problems. Surely, if the recommendations put forward in the Executive summary of the DETR publication in 2000 titled Harassment and Unlawful Eviction of Private Rented Sector Tenants and Park Home Residents, there should be enough powers to already deal with issues within this definition. Of cause only if an official complaint with evidence is made by the Resident/s. Resale of Park Homes and Re-sale Fees. This must be one of the most controversial and talked about issues that affect Residents and their families, because it involves money and in some instances for some unscrupulous Park Owner’s a great deal of money. From the Residents point of view having access to and understanding what is quoted with regards ‘Sale of Mobile Home’, Paragraph 8 of the Implied Terms Order, 1st Oct 2006, is of benefit. It is sad, but some Park Owners are still putting as many blocks in the way, hoping eventually to make the purchase for themselves. Whilst on this subject on a very personal note, at the moment the law, as quoted above allows a Park Home owner to sell his home and have the Written Agreement assigned to the new owner which then allows that person to carry on paying the same Pitch Fee. As is commonly known the Pitch Fee can only be changed if the Park Owner is the seller. My view and stress it is only my view, that when a home is sold by whomever, the new Resident should be subject to an amended pitch fee, because on some older Parks there is a vast difference in Pitch Fees, between £90 and £140. I feel this would go some way to stop what is currently happening with Park Owners/Managers putting stumbling blocks in the way of sales. Will this be the opportunity to come up with ideas, to close down as many loopholes as possible that are present at the moment.
February 2012
196
