Memorandum by the National Association
for Park Home Residents (NAPHR) (DHB 18)
I am pleased to hear that the Committee intend
to examine the case for inclusion in the Housing Bill of legislation
on other areas.
The reports of the park homes working party
recommended legislative changes and the Government's response
to that Report was a commitment to these changes, for this important
section of housing.
The inclusion in the Housing Bill will commence
the procedure for the current out-dated legislation to change.
The 1983 Mobile Homes Act has many weaknesses
which are well exploited by the unscrupulous park owner. Under
Park 1 of Schedule 1 of the 1983 Act para 8(1) a resident is entitled
to sell his/her home to a person approved of by the park owner,
whose approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.
The above law clearly states that the park owner
can only disapprove of the purchaser, he cannot prevent the sale
of the home; but he/she does.
There is no time limit on the giving or his
approval which assists in the obstruction of the sale along with
many other tactics to discourage prospective purchasers in order
to obtain a cheap sale to himself to make a larger profit.
Under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1988 for the
residents of leasehold flats and houses, where the resident applies
for consent to assign the landlord must reply in a "reasonable
time" and the burden is on the landlord to prove that he
is reasonable and if he withholds his consent he must give his/her
reasons. This is just one example of the problems that we encounter.
There is nothing enshrined with other legislation
in the 1983 Act to give the rights that are afforded others.
There are many forms of bad practice in the
park home industry of which I would be pleased to give evidence
of.
The 1983 Mobile Homes Act came into force after
only a week of its passage in order to prevent attempts by park
owners to circumvent its provisions.
This Act was a bold attempt to introduce a statutory
agreement to protect mobile home owners with a prescribed content,
provisions for indefinite right of occupation and a protection
against owners seeking to terminate agreements for breaches of
relatively unimportant terms. This unfortunately has failed and
the proposed changes are a must and I would, therefore, welcome
the opportunity to attend an oral evidence session in order to
represent the thousands of mobile home dwellers that need our
help and change.
B J Doick
President
| 
