Session 2010-11
Publications on the internet
General Committee Debates
Delegated Legislation Committee Debates

Draft Mobile Homes Act 1983
(Jurisdiction of Residential Property Tribunals) (England) Order 2011
Draft Mobile Homes Act 1983
(Amendment of Schedule 1 and Consequential Amendments) (England) Order 2011
Draft Housing and regeneration Act
2008 (Consequential Amendments to the Mobile Homes Act 1983) Order 2011


The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: Mr Joe Benton 

Berry, Jake (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con) 

Blackwood, Nicola (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con) 

Campbell, Mr Ronnie (Blyth Valley) (Lab) 

Elphicke, Charlie (Dover) (Con) 

George, Andrew (St Ives) (LD) 

Gilmore, Sheila (Edinburgh East) (Lab) 

Greenwood, Lilian (Nottingham South) (Lab) 

Harrington, Richard (Watford) (Con) 

Harris, Mr Tom (Glasgow South) (Lab) 

Joyce, Eric (Falkirk) (Lab) 

Raab, Mr Dominic (Esher and Walton) (Con) 

Sheerman, Mr Barry (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) 

Simpson, David (Upper Bann) (DUP) 

Stunell, Andrew (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government)  

Syms, Mr Robert (Poole) (Con) 

Vickers, Martin (Cleethorpes) (Con) 

Wiggin, Bill (North Herefordshire) (Con) 

Williamson, Chris (Derby North) (Lab) 

Rhiannon Hollis, Judith Boyce, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Column number: 3 

Sixth Delegated Legislation Committee 

Wednesday 2 March 2011  

[Mr Joe Benton in the Chair] 

Draft Mobile Homes Act 1983 (Jurisdiction of Residential Property Tribunals) (England) Order 2011 

2.30 pm 

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Stunell):  I beg to move, 

That the Committee has considered the draft Mobile Homes Act 1983 (Jurisdiction of Residential Property Tribunals) (England) Order 2011. 

The Chair:  With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Mobile Homes Act 1983 (Amendment of Schedule 1 and Consequential Amendments) (England) Order 2011 and the draft Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (Consequential Amendments to the Mobile Homes Act 1983) Order 2011. 

Andrew Stunell:  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Benton, and to introduce these three orders, which I think will be welcomed on both sides of the Committee. I will not detain the Committee long, but it is only right that I should explain the process and why we are debating the orders. 

The orders were laid before the House on 31 January and, subject to Parliament’s approval, are intended to come into force on 30 April. I shall briefly speak to each of the orders, starting with the first one. There are some 2,000 park home sites in England, and they provide about 85,000 affordable homes. This is a valuable sector. It provides an alternative to mainstream housing for many thousands of what are often older households. On the whole, it is a well-run sector, in which disputes between residents and site owners can be resolved informally by negotiation and agreement, but sometimes that does not happen. Park home residents have complained for a number of years that they are unable to challenge site owners’ decisions effectively, or to enforce their rights, because of the complexity and cost of court proceedings. It must also be said that site owners are concerned about the expense and delay in dispute resolution that comes from court action. 

Responses to the consultation suggest that there are sharp practices and that unscrupulous site owners can be obstructive. I attended a meeting of the all-party group on mobile homes, at which eloquent accounts were given by mobile home owners who had had difficulties. The transfer of jurisdiction from the courts to the tribunals will provide residents who face abuses with a quick and cheaper means of challenging such behaviour. The aim of the order is to create a level playing field between site owners and residents in resolving disputes and enforcing rights. We are achieving that by transferring most dispute resolution from county courts to residential

Column number: 4 
property tribunals. The order has been long awaited by the park home community. I want to make it clear that it applies to all mobile home sites, including privately managed and local authority-owned Gypsy and Traveller sites. 

The previous Government consulted on the proposal in May 2008, and it was widely welcomed, but a small minority, including representatives of Gypsies and Travellers and some site owners, preferred to retain the court for resolving disputes. Following further consultation, the previous Government announced in December 2009 that they intended to transfer the courts’ jurisdiction to hear most types of dispute to residential property tribunals, but that did not happen in the run-up to the general election. Since then, it has been a priority of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government to introduce a framework whereby residents and owners of park home sites are treated on an equal footing in dispute resolution. That is why he announced on 14 July last year that he intended, subject to Parliament’s approval, to make the transfer. 

Basically, the order transfers dispute resolution and other proceedings under the Mobile Homes Act 1983 from the county courts to residential property tribunals. The only exception will be applications to terminate an agreement, which will remain within the county courts’ jurisdiction. If the ground on which termination is sought is that the home is in disrepair, that fact will, in future, need to be established in the tribunal before the court can be asked whether it is reasonable to terminate the agreement. The tribunal will be able to deal with such matters as pitch fees, any applications for approval of a purchaser of a home that arise after 30 April, the re-siting of homes, the recognition of qualifying residents’ associations—a matter of considerable grievance at the moment—and other contractual disputes. 

The advantage of tribunals is that they are cheaper and easier to use than the courts, and of course legal representation is not always necessary. In cases such as those relating to pitch reviews, there is no fee payable for making an application to a tribunal. In some of the more complicated cases, there will be a fee of £150, but it can be waived for applicants in receipt of certain state benefits. Another advantage is that there is no risk of costs being awarded against applicants who are unsuccessful. The tribunal does not award costs in favour of a party because he or she wins, but it can impose costs of up to a maximum of £5,000 if one of the parties to the proceedings has acted unreasonably. 

We do not claim that transferring dispute resolution to the tribunal is a solution to all the problems that park home residents face from a minority of unscrupulous operators, but it will go a considerable way towards making it easier to challenge their behaviour. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government announced on 10 February that he proposes consulting on a range of other measures that will help to address the problems by giving tools and further powers to local authorities, so that they can monitor the licences that they grant for park homes and caravan sites and enforce licence conditions. That consultation is planned for the spring. 

I could speak at some length on all the orders, but it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I stop at this point, although obviously I am happy to respond to any questions or comments. 

Column number: 5 

2.37 pm 

Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab):  As the Minister said, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Benton—for the first time, in my case. I am in the happy position of agreeing with almost everything that the Minister said, because the change that we are discussing had its genesis under the Labour Government; I am delighted that the new Administration are taking the issue forward. I was involved in the debate held before Christmas on mobile home parks and the unscrupulous activities, to which the Minister referred, of a number of park home owners. I am pleased to say that on that occasion, too, there was unanimous cross-party consensus. 

The measures are long overdue. It is important that Government should at last have recognised some of the difficulties encountered by park home residents, including the travelling community; the order addresses that group, too. It is important that we take steps to protect communities from the harassment and unfair eviction that there has sometimes been. I am sure that all hon. Members could recount horror stories from their constituencies. 

It is clear that existing legislation did not provide the protection that is required. The Minister is quite right: the orders go a long way towards addressing the concerns articulated by the park home community. However, I concur with him that we need to recognise that they do not necessarily deal with all the problems that have been identified. We need to continue to be vigilant. Where appropriate and necessary, we need to take further legislative steps to correct any ongoing anomalies that

Column number: 6 
prove to be difficult and that cause anxiety and problems for the park home community. 

In summary, I agree with the Minister’s remarks. The orders are an important, welcome step forward, and I am sure that they will be welcomed by members of the park home community across the country. 

Question put and agreed to.  

DRAFT MOBILE HOMES ACT 1983 (AMENDMENT OF SCHEDULE 1 AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) (ENGLAND) ORDER 2011 

Resolved,  

That the Committee has considered the draft Mobile Homes Act 1983 (Amendment of Schedule 1 and Consequential Amendments) (England) Order 2011.—(Andrew Stunell.)  

DRAFT HOUSING AND REGENERATION ACT 2008 (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO THE MOBILE HOMES ACT 1983) ORDER 2011 

Resolved,  

That the Committee has considered the draft Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (Consequential Amendments to the Mobile Homes Act 1983) Order 2011.—(Andrew Stunell.)  

2.42 pm 

Committee rose.