Park home owners marched on 10 Downing Street on September 18 to protest against the 10% resale commissions levied on their properties at resale by site owners.
Chanting “We pay 10%. What do we want? Zero!” a delegation headed by Sonia McColl OBE, the veteran park home leader, accompanied by Sir Peter Bottomley, delivered a petition to the prime minister.
The event was reported by both BBC and ITV, to whom Sir Peter Bottomley said:
“END THIS INJUSTICE. END IT NOW. INSTEAD OF 10%, MAKE IT NOUGHT, NILL, ZERO, STOP IT.”
Afterwards the demonstrators – one travelling down from Scotland – went to Westminster, where they held a meeting in one of the palace’s committee rooms attended by half a dozen backbench MPs, many of them Tories who have park home sites in their rural constituencies.
They included former housing minister Heather Wheeler, who referred to “good site owners” as well as bad. Surely the point, as in leasehold, is not whether they are good or bad but that they have unbalanced powers over other people, which they shouldn’t have?
Speakers were Sir Christopher Chope OBE MP, William Tandoh of the Department of Levelling UP, Sebastian O’Kelly of the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership and, of course, PHOJC President Sir Peter Bottomley MP.
Full report of the event on 18 September is here:
PHOJC 2023 10% WESTMINSTER RALLY – with NOTHING ADDED TO THE PITCH FEE. – Park Home Owners JUSTICE Campaign
PHOJC 2023 10% WESTMINSTER RALLY – with NOTHING ADDED TO THE PITCH FEE. – Park Home Owners JUSTICE Campaign
Park homes and leasehold face remarkably similar challenges, but whereas the latter involves mainly legal bullying in the courts with park home owners it can involve physical menace – even to the extreme of the theft of Sonia McColl’s park home. LKP is very proud of having got this disgrace into national media and parliamentary attention:
Park homes are a retirement housing solution for many, and there are 250,000 residents.
At an average of 69 years old they tend to be younger than retirement housing customers, whose average age is given as 79.
In addition, the park homes do actually appear to increase in value, rather than radically depreciate which is so often the experience with retirement housing.
Related posts:
Park home demonstrators demand end to 10% sales fees – as litany of crooked practice reported to MPs
APPG to protect park home owners has as secretariat the site owners’ own trade body!
Park Home champion Sonia McColl OBE has her mobile home stolen … ‘after death threats’
Park home owners: government action better than expected (well, that’s sort-of positive)
Wyldecrest thwarts attempts by park home activist Tony Turner to provide statement of accounts in upper property tribunal
Three quarters of Churchill Retirement flats have lost money when resold, says The Times
If the lease is clear that there is a 10% exit fee and the leaseholder is legally represented prior to taking in the lease – then the fee should stand. Otherwise it undermines the legal framework we have for contract law
The 10% exit fee is a financial burden and if properly considered at the time of purchase should result in the value of the property being less that one where there is no exit fee. This can only come about if there is transparency in the paperwork and a requirement for the purchaser to seek professional advice before entering into the contract
However as these properties are not mortgageable many transactions are done without the purchaser being properly represented .Knowing this to be the case site owners may seek to exploit this
There should be a requirement that the contracts should at the very least have a key facts page at the front of the lease which spells out in simple plain English in less than a page the key terms – with worked examples to show what will happen when the property is sold in say 2,7, and 15 years time
the leaseholder to then confirm they have taken legal advice BEFORE entering into the contract – also with a cooling off period
Be it ground rent or exit fees the point is that all these charges have a negative impact on the property – they are not a problem if the purchase price reflects it – but to achieve that there needs to be disclosure in clear plain English of these terms so buyers can take it into account when making offers
A ground rent if £10000 per annum is not onerous if it is made clear before the leaseholder enters into the contract that the NPV of such a rent should impact on the value of the property by some £250,000
Reverting back to the topic what should be the position of a owner of a park home owner who knew all about the 10% fee BEFORE entering into the contract where they were professionally represented and where the contract was amended in places to reflect legal input form the owner BEFORE entering into the contract – why should that park owner be excused paying the 10% fee
I nominate Stephen for man of the year for his services to unethical business practises. If he were to win he would join previous years winners such as Nicholas Van Hoogstraten, Peter Rachman, The Kray twins. And from across the pond, Elizabeth Holmes, Bernie Madoff, and Ivan Boseky.
Rather than throw insults hiding behind the anonymity of the internet, what constructive points can you make?
What about opening up the debate and giving some thoughts about whether the matter may fall Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 or the Consumer Credit Act 2006
What is unethical about proposing that there is greater transparency and disclosure BEFORE a buyer enters into a lease. If there is such disclosure, then the price paid would reflect the financial burden an exit fee/ ground rent places on the property.
It is clear that the leasehold park owners did not know or appreciate that such an exit fee was payable. This, I suspect, is because many may not have had legal representation .
Rather than throw insults what constructive points can you make
I have said this before on numerous occassions, you should get a new scriptwriter, you repeat yourself time and time again. If I had a dollar for every time you have said that if a buyer was legally represented in house purchase transaction then everything is in order, then I would be an extremely rich man. 1/ Very often the (crooked) legal representation is set up by the builder/seller. 2/ A man of your calibre(?) should be aware of the legal term “unfair contracts”.
Anonymity? We now know that you are a ground rent investor. We didn’t know that when you first appeared here and presented yourself as an impartial contributor. It was forced out of you, even then you resisted being fully open. Your dark secret was for a time only known to Sebastian.
Stephen,
Thanks for your input, where you`ve hit upon important points but at the same time ommitted significant others.
It`s first necessary to understand the origins of the commissions where post war, farmers let out fields for people to keep their touring caravans, legitimately charging a `pitch` fee and often a sales commission for later helping a sale. This remuneration extended to permanent residential caravans and although it`s twice been controlled by maximum fee regulation in 2013, due to fraudulent sales blocking, site owners were removed from any involvement in the sales process, rendering any `sales` commission entirely unearned and thus, contractually unjustified – at the same time, depriving possible beneficiaries of monies that would otherwise circulate in the wider economy.
In so far as a pre-purchase legal advice is concerned, most buyers don`t seek it, which is much to do with the legal classification of Park Homes as chattels, enabling the many financially exploitative ownerships, to explain that legally, the home is no different from a car or a fridge and that in any event, paying for legal advice is unnecessary as the selling operator has their own in-house legal team with such protections included in the package. Sadly it`s often only much later, that the unwitting discover they`ve been at a minimum conned – and at worst criminally defrauded with their assets and security at risk.
Moreover, most estate agents appear unfamiliar with the contracts associated to the product they are marketing and the same can be said for most instructed solicitors.
Over the years, representatives of the industry have changed their stories, one I recall until proven otherwise, arguing that the commission was to recover losses incurred when the home was first sited – and today, that site owners would be unable to properly operate and maintain their parks, absent the commission. In this, the first was always nonsense and in the latter, there are several serious considerations >
The first is that of the smaller operators, who don`t have the space or consent to add more homes, who would become reliant upon their income from pitch fees. ( eg., a park with just 12 homes x currently £120 pcm per home, would be hard pressed to generate a profit and replace an essential services infrastucture on less that £18k p.a gross ) On the other hand, many of the bigger operators, including the largest in the UK, do little to no maintenance`s or repairs , whilst deriving vast a sums from selling homes that have no planning consents whilst introducing seriously onerous fraudulently sold contracts that neither the government nor its delegated agencies have prevented, let alone criminally prosecuted – the sales commissions nowadays often seen only as a reward for unhindered malpractices. . Meanwhile, please don`t refer to the question of contract law – because in both the residential and holiday park markets, such has become largely irrelevant – especially to thousands of the more vulnerable in fear of voicing complaints due to possible retributions.
I have already made known my own disagreements with the current push for abolition of the commission, arguing that the entire subject requires much more debate, so I`m pleased to confirm that this has now been launched, with stakeholders recently given tasks to undertake in advance of an intended round table meeting hopefully later this year which will offer further guidance to the government.
Finally, in referring your last point……ie., ` Why should a home-owner be excused paying the 10% fee,` I reverse the question. ie., Other perahps than in the example provided and aside from inclusion of the term, should a park owner who is providing nothing in return, be entitled to 10% of the equity in someones only home ? – Furthermore, not being a lawyer, perhaps you or someone other can clarify the question of its legality, one I`ve repeatedly posed to the government without response when referring to the position that so far, the UK remains bound under international law by Conventions that include the following >
Protocol 1, Article 1: Protection of property
Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of the State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.
In the above, of other related questions, just where, when the commissions end up in the pockets of the land-owmers, does the public interest come into play and just what outstanding payments of taxes, contributions other penalties prompt the obligation ?
Tony Turner
https://www.parkhomespolicyforum.co.uk/
Stephen….. and for anyone else who may be following.
I neglected in my previous comment to remind you that Park Home owners are NOT leaseholders. The homes are their own bought and paid for properties. The land occupancy Agreements are a unique form of tenure that fall under the provisions of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 ( as amended )
The only leases likely to be involved, are where the freeholder has secretly afforded short-term leases to in-house management companies, as does the largest operator, where those leases are under seven years so they cannot be discovered via the Land Registry – the motivations being to demand significant payment at the end of the lease from the unwitting home-owners who`d first been led to believe their right to remain on the land was in pepetuity. I say these are clearly criminal offences under section 2 of the 2006 Fraud Act, something I`m persuing myself in the absence of any government agency so far being willing to halt the multi-million cross county abuse or criminaly prosecute.
Any counsel out there, willing to take this on, on a no win no fee basis . ? The evidence is overwhelming.
Tony Turner
https://www.parkhomespolicyforum.co.uk/
Tony,
My late Father in law had a Park Home for many Years. I recall him telling me of instances where Residents were literally thrown off the site for selling goods or services to other Park Home owners. Some of those services included the selling or milk, eggs and other everyday day necessity’s. The explanation offered was “you are undercutting the site shops price”
The site owners nearly always left the towed off Park Home in a prominent place for all to see, possibly as a deterrent to others, before selling the Park Home off at a discount.
Another example that I remember was a local Park home Handyman being told he could not carry out his work on site, because the site owners had their own in house Trades, reminds me of the “closed shop” of the 1970’s.
I will continue to support Park home owners as best I can, they deserve Legal protection from rogue owners and their like.