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