The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:Chairman:
Mr.
Mike
Hancock Bellingham,
Mr. Henry (North-West Norfolk)
(Con)
Blackman,
Liz (Erewash) (Lab)
Byers,
Mr. Stephen (North Tyneside)
(Lab) Dobbin,
Jim (Heywood and Middleton)
(Lab/Co-op) Foster,
Michael Jabez (Hastings and Rye)
(Lab) Fraser,
Mr. Christopher (South-West Norfolk)
(Con)
Kaufman,
Sir Gerald (Manchester, Gorton)
(Lab)
Laing,
Mrs. Eleanor (Epping Forest)
(Con)
Moffatt,
Laura (Crawley)
(Lab)
Mole,
Chris (Ipswich)
(Lab)
Munn,
Meg (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and
Local Government)
Raynsford,
Mr. Nick (Greenwich and Woolwich)
(Lab)
Rogerson,
Mr. Dan (North Cornwall)
(LD)
Ruddock,
Joan (Lewisham, Deptford)
(Lab) Stunell,
Andrew (Hazel Grove)
(LD)
Vaizey,
Mr. Edward (Wantage)
(Con) Winterton,
Ann (Congleton) (Con) Frank
Cranmer, Committee Clerk
attended the Committee Ninth
Standing Committee on Delegated
LegislationThursday 22
June
2006[Mr.
Mike Hancock in the
Chair]Draft Mobile Homes Act 1983 (Amendment of Schedule 1) (England) Order 20062.30
pm
The
Chairman: As the weather is hot, hon. Members may take
their jackets off if they so
wish.
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government (Meg Munn): I beg to
move, That the
Committee has considered the draft Mobile Homes Act 1983 (Amendment of
Schedule 1) (England) Order
2006. The order was
laid before the House on 24 May 2006. It introduces new terms into the
agreementsthe written statementof all mobile home
occupiers. If approved by this House and the other place, the order
will come into effect on 1 October 2006. The objective of the proposed
changes is to offer greater protection for residents of park
homesthe industry name for residential caravansand to
provide a base for a positive future for the
industry. The Housing
Act 2004 gave the Secretary of State the power to change terms implied
in the Mobile Homes Act 1983. Such terms are contractual terms that are
implied by law into the agreement between a resident and a park owner.
They permit the resident to station a mobile home on the park and to
occupy it as their main residence. As existing agreements are of
infinite duration, this, the first use of the power under the Act, will
imply terms into existing as well as future agreements and will amend
the terms already implied into existing agreements. Future exercises of
the power will not affect existing
agreements. This is
another milestone in the Department for Communities and Local
Government reform of the park home industry, which has been ongoing
since the park home working party was set up in 1998. Its aim was to
consider the operation of the existing controls on park homes and to
make recommendations on what changes, if any, were desirable to achieve
a fair and workable balance between the needs and interests of
occupiers and park
owners. In
the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions 2001
paper, Government Response to the Recommendations of the Park
Homes Working PartyI note that my right hon. Friend the
Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), who was the Minister
for Housing and Planning at the time, is a member of this
Committeean in-principle commitment was made to take forward
many of the working partys recommendations. Of the 30
recommendations, 25 were accepted, with two relating to the written
statement and implied terms.
The work has been supplemented
by numerous consultations and research, which have formed the basis for
this work. In July 2004, we issued a consultation paper entitled
Park Home Statutory Instruments, which forms the basis
for the order. Unsurprisingly, there are areas in which we have
advanced policy in the light of expectations from both sides of the
industry, and we are grateful for the continued constructive comments
from stakeholders to ensure that the order is successfully
implemented. The order
makes a number of additions to the implied terms, which are outlined on
the fact sheet before the Committee. Rather than giving a detailed
breakdown of all the individual provisions, I propose to deal
specifically with any queries that hon. Members raise about the order.
However, I will touch on a few of the implied terms that we are
introducing. The first
issue is quiet enjoyment and right of entry to the pitch. Proposed new
paragraph 11 of schedule 1 to the 1983 Act gives residents the right
to quiet enjoyment of
the...home. One
common way of harassing residents is to visit them late at night, often
for spurious reasons. Proposed new paragraphs 12 to 15 restrict
owners right of entry to the pitch to working hours, except in
the case of emergencies. That should reduce the chances of out-of-hours
harassment and, if it does occur, make it easier for action to be
taken. The measure categorically states that there is no right of entry
to the home for park
owners. Another key
amendment is the introduction of a mechanism, outlined in proposed new
paragraphs 16 to 20, for reviewing the pitch fee. In reviewing the
pitch fee, the owner must have regard to any sums expended for the
benefit of the residents and on which they have been consulted; the
effect of any new Government legislationthere is an exception
in respect of commissionand any decrease in the amenity of the
site. A presumption has been introduced that the pitch fee will be
changed only by a percentage equivalent to any change in the retail
prices index since the last review date. That provides additional
protection for
residents. Most
importantly, we make it a requirement that the review is a negotiation,
rather than a demand. The provisions also ensure that residents
continue to pay the current pitch fee until a new level is
agreed. One other
amendment is the introduction of criteria under which a park owner must
recognise a resident association and consult with it under the 1983
Act. New paragraph 28 is similar to provisions in the leasehold sector,
but has a lower threshold for membership due to the difference between
the sectors. I shall be happy to answer any questions or queries that
the Committee has, and I commend the order to the
Committee. 2.35
pm Mrs.
Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con): I thank the Minister
for bringing forward the legislation, which is necessary. In principle,
I and my hon. Friends certainly do not oppose it. The area of law that
governs the relationship between the owner of a mobile home park and
the owners of the homes sited there is out of date and in need of
reform.
I
know that there has been a very long and detailed consultation on the
matter, and I am sure that the Minister is introducing the order with
confidence. There is much in it that we welcome, but I have some
considerable concerns. Unfortunately, as hon. Members know, although we
have a chance to debate the matter this afternoon, there is no
opportunity to amend the order, because of the procedure by which it
has been brought before the House. That is unfortunate because there
are some small areas in the statutory instrument that would be better
if they were slightly amended.
I appreciate that the Minister
does not normally deal with the subject concerned. [Interruption.]
She does now. Let me wind back a bit: I appreciate that the
Minister is new to the subject. She and I have sat in this and other
Committee Rooms for an uncountable number of hours debating and
considering matters regarding women and equality, the work-life
balance, employment regulations and so on. Normally, we find ourselves
in amazing
agreement. I apologise
for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael
Gove), who normally speaks for the Opposition on housing matters. He is
unable to be here, but I am extremely pleased to be able to deal with
the matter because it is of great importance in my constituency. I am
glad that the Minister recognises
that. The current
legislation is certainly unsatisfactory and there is no doubt that some
park home owners are abusing their dominant positionto put it
politely. Some of the stories that I have heard and incidents that I
have experienced through my constituents are nothing short of
appalling. We imagine that in our supposedly civilised society in the
early 21st century people do not behave like a caricature of a
Victorian landlord, but in this instance, they do.
Normally,
when I stand up on the Opposition side of the Committee to discuss
proposed Government legislation, my usual chorus is: We do not
need all this red tape; it is not for the Government to interfere in
every aspect of every citizens life. This afternoon, I
shall say exactly the opposite because in this area, the person on one
side of a contractual agreement has enormous financial and practical
power, and the person on the other side of the legal
agreementthe owner of a home on a parkhas no power
whatever and considerably fewer legal rights than the owner or tenant
of any other type of property. The law does not recognise park homes as
property. Let us face it: the legal position is that they are not
heritable property but moveable property. Therefore, the conditions
that apply to them and their position under the law are completely
different, but that does not mean that the people who live in them do
not deserve the same recognition under the law and the same rights as
owners and tenants of other types of home in Britain
today. I have several
concerns that I must express to the Minister. I appreciate that we can
do nothing to amend the order this afternoon, but she and her
Department will undoubtedly keep this difficult area of law under
consideration, and perhaps the matters that we discuss this afternoon
will be taken into consideration in future reviews of the law. I am sad
to note, however, that it has taken a long time, under all
Governmentsthis is not a party political matterfor us
to get this far with the legislation. Although I welcome the order, I
hope that it will not take so long for further improvements to be made,
because they are necessary.
I am concerned about some of the
details. The introduction in article 2 of the courts ability to
make a judgment on the reasonableness of the behaviour of the park
owner is a good development, which we particularly welcome. However, I
am concerned that the introduction, also in article 2, of the word
forthwith instead of at the end of a
contractual period does not give the occupier enough time to deal with
the matters that they are required to deal with. It is of course
necessarythe order does thisto tighten the conditions
that the owner of a park can impose on the owner of a park home and the
conditions on the money that he can extract, but the order simply does
not go far
enough. I
am indebted to various bodies for giving me specific information on
these matters and I shall mention them all at once for the sake of
brevity. They are extremely good organisations, without whose vigilant
action over many years the position of the owners of park homes would
be much worse. The bodies are the Park Home Residents Action Alliance,
the National Association for Park Home Residents and the Independent
Park Home Advisory Service. I add to that Mrs. Maggie Radcliffe of
Breach Barns park, which happens to be in my constituency. Maggie
Radcliffe has done an immense amount, speaking on behalf of her friends
and neighbours, to ensure that I and other Members of Parliament know
what is happening in these parks. I know that my hon. Friend the Member
for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey) will have similar instances to
recall. The National
Association for Park Home Residents has raised with me what I agree is
a very good point. Paragraph 8 of schedule 1 to the 1983 Act deals with
the sale of mobile homes to persons approved by the park owner. The
association
says: Current
legislation allows a Home Owner to sell their home on the Park and to
assign the Agreement to a person approved by the Park
Owner. It adds that such
agreements should be binding on the new home owner and the park owner.
In practice, however, residents associations find that park
ownersMrs. Maggie Radcliffe has also pointed this out to me,
using particular instancesflout the law by issuing new
agreements and raising pitch fees above the level paid by the outgoing
resident. Article
2(4)(a) tightens matters up considerably, and I thank the Minister for
that. It
says: The
owner may not give his approval subject to
conditions. However, it
would be much stronger if, as the association suggests, it
said: The Park
Owner shall, without Conditions, give his approval to an assignment and
shall not issue a new Agreement or increase the Pitch
Fee. Indeed, I suggest
that the wording should be, shall not unreasonably increase the
Pitch Fee. It
is a poor situation when the law does not protect the weak party to an
agreement from the strong, and indeed often bullying, party. I use the
word bullying advisedly, and I would not habitually use
it, because it is very strong to say that someone is acting like a
bully. However, the cases that I have seen prove beyond doubt that
people are doing so. Indeed, that has been proved in court, and I shall
come to that in a moment.
I welcome the fact new paragraph
11 to the schedule and subsequent new paragraphs give the home owner
the right to quiet enjoyment and that new paragraph 10
introduces a better balance between the site occupier and the home
owner. However, the only way we can apparently tackle this massive
injustice is to pass a law that can be enforced only through reference
to bringing a court action. That, of course, is the only way in which
the law can be enforced. I do not expect the Minister to come up with a
miraculous answer on this point, but as we are all aware, there is an
enormous imbalance between the financial resources of someone who lives
in a park home and those of the person who owns the site. Bringing a
court action is therefore not always feasible or realistic, and someone
who makes an enormous profit from bullying his tenantsI never
thought I would hear myself say something like that, but it is true in
this casecan defend a court action for months and years.
Meanwhile, people with small financial resources will be made miserable
for years, not just months.
The Minister mentioned the
provisions on changes to the pitch fee and other such regulations. I
entirely welcome those provisions, although with the proviso that I
have just made. I
would like the Minister to consider two other points. It appears that,
for the purposes of electing a residents association, the law
gives voting rights to only one person in each mobile home. The
Minister and I usually discuss womens rights and equality, and
I am not surprised to find that the issue also comes into this
afternoons discussion, as it does in so many areas of
legislation. If only one person in each home is allowed voting
rightsit will be the stronger person, which is usually, but not
necessarily, the manthe womans rights will, again, be
put aside. I simply ask the Minister to consider that. Is it right that
only one person should be given voting rights?
The other point is very
difficult. Residents right to have an unhindered sale process
is not entrenched in the legislation before us. The Park Home Residents
Action Alliance has done research on the issue. It says that, at first
glance, the amendment does not, as I said, allow the park home owner
unreasonably to withhold his consent to the sale of a mobile home by
one person to another. However, the alliance
continues: this
amendment appears to be an improvement, but in practice it has created
a gaping loophole which the unscrupulous park owners are already using
to prevent homeowners from selling and could have the effect, if taken
to the extreme, of preventing every park homeowner in the country from
selling their homes except to the park owner for whatever price he is
prepared to pay. I
raise the issue because I know of such an instance in my constituency,
although I shall not mention the exact instance, in case it becomes sub
judice at some point, in which case it would have been quite wrong for
me to pre-empt matters by mentioning the case here.
A home owner who puts his home
on the market and obtains a prospective buyer must inform the park
owner in writing of the prospective buyers details so that the
park owner can approve the prospective buyer. The park owner may then
contact the prospective buyer by telephone and verbally claim that all
sorts of
faults exist with the home or suggest other things to put the
prospective buyer off buying the mobile home. I have known that to
happen, and I can think of a person in my constituency who, at this
very moment, cannot get a reasonable price for their mobile home
because the park owner is interfering in the sale process. I appreciate
that the way in which the order is drafted is meant to correct the
balance, and it does go some way towards doing so, but those of us who
are aware of what is happening would be wrong not to raise the issue
this afternoon, even though the Minister cannot take direct action to
deal with it. That, however, puts the matter firmly and properly on the
record. Under the new
law, the home owner must undertake that procedure each time he has a
prospective buyer, so the process could conceivably go on for years,
until the home owner finally has to accept the park owners
offer to buy the mobile homeusually at a much reduced price. In
the instance to which I referred, the price offered by the park owner
is about 25 per cent. of the real value of the mobile home, which is
blatantly unfair. I simply want to ensure that the Minister is aware of
that. Park Home Legal
Services Ltd. has drawn to my attention the fact that, although
existing legislation, as amended by the Housing Act 2004, which this
statutory instrument amends, provides a procedure for the home owner to
serve on the park owner a notice to the effect that they are desirous
of selling their home to another person, with that notice, they must
seek the park owners approval of the sale to the stated person,
and the park owners permission must not be unreasonably
withheld. On the face of it, the Committee will undoubtedly think that
it is a good piece of legislation. However, that instance is similar to
the one that I have just outlined, in which the park owner upon receipt
of the notice has 28 days in which to respond.
The Government clearly believe
that introducing the order is enough to prevent abuse by park owners
blocking sales. However, because the legislation requires an express
commitment from the park owner, it creates a new problem. The point at
which a park owner communicates with a prospective purchaser to
consider approval of that person prior to the sale of the mobile home
will, as I have outlined, provide an opportunity for the abuse to
continue. Again, I am
indebted to Mr. Graham Watts for bringing forward that example. It is
not a legal reasoning that law students have thought out for the sake
of challenging the Government, and I am not trying to make any party
political points whatever. That is not at all my purpose, and I think
the Minister appreciates that. I am not criticising the Government, as
all Governments have been remiss in not dealing with the matter. I am
drawing the Ministers attention to the loopholes that still
exist. I am
particularly concerned about a further loophole. New paragraph
22(b)(iii) states that the park owner has to provide evidence to
support any other charges or costs. Other
charges are also mentioned in new paragraph 26(5). It has been
suggested that there are no other charges, but if those provisions
remain in the statutory instrument, they will open the way for a park
owner to impose other charges.
Believe it or not, park owners
can impose other charges in clever ways. I have a particular example,
and in this instance I am going to mention names. The park owner in
question is a Mr. Maurice Sines. Other members of the Committee may
have come across him. He is the owner of many park homes throughout the
country, but the one that I know best is Breach Barns in my
constituency.
A few months
ago, Mr. Siness agent wrote to the Breach Barns allotment
association explaining that the price of allotments was to increase
from about £25 a year to about £25 a monthan
enormous fee. Mr Sines was not expecting but demanding that each home
owner pay £360 a year instead of about £25 for the use of
their allotment. He also imposed a deadline of 28 days, during which
time all greenhouses and other possessions had to be removed. If the
£360 per year were not paid, and the greenhouses were not
removed from the allotments within those 28 days, he threatened to take
the right, under the law, to remove all the greenhouses and other
possessions from the allotments. That is what he did. He took back the
allotments and either sold or redeveloped them. So the people on the
park have lost their allotments and everything that was on
them. I would like the
Minister to note that that is a way in which other charges most
certainly can be imposed. Although the Government might believe that
the law is now tightly drawn so that such charges cannot be imposed,
sadly, it is not the case.
I do not mention lightly the
name of Mr. Sines and his company, or his and his employees
behaviour. He did not have the courtesy to reply to a letter that I
wrote to him, among others, on 27 January. I do not hesitate to mention
his name. I am not defaming him because in October last year Oxford
county court ordered him to pay £75,000 compensation for
bullying and intimidation, in a particular case brought against him by
a park home residents
association. The
accusations that I realise that I am making this afternoon are not out
of order and not made lightly. That man has already been found by a
court to have acted in an intimidating way, but of course the court
action has no effect on his future behaviour. He simply pays
£75,000, goes on to make more money to pay more fines and
continues intimidating other park home residents in other parts of the
country, because of course the case brought in Oxford refers only to
Oxford. That is one
example only of the behaviour of some park home owners. Of course, I am
bound to say that many park home owners throughout the country will
welcome this afternoons order because they behave responsibly
and reasonably. They will have no objection to the tightening of the
law, which the order does, because they do not wish to intimidate their
tenants. Sadly, that is not the case with Mr.
Sines. Finally, I am
concerned about the provisions for the pitch fee review. Unfortunately,
the balance is wrong and depends on a finite period for the pitch fee
review, because otherwise a dispute could continue indefinitely. That
is quite reasonable. However, a park owner can deliberately do nothing
knowing that over time the number of residents in the dispute will
decrease as people will eventually leave, die or give in. Although the
park owner can bring a case, the home owner cannot. The resident is not
asking the park owner to do
anything, but just wants to avoid having to pay an unjustified sum. A
person cannot bring a negative court action. The exact terms of the
provision on pitch fee review will not work as well as the Government
hope. I have taken up
a lot of the Committees time this afternoon. I have not done
that deliberately, but it is absolutely necessary that we put on the
record the scandalous way in which some people are abusing their power.
Had this been a year ago, I would have been urging the Government to do
something about it. I appreciate that they are doing something about it
now by bringing forward an amendment to the Housing Act and, as far as
it goes, I welcome it. However, I hope that the Minister will take note
of my reservations and those of the representatives of people who live
in park homes because they deserve to be treated better not only by
those whose tenants they are, but by the law that professes to protect
their
position. 3.5
pm Mr.
Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab): I shall be
brief. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on introducing the
order. It is welcome and will bring real benefits to residents in park
homes who have, as we all know, suffered a disproportionate number of
problems and disadvantages from the abuse exercised by some park home
owners. It is wrong to
pillory all park home owners. Some are responsible and behave well, but
there have been too many cases of abuse and too many problems, which is
why the working party to which my hon. Friend referred was set up after
the 1997 general election to look into such issues and to come forward
with recommendations to give proper protection to park home residents
while, at the same time, ensuring that reputable and responsible park
home owners continue to ply their trade in a proper
way. The
order gives effect to a number of the working partys
recommendations and I welcome it wholeheartedly. Because of the history
of abuse and the imbalance of power between park home residents and
park home owners, it is not surprising that some residents are still
nervous and have reservations about whether the measure will give them
all the safeguards that they are seeking. It is not surprising
therefore that we have received some representations about
it. I
have received a letter from the National Association of Park Home
Residents. My understanding of its worries is that they probably are
not as great as the residents believe, but I would welcome my hon.
Friends assurance that, on the key issues such as protection
against unreasonable increases in pitch fees, intrusive visits by
owners, harassment of residents and threats to move park home residents
to unsuitable sites, the order gives the safeguards that the Government
intend and that the anxieties expressed by the association are not ones
that it should hold in practice. Those fears should be
allayed.
I welcome the order and look
forward to my hon. Friends response.
3.8
pm Mr.
Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD): I
was delighted to hear the lengthy and thorough contribution by the hon.
Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing). She claimed at the beginning of
her speech not usually to speak for her party on such issues. Well, she
has certainly ensured that she is acquainted with them, especially in
light of the experience of her constituents. Many members of the
Committee will have had the similar experience of being approached by
constituents in particularly difficult circumstances that were brought
on by unscrupulous site owners. My party welcomes the order and hopes
that it will even up the balance a little more between the occupier and
the site owner. In all
such legislation, a balance must be struck that protects the rights of
the site owner in respect of people who are causing problems, whether
as residents or those who fail to maintain the property that they have
purchased. Fundamentally, the problems in the majority of cases have
been caused by unscrupulous site owners, and I agree with the comments
that have been made about such
matters. I, too, have
received the correspondence that other hon. Members have received. I
was particularly interested in the correspondence from Park Home Legal
Services Ltd., which the hon. Lady referred to. This is a key point and
I would welcome reassurance from the Minister on the subject of the
intimidation of potential buyers or any efforts by site owners to put
people off, which artificially depress the price and therefore affect
the substantial investment made by
occupiers. The
occupiers on many such sitesI think this is often true of those
in my constituencyare retired couples or individuals who have
tried to downsize. It is a useful safety valve with respect to overall
housing need, particularly in rural areas, if some couples are allowed
to move out of the large property that they have occupied and put it
back on the market for other people. Therefore, anything that we can do
to encourage them to have confidence in making that move should be
welcomed. I have one
or two other points to make on which I would welcome the
Ministers comments. The word detrimental is
used in the context of site owners right to take action against
an occupier. Can the Minister provide any interpretation of or
reassurance on article 2(3), which refers
to paragraph 6
(termination by the owner because of mobile homes detrimental
effect on amenity of the site due to its
condition)? In
consultation on the provision, some of my hon. Friends have raised the
possibility of clearer terminology on, for instance, dilapidation or
the unsafe nature of the property to make it quite clear what is meant
by a detrimental effect on the amenity of the site. A related matter is
that the Government have been reviewing the 10 per cent. statutory
commission on sale that goes to the site owner. I wonder whether that
review is coming to any conclusions; the matters are
connected. I would be
interested to hear how the Minister feels that new paragraphs 22 to 25,
which strengthen the ability of residents to act if site owners do not
maintain the site in a proper and acceptable condition, will even up
the balance and ensure that the issue is not only
whether the occupiers maintain their property in a suitable condition,
but whether the site owners meet their side of the bargain and ensure
that roads and the general amenity of the site are kept to a proper
standard. Has
the Department given any thought to the sort of consultation that is to
take place with residents associations on action to be taken on
the site with respect to charges or site alterations? On a related
pointyou might rule me out of order on this, Mr.
Hancockthe issue has been raised of park homes being
transferred from council tax band A to band
B.
|