Andrew Bridgen
Main Page: Andrew Bridgen (Independent - North West Leicestershire)
Annette Brooke
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am not pretending that this is easy to achieve, but I am trying to get a clear timetable to make progress on it. There is already work in progress. The previous Government had a statutory instrument ready to run, so some consultation has already taken place. We have the tribunal coming on board. That will provide evidence when people bring their cases about fit and proper persons and enable us to work together on all the issues that are arising.
I want to concentrate on malpractice in the buying and selling of park homes. In 2009, I presented a ten-minute rule Bill on this issue that aimed to prevent unjustified interference by a site owner when residents sell their park home. A park home site owner might reasonably wish to meet a prospective buyer, or at least to have a reference supplied, but an interview without the seller or an independent witness present can provide opportunities for rogue site owners to make misleading or untrue statements. Examples of such statements from across the country include: “The home is in poor condition”; “The home is not worth the price you’re paying”; “The home will have to be moved to another pitch next year”; “I have a right to ask the court to let me take the home off in five years”; and “The park is being developed and the home will have to be moved.”
Alternatively, the prospective buyer might be intimidated by real or implied threats and not want to be involved with the site owner in any way. The prospective buyer might understandably decide that he or she does not want to live on a park run in such a way, and/or by such an unpleasant person, and the sale will fall through. After that has been repeated a few times, the seller eventually sells the home to the site owner for a token sum. In each case, there are no witnesses and the prospective buyer is usually unwilling to give a witness statement, as he or she simply wants to get away from the park as quickly as possible. The seller does not usually go to court because there is no witness statement and the buyer is lost anyway.
The incentive for the site owner is to buy the home for a small sum, remove it from the park, site a new and possibly bigger home on the pitch, and sell it, thereby making a clear profit of perhaps £100,000. Rogue site owners currently have the ability to sabotage sales and can rely on the fact that many people who move to park homes are frail, vulnerable, elderly and easily intimidated. It seems reasonable for a site owner to be able to check out a prospective buyer, but how can we stop the abuse and possible fraud currently taking place? My Bill suggested that there should be an independent witness present at such meetings. However, that would not tackle phone conversations, so I can see that this is quite complicated.
In one case, constituents of mine were offered £81,000 by a prospective purchaser on the open market. The site owner had made an earlier offer of £15,000. A meeting took place between the prospective buyer and the site owner, who wrote to my constituent on 4 October 2007 to say:
“Thank you for your letter...introducing the above young lady to me and seeking my approval for her to buy the above home. Since taking over the park in 1999 we have always promoted the location as a retirement one for people over the age of 55. With that in mind I am unable to agree to”
the lady
“purchasing your home”.
On 5 October, the next day, a letter was issued to all residents on the park that said:
“Since taking over the Park in 1999 we have always promoted the location as a retirement one for people over the age of 55. My legal advisors have informed that this should be formalised within the Park Rules and I now write to advise you of the addition of the following rule…The Park is for retired/semi retired persons over the age of 55.”
So the rule was introduced after the refusal. The letter continued:
“In the event of anyone disagreeing with this rule please let me have your written objection within 28 days of the date of this letter.”
Representatives of the residents association on the site tell me that the prospective purchaser was originally prepared to make a statement about conversations with the site owner.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
While I entirely agree with the need to find a better solution for the buying and selling of park homes, we also need something to help with dispute resolution. In my constituency, I came across a situation regarding residents wishing to insulate their park homes, which was being resisted by the site owner on grounds of the aesthetics of the park. I looked at that and saw that there were arguments in both directions. I then discovered that there was a conflict of interest because the owner was supplying gas to the residents at a premium price. This raises enormous questions. We need a dispute resolution system to deal with such ongoing problems that will give confidence to park home owners and certainty to operators about how they can act with regard to the residents.
Annette Brooke
I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. As he says, certainty and a clear understanding of the rules, and a requirement not to change them overnight, would be a big step forward. The residential property tribunal will enable both sides to put their case. I do not believe that it will solve the problem with buying and selling, but it is definitely a first step, and this debate will ensure that the next steps go ahead subsequently.
Stephen Gilbert
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend—I was going to make exactly that point. In a written parliamentary answer to me, the Housing and Local Government Minister used the word “chattel”. My broader point was that people who live in these homes are trying to find a better way of life for themselves, but they purchase no interest in the land on which their homes are sited. They should have such an interest. The House needs to define what that interest is and to make it clear that the pitch comes as part of the package.
When we add to those problems utility provision and charging, and the above-inflation annual increases in the pitch fee, we can see how difficult it can be for park home owners to budget and plan their finances from year to year. Again, in my survey of my constituency, I heard horror stories similar to those told by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller). There are increases in charges for water, sewage, electricity and all the basics. Tenants and freeholders take it for granted that they get a fair deal from their suppliers, but park home owners do not have that certainty. Even if they know that they are not getting a fair deal, the vulnerable people we are talking about simply do not understand how to exercise their rights.
Indeed, the draft Mobile Homes Act 1983 (Amendment of Schedule 1) (England) Order 2006 clearly states that if requested by an occupier, the site owner shall provide documentary evidence in support and explanation of any charges for gas, electricity, water, sewerage or other services payable by the occupier, but that never happens. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole spoke of the difficulties that park home residents find in forming residents’ associations and making them into effective vehicles for making those points.
Many elderly and vulnerable people are caught in a very difficult position; as other hon. Members said, selling park homes can be a difficult process. Site owners can prevent sales by blocking a homeowner’s right to sell through a notice to terminate agreements on the basis that the home is having a detrimental effect on the site. However, site owners use that so that they can simply jump in with a bid at a knock-down price.
Even if a site owner does not block a sale, selling might not stack up financially for residents because of the site owner’s entitlement to take a commission of up to 10% of the sale price. Many residents who have tried to buy into a dream have ended up living something less than that, but they could be worse off if they try to exit because of the 10% rule. It is no surprise that the rule is resented by homeowners. Many of them have put up with increasing annual pitch fees, and many have added value to their homes because they are proud people who want to live in nice surroundings.
Finally, I have serious concerns about the harassment, bullying and general intimidation to which homeowners on park home sites are all too often subjected. Bullying tactics, threatening behaviour and even assault are not the norm, but they are not rare either. That is why this subject has brought so many Members to this debate, and it is why it is so important that the Government hear the House’s concerns.
Andrew Bridgen
I appreciate my hon. Friend’s measured language and his acknowledgment that most park home operators are responsible people doing the best they can for their residents. However, does he agree that, in the wrong hands, the system we have now for the operation of park homes is the nearest thing to feudalism that remains in our country? The introduction of sensitive, fair and well-thought-out legislation could enhance the situation by providing protection for both park home owners and operators, which could only be good for the industry, and, with markets being what they are, it would enhance the value of those properties for everybody.
Stephen Gilbert
My hon. Friend puts the point far more eloquently than I have been able to do: we are dealing with the remnants of a feudal system. I hope that the Minister has heard that point.
I want to be balanced, however, because I want to welcome the steps that the Government have already taken—in particular, the transfer of responsibility for on-site disputes to the Residential Property Tribunal Service. That is a helpful step forward, but it cannot be seen as the end game for the Government in their approach to effective regulation of park homes. I do not just want to help my residents to resolve disputes; I want to prevent them from having them in the first place. However, that will require a much stronger and transparent regulatory regime. I look forward, therefore, to hearing from the Minister about the work he has done with interested parties and the recommendations they have made to him.
I end with a call to arms: this issue bubbled away under the last Labour Government—and indeed the previous Conservative Government—but it is time that we gripped it, because we are talking about many thousands of our most vulnerable citizens.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
A few Members in the Chamber may know that I am rather hard of hearing, but I have discovered since being elected that in politics there are some advantages to being hard of hearing. However, I will leave that to those in the Chamber to determine.
Like everyone else, I would like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) on bringing this debate to the Chamber. Christmas has come 35 times this afternoon, with so many compliments being paid, but I really mean it, because we are talking about a real issue. It is a fascinating thing, but I did not know that it was an issue until I got involved in politics and met a number of people living in mobile homes either within my constituency or just outside it. It was only then that I discovered what a complete lack of any kind of level playing field there is. It is quite shocking. We are talking about basic things, such as park owners buying mobile homes off the original owners at anything up to a 25% discount and then selling them on. Like other hon. Members, I have even had constituents tell me—I cannot prove this—that their utility bills were ramped up considerably. It is absolutely incredible. Others have talked about trying to form residents’ committees. Similarly, people have been leant on and have not even been able to put together a tenants’ committee through which they could put their points of view. It is quite extraordinary.
In preparing for this debate I did some more research, and, having spoken to my hon. Friend and listened to other hon. Friends today, I know that there has been a problem for quite a while. Indeed, there are people in the House who have been fighting on the issue for quite a while. I pay tribute to them. I am confident about the complete universality of where we are coming from today. I am confident too that the Minister, who is a good hon. Friend of mine, will take that on board and no doubt do all the miraculous things for which he was well known well before he reached the coalition Front Bench—no pressure there, but I look forward to that. We all know what needs doing; we all know that something needs to be done. I look forward to joining my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole in what I hope will be a victory on this issue in the new year.
The really interesting thing about this debate is the huge variety. There is one park home—or however we want to define it—in my constituency called King’s Park that is absolutely outstanding. The sense of community in King’s Park is absolutely fantastic, and that applies across the piece, from people who have been there a short time to those who have been there a long time. To be perfectly honest, if I had lost at the last election and gone broke, I would probably have moved there myself. It looked so good and there was such a sense of community. That shows the variety that exists, and that is a good thing. However, if all park home owners were similar to those at King’s Park, we would not be having this debate. The sense of quality, community and responsibility there is so strong that we might all want to move there—with the agreement of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, obviously.
The challenge is that the lack of regulation means that unscrupulous people have been abusing vulnerable individuals and families for far too long. It is the old story, but I was having a discussion with one of my Conservative colleagues yesterday on the very issue of regulation—the regulation of banking, as it happens, or, to be precise, the regulation of independent financial advisers. The conundrum is that we need x amount of regulation to prevent disreputable people from taking advantage of vulnerable individuals, but the same thing always happens, which is that the regulation gets so strong and heavy that it puts off businesses from getting involved. We end up in a chicken-and-egg situation, and this issue is a classic case in point. In one sense, the regulation is pretty light-touch, because 90% of park home owners—or whatever the proportion is—are, I am quite sure, reputable individuals who do not need heavy regulation. They get on with things, they earn an honest buck and they look after the people who live in their mobile homes. There is not a problem with them. However, because the regulation is slightly weak, the remaining 10%—or whatever the proportion is—are completely unscrupulous people who have driven a coach and horses through that regulation, abusing numerous families and couples, who are often elderly, in a most disgraceful way.
I know what is going to happen, and I agree with it, unfortunately. We are going to need to toughen up the regulations, in exactly the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole proposed in her speech. I will support that 100%, but I find it so frustrating sometimes. The 10% tail is wagging the 90% dog. It is absolutely infuriating. I can think of some ways in which we might deal with that 10% of society, but they might be a bit illiberal and The Guardian will not like me—which it does not anyway since the election, so I will move on. I would urge the Minister to listen to everything that we are saying, and to come through with some support and some suggestions in the new year that are a little more robust than what we are talking about at the minute, because it is quite clear that this issue has gone on a long time. It has obviously become perfectly acceptable for a pretty large number of mobile home owners to behave in a shocking and disreputable way, and it has to be stopped.
Andrew Bridgen
Because the fact that the regulation is light-touch is now in the public domain, will my hon. Friend concede that if we do nothing, that will make it more attractive for disreputable people to go into that line of business?
Stephen Lloyd
My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head, not least because—this is the conclusion that I have come to—a fair number of disreputable home owners know each other. The practice has been going on for years and, bluntly, it is a scam. Therefore, I am afraid that, as a light-touch, business-wing Liberal, I am going to ask the Minister for more regulation, and I would urge him to come forward with it sooner rather than later, so that we are not having the same debate in a year’s time. We are talking about people who deserve better, and I am absolutely confident that the coalition Government, with cross-party support, will deliver on that. Finally, I again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole on securing this debate.