Residential Mobile Homes in Scotland

Chapter Four Living on Licensed Park Home Sites

Introduction

4.1 Chapter Four focuses on the views of the forty respondents who lived in park homes on licensed sites, and does not include the ten respondents who lived either in mobile homes that were either unlicensed or that were exempt from licensing. Firstly, the chapter examines respondents' opinions on the layout of the sites where they lived and the way in which they felt the sites were maintained. Secondly, the chapter describes relations between the respondents and the park owner. Thirdly the chapter considers a variety of aspects of living on licensed sites such as written agreements under the 1983 Mobile Homes Act, pitch fees and the legislation covering park homes.

Site layout and maintenance

4.2 The majority of respondents felt that the layout of the sites where their park homes were located, and the way that they were maintained were adequate,

"This one's really nice. I don't think I could fault it at all. There are noisy kennels next door, but this was pointed out when I viewed the property. The roads could do with a bit of upgrading in places, but then I've seen an awful lot worse in the town" (owner; rents a stance).

"I'm quite happy with it. It's a nice site and in a beautiful location. Some sites are very prim and proper, but it's more relaxed here. I wouldn't say it's perfectly maintained, but it's adequate" (owner; rents a stance).

4.3 However, ten respondents noted particular problems about either the layout or the maintenance of their sites or both,

"It was OK at first. It really is a mess now. It been allowed to deteriorate. You're sat here in the middle of the country, you're watching deer go past your window in the fields. There's a river out the back. You've got woods all around you. You couldn't, on a day like today with the sun shining, ask for anything better. But the mess here is unbelievable. You'd have to see it to believe it" (owner; rents a stance).

"It's a disgrace. There's a new owner took over three years ago, and he's using threatening tactics to get people off the site. He puts metal cages up around them when he demolishes them, and it's worse than a building site just now" (owner; rents a stance).

4.4 One problem identified by a couple of respondents was an inadequate power supply on their parks,

"The main problem in the chalet is fluctuations in electricity. Every so often the lights trip. I had everything electrical checked out, and it was OK. So I take it that it's to do with the Park, and I know a lot of people here get it. A lot of people are complaining that the fuses on the park aren't strong enough" (owner; rents a stance).

However, one concern is that the costs of any improvement in power supply on the parks where an upgrade was necessary would be passed on to residents through an increase in pitch fees.

Relations with the park owner

4.5 Respondents were asked how far they got on with the park owner. About half the respondents were positive about their relationship with the park owner, and also the staff who worked on the park, such as the site manager, or maintenance staff,

"The owner is very pleasant and very approachable. (Name) who works in the office is lovely and very helpful, and so is the site manager. You can go to him with anything and he will get back to you" (owner; rents a stance).

"People in the office are very helpful. The guys that work in the park are very pleasant, and helpful too. You can ask them anything, no problems at all. We seldom see the actual owner" (owner; rents a stance).

4.6 Two respondents, both on the same site, expressed a concern that although they were positive about their current park owner, they were worried about what might happen if a new owner took over. This concern led to a certain amount of anxiety about the future for these respondents,

"The current owner is fine. He's actually coming up to retirement so he may be selling soon. The owner lease the site from (name). We are always concerned when we here about things changing. We've heard there might be a proposal to develop part of the site, which we're not happy about. There's one or two things in the air at the moment, which I'm a bit wary of. I'm a bit concerned, you know, how long term that is a concern for us at the moment, the site changing hands" (owner; rents a stance).

4.7 Other respondents reported that they were on poor terms with the park owner, or had experienced difficulties with the site owner. Two respondents on two different sites described damage that had been caused to their homes by the actions of their park owners,

"He brought a caravan onto the site using a land cruiser instead of a low loader and damaged the end of my home. It's not nice. I'm on my own. I'm struggling to survive. I would like a little bit of financial help for all the damage he does" (owner; rents a stance).

In the other instance, the respondent noted that they had been asked to move to another part of the site by the owner. However, damage had been caused to the inside of their home in the process of being moved by representatives of the site owner from one part of the site to another, which the site owner refused to rectify.

Written Agreements under the 1983 Mobile Homes Act

4.8 The Mobile Homes Act (1983) applies to owner occupiers on protected sites and sets out that they are entitled to a written agreement setting out their rights and responsibilities. The majority of respondents reported that they had written agreements. However, worryingly, seven respondents on three different sites stated that they had never received a written agreement from their park owner,

"We have no Agreement. You just have to live with it. It's like crossing the road - you have to take a chance every so often. With this Act we should have an Agreement and we should know where we stand. Well we don't know where we stand. It's all very well on a sunny day and people walk past and say hello and stuff. But when something goes wrong it's another story" (owner; rents a stance).

4.9 However, occasionally some respondents felt that even with an Agreement, there was too much ambiguity in the way that the current legislation could be interpreted,

"The people that own the site seem to think they have a God given right to do as they like on the site. The way I read the Mobile Homes Act, I've got as much rights as they have. Unless things are made a lot clearer in Agreements, there's always going to be rows over it. He's absolutely convinced his solicitor is right - of course he's right because the solicitor is going to read it his way. I don't know what you'll put in your report, but you need to get across to whoever when they write these laws, they've got to make them more understandable to the average person. A lot of people who live in park homes can't afford fancy lawyers to get it all explained to them. You should be able to read one of these park home agreements and say that it says A, B and C and that's what it means" (owner; rents a stance).

Pitch fees

4.10 Most respondents living in park homes on licensed sites felt that pitch fees were at a reasonable level, and that increases in pitch fees were not unduly high. In most of these cases, increases were said to be roughly in line with the Retail Price Index. As one such respondent commented on pitch fees,

"A lot of people moan, but they went up 65p per week this year, which is neither here nor there. He (the site owner) pays the water rates, and you know how the price of water has shot up" (owner; rents a stance).

4.11 Another respondent, who had previous experience of living in a park home in England, noted that occasionally the pitch fees altered to take account of additional works carried out by the site owner,

"It's moderate. If we were living in England, then the pitch fees would be a lot more. Fees go up mainly with inflation, occasionally more because he is installing or undertaking works. I think this is fair" (owner; rents a stance).

4.12 However, eleven respondents expressed dissatisfaction about their pitch fees. In most cases, these respondents were not happy because they felt that their pitch fees had increased to an unreasonable level,

"The ground rent has gone up. Last year it was supposed to be going up to £21 (a week), but then he asked for £24. But then it was hardly at £24 when he asked for £38 a week. We all formed a group. None paid the £38. It's an ongoing dispute" (owner; rents a stance).

4.13 Another respondent reflected on a different problem with pitch fees,

"The five of us here are all on different pitch fees. Last year I was paying £50 per month. Now he's looking for £74 a month - you can't say that's a 2.7 per cent increase. He wants £98 next year. And then in June 2007 he wants £120 to make it the same as the rest of the homes on the site. He's also allowed a site improvement increase and there's nothing in here (the Agreement) to say what sort of increase he is allowed. That should be set out into the Agreement. What is the actual percentage that residents have to pay" (owner; rents a stance).

Views on the legislation

4.14 A key issue raised during the submissions to the Scottish Parliament Communities Committee (2005) was that residents of park homes needed to be fully aware of their rights on protected sites. One respondent discussed the importance of learning about the extent of the rights that were available to park home residents,.

"I didn't know I had as many [rights] until I started having this bother. I joined the NAPHR last year. A representative came to see me. I didn't think I hardly had any because it's on private ground. The site owner's attitude is that 'It's my patch, so you'll play by my rules'. But we know now that we don't have to" (owner; rents a stance).

4.15 Limited awareness of the legislation was not just confined to park home residents, however. One respondent commented that in the course of a conversation with their local authority, that the officer in question did not think that the Mobile Home Act, 1983 applied to Scotland.

Commission Rate

4.16 Part I of Schedule 1 of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 states that when a home is sold and the agreement transferred, the park owner is entitled to a commission at a rate specified by the Secretary of State, which is currently ten per cent. The Park Homes Industry Report found that the commission payment was by far the most controversial element in the industry's cost structure ( ODPM, 2002). In terms of a rationale for the commission rate, the ODPM (2002) found that the commission payment could be considered to be for the site owner's interest in the land.

4.17 Respondents were asked for their views on the commission payable when a home is sold. There was considerable resentment amongst many of the residents towards this payment,

"I'm very angry about it, because they don't do anything for it. I can't understand how it's got to this ludicrous state, that an owner can get ten per cent for doing nothing" (owner; rents a stance).

4.18 Whilst site owners can claim 15 per cent commission from people who own holiday units, anyone who legally lives in their mobile home as their permanent dwelling can only be charged 10 per cent commission. However, on one mixed site containing holiday units and residential park homes, a respondent stated that a 15 per cent commission was demanded from permanent residents, not the ten per cent as laid down in the Mobile Homes Act (1983),

"The terms of the park are that he requires 15%. His attitude is 'if you don't pay then I'll take it anyway'. If you, the seller, do not give it to the management at the time of the sale, then he'll make it difficult for the buyer, by say, increasing the site fee. In nine times out of ten, you're selling your home to somebody you know, so at the end of the day you want it to go through smoothly and you don't want bad blood between you and maybe your friend or another member of the family that you sold it to. So for sake of peace and quiet and harmony you just pay it" (owner; rents the stance).

4.19 Although the consultation issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government (2006) only covered England and Wales, one home owner's association on a park had considered the issues covered by this consultation and expressed the view that they hoped that any future change in legislation that applied to Scotland would withdraw the present commission on the sale of all park homes and also prohibit a compensatory increase in pitch fee. A respondent on a different park also expressed the concern that if the law was changed in relation to commission on sales, then residents might end up in a worse situation if park owners tried to increase their revenue from other sources by way of compensation,

"There might be a problem with abolishing the ten per cent if owners put the ground rent up. Ground rent is a lot of money, whilst the ten per cent is only if and when you want to sell" (owner; rents the stance).

4.20 However, there was another, smaller group of residents who were more circumspect about paying the commission. For example, three respondents stated,

"It's one of those things you accept, I think" (owner; rents the stance).

"I wouldn't mind paying it if I knew that the person was going to treat you fairly and some of that money was going to be put into the infrastructure. Or if the site is in A1 condition, then fair enough - the landlord just gets to keep the money" (owner; rents the stance).

"I was aware of it at the time (I bought it) so that's fair enough. I see it as payment for the security of being here" (owner; rents the stance).

4.21 One respondent suggested that greater transparency would help,

"This has been with caravanning for years and years and years. The thing with it is that nobody seems to know what it's for. If it was for owners saying it's going into such and such, say concrete bases or something. It's just not transparent enough. If owners said 'right we're going to use this to further the site and put concrete bases down, I don't suppose many people would mind" (owner; rents the stance).

4.22 However, in another instance, a respondent noted that the point about commission was academic, because the park owner was not allowing any sales on their park,

"He's not allowing us to sell. He's not allowing us to sell our homes. Which is wrong. It's like you having your home and somebody saying 'oh no, you cannot sell that'. He wants to develop the land. This place is for my kids - I've got four kids. And he's giving people 3,000 pounds across the board. Well that's my windows. That's what we're fighting him about because if we want to sell our homes we should be able to do it. There's him saying I can't leave this to my kids. It's nonsense. We're stuck here" (owner; rents a stance).

Another respondent highlighted a similar issue on a different park,

"Someone tried to sell not through the owner, but the owner said 'No, I get first refusal'. Well to me that's not in the legislation. That was never the law. We used to have a committee but after a couple of meetings he wouldn't meet with us. I says to him: 'you don't have first refusal' and he says 'well it depends which way you look at it'" (owner; rents a stance).

4.23 Respondents living in park homes discussed whether or not they were considering moving home in the foreseeable future. The majority of respondents noted that they intended to stay where they were. Two respondents were unequivocal about there feelings on the matter commenting, " I'm staying here until I die" and " We say there's only one way we'll go out of here and that's in a box. That's how we feel about it". Another respondent was more circumspect about living where she was, and noted,

"I wouldn't move home. The only way you would get me out of here is if I'm unable to look after myself, and I'd be very reluctant to move because some of these care homes are appalling" (owner; rents a stance).

4.24 However, ten respondents stated that they had thought about moving home, with a further two respondents noting that they were considering a move in the long term. One of the respondents who stated that they would like to move felt constrained by their circumstances,

"We want to move but at our age, there aren't any council houses - what they would offer us we wouldn't take. And we couldn't afford a mortgage anyway. So basically we're stuck here" (owner; rents a stance).

Another respondent commented on the financial implications of a move,

"I would go if I was offered a council house now, which I may be because I've been on the list for about 12 years. If I get offered a house then I would just sell it to him (the park owner), because I couldn't be bothered with the hassle. Because it is a lot of hassle. He puts them off and when they see the ground rent - that puts people off. So he ends up buying it anyway, but for less than you would have got for it" (owner; rents a stance).

4.25 It was not possible to make any direct comparison with the situation in England with regard to turnover in park homes. Nevertheless, this research illustrated that an element of turnover was apparent amongst the respondents and that the commission rate would consequently affect those respondents considering a move.

Enforcement

4.26 A strong element running through the submissions to the Scottish Parliament Communities Committee Report (2005) relating to mobile homes in the Housing (Scotland) Bill was enforcement to prevent unscrupulous park owners from flouting the legislation. The written and oral submissions by the British Holiday and Home Parks Association and the National Association for Park Home Residents both placed great emphasis on the need to ensure that legislation would be backed by sufficient penalties to deter unscrupulous park owners. Indeed, the kind of problem that has arisen in the past was highlighted by a question in the Scottish Parliament over a household living in a park home who had had their electricity and gas supplies cut off by the site owner for nearly a year and the difficulty that this household had experienced in securing redress for their discomfort (Scottish Parliament, 2004).

4.27 A common theme underlying the discussions with one group of respondents was the difficulties they had experienced in attempting to seek redress for the problems they had experienced with park owners. Local authorities were perceived as unsympathetic to the needs of residents in park homes, when these residents had reported the problems that they had experienced with the park owner. A further difficulty was that in situations where damage had been caused to personal property, the police felt that they were unable to act because the damage was caused on private land and was therefore a civil matter, rather than criminal. However, in contrast, it was reported by another respondent that in their locality, the police had intervened. Two respondents expressed frustration with the legal system in Scotland where cases had to be taken through the Sheriff's Court, because of the length of time - often years - it took to bring a case to court.

4.28 One of these respondents felt let down by the way in which support was available to park home residents to ensure that the legislation was enforced,

"They are trying to bolster up the legislation, and it certainly needs changing, but it doesn't matter how much they change it, or how much more transparent they make it, if there's no-one going to enforce it then it's just a waste of time" (owner; rents a stance).

Another respondent commented,

"It is a worry if somebody did take over the site. We don't seem to have the government backing that you have with your own home. That's the biggest bugbear of being in a mobile home - it's the insecurity in comparison with bricks and mortar" (owner; rents a stance).

In another instance, one group of park home residents had taken matters into their own hands and were attempting to use the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 to effect a community buy out of their park. This Act provides an opportunity for communities to acquire land in cases where landowners have indicated that an area of land is to be sold, and where the community have registered an interest in such land.

4.29 Attempts to develop the effectiveness of legislation has recently taken place in other parts of the UK. The Department for Communities and Local Government (2006) have recently set out the amendments to the implied terms in England under the Mobile Homes Act 1983 brought about by the Housing Act 2004 and the Mobile Homes Act 1983 (Amendment of Schedule 1) (England) Order 2006. These amendments cover a range of issues with regard to relations between site owners and park home residents in England. For example, one change to tackle the elusive nature of some site owners is to require all site owners by notice to inform residents and any qualifying residents' association of the address at which notices (including notices of proceedings) may be served by residents or a qualifying residents' association. Although a couple of respondents in the research in Scotland did comment on the difficulty of contacting their site owners, a more significant issue was the ability for park home residents to seek redress in the event of damage to property or, potentially, a personal accident due to the actions of a site owner or their representatives. In this respect, two respondents argued that valid public liability insurance should be a required condition of owning a licensed site.

Residential occupation of holiday homes

4.30 One emerging issue is the considerable potential for confusion by residents over whether mobile homes can legitimately be occupied permanently, and how far mobile homes have to be vacated for part of the year. This issue is important because of the potential for individual households to get caught out, either through a genuine misunderstanding on the part of residents and park owners, or more worryingly, through the potential for residents to be misled by unscrupulous park owners. There were allegations of mis-selling in a couple of instances where park owners or managers were selling park homes to people with the claim that households could legitimately live all year round on pitches that in fact were only licensed for holiday use (it must be noted that these cases do not relate to sites that have appeared recently in the press in relation to residential occupation of holiday pitches). Further, any households that occupy a park home in this way are in a precarious position because they sit outside the protection of legislation covering both housing and also mobile homes. The kind of difficulty that can arise was thrown into sharp relief by the situation in Perth and Kinross, where there was a dispute between the local authority and the site owner and a number of residents over whether the residents were legally entitled to live permanently in their mobile homes, or whether the site license was only for holiday units only (Simpson, 2006).

Conclusions

4.31 The majority or respondents were satisfied with both the way in which park home sites were maintained and managed, with a range of positive comments about the park owners and staff who managed and helped to maintain the sites. However, a significant minority of respondents expressed considerable dissatisfaction about the way their parks were run, and also about a number of key aspects of the legislation in relation to park homes.

4.32 There was considerable resentment amongst many of the residents with regard to the ten per cent commission on sales of their homes. The number of respondents who were considering a move suggests that any abuse of the commission on sales would affect a significant number of owners.

4.33 This chapter has identified a range of problems experienced by respondents in relation to difficulties with a number of park owners. These difficulties included:

• Site owners and/or managers requiring homes to be sold through them, or blocking sales altogether
• Damage to personal property
• Allegations of harassment, intimidation and threatening behaviour
• Increases in pitch fees at an unacceptable level
• Inadequate supply of electricity to park homes
• Poor maintenance of sites
• Claiming over legally permitted commission rate on the sale of park homes
• A small number of residents who stated that they did not have written agreements from their site owners.

4.34 There were allegations of mis-selling on a couple of parks, where households were under the impression that they could occupy their home all year round, when in fact they were moving onto a pitch with a license for holiday use only.