Around 80 park home owners converged on 10 Downing Street yesterday to deliver a blunt message demanding reform of their scandal-hit corner of the retirement housing market. The residents, mainly in their 70s, are furious at the skulduggerous behaviour of certain park home owners – and, truth be told, have little good to say about any of them.
The chief source of grievance is the 10% exit fee on sale taken by the site owners which residents claim is for no very precisely defined service whatsoever.
So, it is remarkably akin to the 1% exit fees in retirement housing, which prompted an Office of Fair Trading investigation and was dropped.
Initially, the demonstration – which was delayed first by the lack of a Conservative prime minister and subsequently by the Queen’s death – was to address the issue of pitch fees rising every year with Retail Price Inflation (RPI) instead of the less onerous Consumer Price Index (CPI).
But a private members bill by Sir Christopher Chope last week was taken up by government and hastened through the Commons with likely royal assent early in the New Year, this grievance is likely sorted out.
So the focus of the demo then switched to the 10% sale fees as well as the winter fuel subsidies.
Leading the demonstration was Sonia McColl OBE, the founder of the Park Homes Owners Justice Campaign, who had her own mobile home stolen in 2017 by two insider thugs who were subsequently jailed.
LKP ensured the theft had national coverage in the media, invited Sonia McColl to address the All-Party Parliamentary Group on leasehold and commonhold reform in December 2017 and helped raise £14,682 to help, as the mobile home was in transit and uninsured.
Also leading the demo was Tony Turner, and indefatigable champion of park home residents’ rights who is in the upper tribunal of the property chamber today over a case concerning the disclosure of accounts at his site.
We hope he is successful, with the courts doing anything silly with the legal costs if he isn’t – it is the threat of exhorbitant legal costs that close down most leaseholder / park home owner disputes.
The park home demonstrators delivered a petition to Number 10, headed by Sir Peter Bottomley, Father of the House and long term patron of LKP, who has championed their rights with the same dedication that he has done leaseholders’.
Later a meeting in the Palace of Westminster was held chaired by Sir Peter Bottomley and attended by an impressive number of MPs.
First, William Tandoh, the official at the Department of Housing, Communities and Levelling Up who deals with park homes, explained park home owners eligibility for energy bill support, bringing along a guidance note that was shared at the meeting.
It can be read here
Residents were dubious any assistance to site owners would be passed on to them.
Justin Madders, Labour MP for Ellesmere Port and Neston, perhaps explained the audience’s disbelief by saying that every month he encountered another park home buyer being duped by people who “you want not want to be within a million miles of people’s homes”.
He had absolutely no confidence that money entrusted to some park home operators would be passed on to the rightful recipients and added that park home operators “were some of the most unscrupulous people I have ever come across”.
His Labour colleague Mark Tami, MP for Alyn and Deeside, joined the meeting but did not speak, but there was a chorus of outrage from Conservative MPs present.
On the panel was MP Steve Brine, MP for Winchester and Chandlers Ford, who has been beset with park home scandals in his constituency.
First off among the other MPs who did speak was erstwhile, blink-and-you-missed-her former housing minister Heather Wheeler who detailed park home woes in her South Derbyshire constituency, as did Robert Courts, Conservative MP for Whitney and West Oxfordshire, Robin Millar, Conservative MP for Aberconwy, a new MP who referenced the heaps of case work on park homes issues passed on by his predecessor, Mary Robinson, Conservative MP for Cheadle, and Ben Spencer, MP for Runnymede and Weybridge. All of whom represent quite a decent geographic mix.
Only 160,000 to 180,000 park homes exist in the UK but they are responsible for a deluge of complaints to MPs of all parties, as Justin Madders confirmed.
LKP has long lamented its lack of detailed involvement in the issues, owing to paucity of resources, but one very good reason for all leaseholders to be interested is that brings the exploitative practices involved in a disempowered form of property tenure to shire Tory MPs in graphic and exaggerated form. They would, understandably, be less interested in purely urban issues involving flats.
Residential freeholders are shadowy exploitative figures, but on the whole behave within white collar restraints – they employ bottom-end lawyers to do their bullying of obstructive leaseholders. Park home site owners do the same thing with added extra-legal menace, like organising a couple of thugs to steal a pensioners’ mobile home.
After the MPs came the views of the residents, which were shocking.
They had little doubt that money site owners will lose when pitch fees change from RPI to CPI will be “ground out of us in some other way”.
Tony Turner, a redoutable campaigner, is in the upper chamber of the property tribunal at the Royal Courts of Justice today over an issue concerning disclosure of accounts.
He made the point that “government had allowed these con artists to take over the market”, that park homes are a significant park of the retirement housing sector and that it would wither because of the long-term lack of trust the sector’s abuses will engender.
Paul Baker, an insurance broker for park homes, was incredulous that government would entrust any money to park home site owners in the expectation that it would be passed on to the residents’ good.
In short, he was expressing precisely the kind of reservations LKP has over the Building Safety Funds largesse, which will almost certainly be plundered by freeholders and their property manager minions unless there is the strictest oversight.
Sonia McColl concluded by saying that it was time the park homes residents got properly organised and created an organisation like LKP, which she warmly praised: charitable status and the beginnings of proper funding. Much of the campaign has been subsidised by her pension, and it is not healthy that activists such as Tony Turner are venturing into the upper tribunal in disputes where legal costs are routinely gamed and dumped on the losing party.
It is also appalling that the All Party Parliamentary Group on park homes is funded and supported by the site owners, who provide the secretariat. In other words, it is nobbled by the very people on the other side.
It is most unusual that the leasehold and commohnold APPG, which LKP set up with its patron MPs Sir Peter Bottomley, Sir Ed Davey and first Jim Fitzpatrick / now Justin Madders, has a consumer facing charity such as LKP as its secretariat.
As a result, at the next APPG on December 12 the housing minister Lucy Fraser KC will be addressing leaseholder representatives, not the property sector – to the intense frustration of their assorted lobbyists.
Related posts:
Park home champion Sonia McColl OBE thanks all for help over stolen home
Park Home champion Sonia McColl OBE has her mobile home stolen … ‘after death threats’
LKP helps raise £14,682 for park home champion Sonia McColl OBE
APPG to protect park home owners has as secretariat the site owners’ own trade body!
Trial for two accused of stealing the home of park homes campaigner Sonia McColl OBE
Richard Davidoff given the boot as section 24 court appointed manager after expulsion from ARMA, IRPM and Propertymark
If the 10% sales fees is for no service and a pure profit stream to the freeholder then surely this would be factored into the price paid
Once it is known and understood then a buyer needs to ensure that deferred payment is reflected in their offer price
Making sure it is clear and understood BEFORE the contract js signed is what is important
Sometimes the lease requires the exit fee is credited to the service charge account – it would be unfair for a lessee who enjoys the benefit of a partially subsidised service charge for many years objecting nearer the time they exit the property to the 10% exit fee
The mischief lies when there is a failure to disclose a term of the contract fully at the time of sale
If a vendor has to clearly state in a prescribed statement exit fees and ground rent showing the Net Present Value before contracts are signed the buyer can carefully focus on these financial burdens before committing to them – this really is not a difficult statement to prepare or to legislate on
May I respectfully suggest Stephen that you look-into this a little as you may not be aware that there are no leases involved in this process therefore no leaseholders. The difference between park home living and B&M living is totally different and often mistaken by anyone not involved in park homes.
The only leases involved are where the freeholder creates and assigns a lease to a third part management company of under seven years, which does not have to be registered with the Land Registry – and unless declared at the time of sale by either the freeholder or the leaseholding company, are otherwise undiscoverable. The consequences for the buyer can be serious. eg., unless the written agreement clearly states that their term of occupancy is `in perpetuity`, then, as decided by Judge Elizabeth Cooke in the Wyldecrest/Turner, Case ( LRX/114/2019 ) then the secuirty of occupany exists only as long at the leasehold interest exists – meaning that a buyer can pay say 250k for their home and move in to later receive notice that the homes must be removed because the lease has only ( say ) six month to run before it expires. At worst this means they could become homeless and at best face what can be significant legal costs in attempts to remedy the position. What has been repeatedly exampled is that an offer is then made by the site owner, that they will change the terms to one of perpetuity upon further payments of up to 40K GBP or the doubling of their grounds rent ad infinitum. One of the get-out tactics engaged, being to state that the agreement that enables the home to remain in situ is the use the words ` indefinite` which does not have the same legal meaning., even though a court may determine that in the context of their situations `indefinate` can mean perpetuity` but that would be down to the interpretatation of the judge in that particular case. The fact that the concealments of those short-term leases might well be regarded as breaches of sec 2 of the 2006 Fraud Act appears to be neither here nor there – and that the government is fully aware and has done nothing about it implies that the monies secured by the site owner by such devious means, is much less important that the well-being of the innocent duped party.
I know of a holiday park in East Anglia where the chalets have a clause where 10% of the sale price is paid to the freehold – when the flats are sold the purchaser is made aware of this charge as a whole schedule in the lease is devoted to explaining how it is arrived at – the service charge is a set amount and can only by the RPI
In a recent sale there was much criticism of this 10% fee yet when the vendor bought the property 10 years earlier the price was reduced at the last minute because of the 10% exit fee – they claim they were not aware of the fee and they wrote to their MP – correspondence was found showing the price was reduced as of course this effected the exit fee at the time to be received by the freeholder
Following the disclosure of this correspondence there has been silence from the current vendor
I would be interested to hear or read any site owner justifying the charge of an exit fee? In my opinion it is “money for old rope” Most of us accept paying for goods and services received and paying the going rate in return.
In the case of exit fees what goods or services do the site owners actually provide to justify the fee? It seems to me that exit fees are simply just another income stream for site owners and are not truly earned or deserved
The Park Home residents deserve justice, and regulation is, in my opinion, the only way forward. Self-regulation has and does work well in many other industry sectors, but it definitely does not work in the Leasehold or Freehold sector, including the Park Home Residents.
I was unaware of the dire situation Park Home Residents were in until I read the above articles, talk about being treated like “medieval serfs” This is one straight out of the history books but taking place right now.
The Park where I live is VERY poorly maintained [if at all!] our pitch fee has just gone up by 14.2% It is a very bitter pill to swallow when it’s all take, take, take. It is us that keep our homes looking lovely, along with the grounds surrounding it – the site owner has NO input & the so called ‘management’ are a joke! Yet we are expected to pay them all this money & for what, exactly?
We are also still waiting for the £400 & £200 energy support that the Government promised everyone. But because we are in the 1% bracket that’s different to the rest of the country, we are discriminated against in every way, shape & form. We are now going into December & still nothing! Just get the same old response that an alternative fund is being looked in to & it will be announced shortly! It’s so unfair.
But because unscrupulous site owners have got away with their shenanigans for so long without being challenged, what chance have we got? The powers that be need to clamp down & enforce things if they are not complying with the site license/law. I wish our Park was owned by the Council, at least then it would be up to scratch with maintenance & everything would be above board.
Keeping everything crossed things will eventually work out & we get the necessary support we so desperately need!
The often serious problems in the Park Homes market are many and varied, where the controls over ordinary people`s lives have been allowed to fall into the hands of not just the unscrupulous – but those of convicted criminals and expert con-artist, who see the usually retired elderly as nothing more than cash cows to be milked at every opportunity – and when resisted, resort to bullying to achieve their goals.
But it doesn`t end there. where the non-disclosure of concealed short-term leases on the land are enabled and the self-invented contracts are clearly fraudulent – with not a single agency so far willing to deal with the starkly obvious, the victims left in fear of reprisals should they themselves attempt to do so.
It is modern day fuedalism at its worst, most aquisitions of parks funded by mainsteam banks known for the global laundering of criminal cartel rewards, their lending policies absent ethical considerations. Add to the mix Local Authorities and their partner agencies charged with overseeing the sector who cry unaffordability and the crooks run riot, knowing well that the chances of prosecution or the revoking of licenses are remote to non-existant.
It`s more than a decade ago when I first warned that unless the government got to grips with the many problems, the market would increasingly fall to mafia-style regimes that would become close impossible to control – and this is precisely where we are today.
All of this said, it`s encouraging to know that finally some belated progress is now being made and I repeat what I have said before: This is, that for most people, Leveling Up does not mean turning crooked millionaires into crooked billionaires and that whilst we all know of the often slow progress of enacting legisaltion, in this case and unless urgently addressed, the snail will die of constipation before it does of old age.
Thank you to everyone doing their bit – but tinkering with the already flawed and piecemeal legislation that is called the Mobile Homes Act, seen and engaged as the Crooks Charter, is not enough. Something has to be done now. No need for further commissioned reports or reviews. The irrefutable evidence is there in black and white and high visibility red. It just needs a new beginning, the effort, the will and the courage to put the wealth of the industry to one side and do something for the people from whose wallets and purses much of it has been lawfully or unlawfully stolen.
Well done once again to the wonderful Sir Peter and LKP for all their hard work.
Many thanks for kind words. Our work is nothing compared with the park home activists themselves.
Tony Turner was in the Royal Courts of Justice the day after the demonstration for oversight of accounts. He has been hounded by defamation claims based on demonstrable untruths. The criminality against Sonia – the theft of her mobile home after assorted threats – is reported on this website.
But I am proud that we got that into the public domain.
My favourite line comes from Darren Basely, a former haulage manager since jailed for the crime along with his accomplice Stewart Gregory, recorded by police saying:
“I thought it was just going to be a crime number. It was just a crappy caravan and an old biddy. I didn’t know she had an OBE and some weight behind her.”
Well, he called that wrong, didn’t he?
Much more than hugely grateful to LKP for bringing the plight of Park Home owners into the wider public domain, the mainsteam media shamefully focusing on the multi-millions accrued by mobile home operators, rather than how the money is often made. How refreshing it is to know that our fuedalistic housing sector is being professionally challenged and the insatiable greed revealed. Thankyou, especially to Sebastian O Kelly and to everyone involved., including Sir Peter Bottomley who chaired the Meeting referred to.