Park Home Owners

Gagan Mohindra Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I, too, have been contacted by many of my constituents, throughout my six and a half years as the MP for South West Hertfordshire, with a wide range of complaints and concerns about park homes, particularly from residents of Long Pightle Park, Highview and Newlands Park. This debate is the result of excellent work by the Park Home Owners Justice Campaign, which is of course supported by several hon. Members in attendance at this debate. This issue is cross-party and cross-country, so I applaud all those hon. Members for their excellent efforts. I also make reference to Councillor Vicky Edwards and Councillor Ian Campbell in my constituency, who helped me with this speech.

Park homes offer an affordable option for many people across the UK to relocate, often in retirement, and enjoy the beauty of our natural landscapes. That is something that I can definitely attest to in South West Hertfordshire. But park homes also leave residents vulnerable to many issues, including exploitative site operators, and the majority of park home owners are retirees or older people. As has been noted, the longest-running campaign, the PHOJC, is against the 10% commission that residents are still expected to pay to site owners during the purchase of their park home. That is especially damaging to elderly residents, who do not have excess capital and for whom the commission is a significant part of their retirement fund. It is important that the Government continue the existing inquiry—a continuation of the work of the previous Government—into the impact that a change in the maximum commission legislation would have on residents and on the industry as a whole. I know that my constituents will continue to support the work being done on that campaign.

I still receive many complaints from park home owners in my constituency, mostly regarding poorly maintained landscapes, drainage facilities and fire hydrants, and regarding rubbish and debris being inappropriately stored and disposed of. Some of the figures bandied around for the works being done are three times the market value; they are excessive. I encourage the Government to continue the excellent work, to listen to the results of the consultation, and to implement the proposed measures as quickly as possible.

Houses in Multiple Occupation

Gagan Mohindra Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)]

I am speaking about this subject tonight because over the past six years, I have been contacted by hundreds of families in Ashfield who have raised serious concerns about the impact that houses in multiple occupation are having on my community. Anyone can set up an HMO overnight, with no qualifications, no training and no checks. All they need is a few thousand pounds in the bank and a mortgage. They can buy a cheap terraced house somewhere in the midlands, in the north, or in a place like Ashfield, and turn it into an HMO. This leads to thousands of unscrupulous investors living thousands away from places like Ashfield buying up properties there and filling them with people who, quite frankly, I do not want living in my community—people who are criminals, people who are thieving of a night, people who are creating antisocial behaviour. They are filling our streets full of wrong’uns. Then the local politicians, the police and the councillors sit there scratching their head, asking themselves why crime is on the up in the area.

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that local authorities like the Liberal Democrat-controlled Three Rivers district council in my constituency should be issuing, for instance, article 4 directions to protect our areas from a proliferation of HMOs?

[Lee Anderson]

I do agree with the use of article 4 to put HMOs through the planning process. I have forced my local council to do that, but unfortunately it is doing it only in certain areas. I would like to see it being done throughout the constituency.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) on securing this important debate. I also thank those other hon. Members who have made contributions.

I appreciate fully the concerns that the hon. Member for Ashfield raises about houses in multiple occupation. HMOs can play an important role in the housing market, providing relatively low-cost accommodation for rent. However, it is right that local planning authorities can act, where appropriate, to minimise any negative impacts that such houses may have on local communities.

The hon. Gentleman made a number of points concerning the interaction between HMOs and the planning system. Larger HMOs always require an application to the local planning authority for planning permission. However, national permitted development rights allow for existing homes to change use to a small HMO for up to six people without the need for a planning application. Such smaller HMOs are also able to change back to a standard family home under similar rights.

We do recognise that the free operation of the national permitted development rights is not always suitable for all areas. That is why, where there is sufficient evidence of the need to protect local amenity or the wellbeing of an area, local planning authorities can remove permitted development rights in a specific area by means of introducing an article 4 direction, following consultation with the affected local community.

[Mr Mohindra]

I am well-versed with the Minister through our work on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. Will he consider looking at reducing the threshold from six individuals to four? I am finding in Three Rivers that several of the homes are probably inappropriate for six distinct individuals but may be appropriate for four. Unless the evidence threshold is there for an article 4 direction, I have communities that will be impacted significantly, unless we are able to change something here.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s point. I will come on to say how we are keeping regulation under review, but I note the point he makes.

Once an article 4 direction is in place, any change of use to either a large or small HMO requires an application for planning permission. All such applications are considered by the relevant local planning authority, in line with the development plan for the area and in consultation with the local community. A clear and up-to-date local plan policy for HMOs can support assessment of future applications. I know the struggle of the hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) with his local authority to get an up-to-date local plan in place.

Whether any given local planning authority chooses to consult on introducing an article 4 direction to remove the national permitted development rights that I have referenced is ultimately a decision for it to take. It is not something that the Government seek to influence in any part of the country. We do not believe that the process is costly or burdensome, and approximately 75 councils have put in place article 4 directions for HMOs in parts of their authority area—although I note that Ashfield district council has no article 4 directions in place for small HMOs. The hon. Member for Ashfield may wish to take that up with his local authority.

In addition, the Government recently consulted on a new national planning policy framework. That consultation includes proposals relating to article 4 direction policy, proposing a more flexible approach so that local planning authorities can remove national permitted development rights where it is necessary to protect the amenity or wellbeing of an area—for instance, where there is an over-concentration of small HMOs. We are currently analysing the feedback received and will publish our response in due course.

Turning to HMO licensing, it is, of course, crucial that HMOs are safe and well managed. That is why all HMOs are subject to management regulations. Those regulations place duties on managers of HMOs—typically, the landlords—to take safety measures, supply and maintain gas and electricity, and maintain common parts, fixtures and fittings.

In addition, all local planning authorities must license HMOs with five or more people from two or more households who share facilities, such as a kitchen or bathroom. Local planning authorities also have the power to require HMOs to be licensed where three or more people from two or more households are sharing facilities. This means that most HMOs can be licensed where necessary.

Local planning authorities can also impose licence conditions to ensure that landlords effectively manage HMOs. For example, a local authority may require a landlord to put in place measures to prevent or reduce antisocial behaviour by occupants or visitors. Local planning authorities have robust powers to tackle landlords who breach HMO regulations, including the ability to issue civil penalties of up to £40,000 for offences committed from 1 May, rent repayment orders and, for the worst offenders, banning orders.

The Government want to ensure that councils have the capacity to take action where needed. That is why we have provided £18.2 million in 2025-26, and £41.1 million in 2026-27, to support the new enforcement responsibilities that local authorities are taking on under the Renters’ Rights Act 2025. We plan to establish a sustainable funding system for enforcement in the private rented sector over the long term, based on future database fee revenues.

It is obviously not the responsibility of my Department, but the hon. Member for Ashfield raised the issue of asylum accommodation, so let me briefly set out the Government’s position. Under the previous Conservative Government, asylum decision making ground to a halt and hotel use spiralled to around 400 sites, costing £9 million a day at its peak. This Labour Government are determined to end the use of hotels for asylum seekers as quickly as possible in this Parliament, but we intend to do so in an orderly fashion.

Local Government Reorganisation

Gagan Mohindra Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

By reading such a book, I hope that I might be able to see the future! [Laughter.] I thank the hon. Gentleman for meeting me, and for allowing us this pre-meeting so that we can make best use of the time.

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) will appreciate this question. Labour-run Southampton city council has huge debts, and Liberal Democrat-run Eastleigh has £800 million-worth of debt. Given the proposal for them to be merged, will the Government do anything about that debt, or will they allow the new council to fall immediately?

[Alison McGovern]

As I have said to other Members, local authority debt is a serious concern for the Government. We will work through the issues that the hon. Gentleman mentions in the transition process, and I am happy to provide him with more technical detail on that. The overall picture of local authority debt is not a happy one. It arises from policy failure emanating from this place, and we have a collective responsibility to put it right.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gagan Mohindra Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

We need to build many more homes of all tenures, but it is absolutely right to stress the importance of delivering a significant uplift in the number of social and affordable homes. I am aware that discussions are ongoing about increasing the proportion of affordable housing within the York Central scheme. I encourage the developer to work with Homes England and relevant registered providers to maximise the potential for social and affordable housing in its first phase. I am more than happy to ensure that my hon. Friend gets an appointment at one of my forthcoming Tea Room surgeries.

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

As the House will know, local plans are the method by which we can identify affordable homes and make sure that they are built in the right place at the right time. Since I was elected back in December 2019, I have consistently asked the Liberal Democrat Three Rivers district council to get on with the local plan. However, as the Housing Minister will know, the latest version of that plan did not have sufficient evidence. He has therefore rightly called it in. Does he agree that the Lib Dems need to get on with delivering the local plan and that they should not continue to fail my residents in South West Hertfordshire?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot discuss any specific local plan. However, in general terms I would say that any party that controls any local planning authority across the country must take active and firm steps to get up-to-date local plans in place. They are the best way for local communities to shape development. Without them, communities are open to speculative development that does not have resident input. That is why we are pushing for universal coverage across the country.

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform

Gagan Mohindra Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

We did see a considerable amount of deregulation under the coalition Government and their successors. I will give the previous Government credit, as I have done before, for bringing forward the 2024 Act; it does include some limited relief for leaseholders and some new rights and protections. However, we need to take it forward and finish the job, as I made clear in opposition that Labour would. As I said, we are consulting on changes to increase protections over service charges—incidentally, that same consultation included a number of proposals recommended by Lord Best in his 2019 report, “Regulation of Property Agents”, including the introduction of mandatory qualifications for managing agents. We are clear, though, that that consultation and the measures within it are not the final step in the regulation of managing agents, and we will continue to reflect on the various other recommendations made in Lord Best’s report.

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Unlike the Chair of our Select Committee, the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), I have not read the full draft legislation published at 7 o’clock this morning. I can confirm that she did indeed feel a bit unloved whenever she saw the Minister running away from her. On the statement, I think the Minister referred, in a previous answer, to ground rents and the transition from £250 to a peppercorn being effective in 2028. At the point that it becomes effective, will he look to backdate it or will tenants have to continue to pay their bills up until the legislation becomes effective?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The House can, of course, help us to speed up the progress of the Bill; 2028 is only a rough estimate based on the time it will take for the Bill, once it has passed its draft phase and scrutiny from the Select Committee, to be introduced in its final form and to get through both Houses. We will then also have to switch on the necessary secondary legislation. Up until that point, people will continue to pay their existing ground rents, but, as I say, the cap will apply once we bring those measures into force. For lots and lots of leaseholders around the country—I am sure the hon. Gentleman has many in his constituency—who are paying onerous, high ground rent terms way above £250, that will be an immediate financial relief that will be hugely beneficial to them.

Local Elections: Cancellation

Gagan Mohindra Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

We are in regular contact with local authorities. The Department and the Secretary of State will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said, and we will make sure that those views are fed in.

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

As the House may be aware, I was a local councillor at three different levels: parish, district and county. Several right hon. and hon. Members have referred to the proposals as being either single tier or two tier. I gently remind them that parishes and towns will remain, so two tiers is the minimum. I repeat the question that was asked earlier: when will all these councils know for definite if and when their elections are going to be held later this year?

[Alison McGovern]

Again, we have moved quickly. We are getting the information that we need, and the Secretary of State will move as quickly as he can to take the decision. It is good to know that we have Members with extensive experience in the House. I thank the hon. Gentleman for all that he has done down the years.

Supporting High Streets

Gagan Mohindra Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

As many have said, our high streets are the heart of our communities. From small retail and hospitality ventures that allow people the opportunity to own their own business, to post offices and pharmacies where the more vulnerable can go to see a familiar face and get support, to our pubs, where people have gathered together for years, our high streets give us everything we need. We must support them, not restrict them.

I spend much of my time in South West Hertfordshire on local high streets, hearing at first hand from many business owners about the struggles that they face due to Labour’s increase in national insurance contributions, and their worries about the upcoming Employment Rights Bill.

[Gregory Stafford]

My hon. Friend talks eloquently about the problems facing high streets. One of my constituents, a publican, told me that things were worse than during covid, because at least there was financial support during covid. Now, pubs and other hospitality businesses are being hung out to dry.

[Mr Mohindra]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The small businesses that I speak to say that they feel abandoned by this Government. They face high energy bills and rents, and poor footfall. They have been harmed by Labour’s decisions, and have ever-growing worries about the Budget later this month.

We already know that hospitality is struggling. One in five high street premises are empty, and 100,000 hospitality jobs have been lost since Labour’s Budget. Two thirds of those jobs lost were done by 18 to 24-year-olds. That is simply not sustainable. Business owners do not want that to happen, but they have no choice. A third of businesses are reducing their opening hours as they simply cannot afford to staff up. They include Kitchen Croxley in my constituency, which warned me that as a result of Labour’s policy changes, job losses are inevitable, if it is to keep its doors open.

Businesses of all sizes are affected. Hubs, a franchise owner in my constituency, made me aware that due to Labour’s national insurance contributions increases, his NICs amounted to £138,000 for April to September. He has been warned that his contributions could increase to over £275,000 for the business’s first full-year cycle. That franchise owner is creating 90 local jobs and filling a large high-street unit that sat unoccupied for over a year and a half. It simply seems unfair. Business owners are willing to contribute their fair share—they are investing significant amounts in our high streets—and they should not be penalised for trying to grow their business.

The spirits industry disproportionally faces the effects of these policies; it has contributed £676 million less in taxes than expected, despite the rise in alcohol duty. One business in Kings Langley, Fells, which employs over 70 people in the area and regularly supports charitable causes in the community, faces mounting costs and regulatory burdens. It urges a freeze in duty rates to mitigate the need for further price increases. We are talking about an industry that contributed over £75 billion to the UK economy in 2022, according to the Wine and Spirit Trade Association. Why are we stifling it?

This summer, I spent a week visiting pubs across South West Hertfordshire, to see how they are being affected by Labour’s decision making. I spoke with Nick, the manager of the Coach and Horses in Rickmansworth, who told me that the rises in the minimum wage and NICs have made staffing incredibly difficult. As I have said before, many businesses sympathise with the need to ensure job security and good working conditions. However, that comes at the cost of rising prices, which just pushes the issue on to customers. Rising prices lead to fewer people visiting pubs and putting their money back into the community.

[Graham Stuart]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Chancellor would do well to consider a draught beer duty relief? We brought one in when we were in government. It could be balanced up by taxes elsewhere. It would ensure that our locals were supported, instead of facing ever greater costs.

[Mr Mohindra]

My right hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. Members on all sides of the House claim to support pubs, but our policy means that our position is a lot stronger than this Labour Government’s. As I have said before, where this Labour Government get it right, they will have our support. They should not be fearful of changing direction—I will not use the word “U-turn”, because they have done a few of them already. We will absolutely support them changing direction for the better.

Post offices remain critical to our high streets. They are a credible and trustworthy high-street brand, and a place where constituents regularly see a friendly face. I represent seven post offices in South West Hertfordshire and visit them regularly, including the one in Croxley Green, which I visited just two weeks ago. I have seen in person how busy postmasters serve the community. Many postmasters see their regulars frequently; they are often the first to see how their customers are doing.

Post offices have evolved to provide services that go beyond just post. Many now also provide banking services, owing to the closure of high-street banks. Danny, the postmaster at the Rickmansworth branch, is able to offer enhanced banking services. Without them, my constituents would be stuck waiting for unreliable buses to travel to their nearest bank, just to access their money.

In 2023, when we were in government, we extended the retail, hospitality and leisure relief scheme. We will reverse this Government’s decision not to support our high streets. When it comes to helping our high streets, I look forward to support from across the House, rather than political point scoring.

Property Service Charges

Gagan Mohindra Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

As a member of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, I want to bring the House’s attention to the work we did in the summer looking into property management companies. The Chair of the Committee, the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), would have been here if she was not already committed to a Westminster Hall debate at the same time, so I send her apologies.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) for securing this important debate. Like many in this House, my constituents have been affected by property charges and the lack of transparency from certain companies. We have already heard about FirstPort, and I wish to expand on what has been said about it. In Penn Place in Rickmansworth in my constituency, FirstPort looks after about 140 apartments on an estate. Many of my constituents who live there have contacted me regarding the ever-increasing service charges that they face. Their monthly payments have more than doubled, on occasion. They receive no communication as to why an increase is needed, and that places extortionate pressure, both financial and emotional, on those living there.

We all are aware of the cost of living in our communities at the moment, given the cost of council tax, energy prices, and licence fees for renting properties in certain London boroughs. Many of my constituents have been unable to sell or move, as people do not want to purchase properties that come with ever-increasing service charges, and we have already heard about that.

This is not just an issue in my constituency. I have worked with many of my fellow Conservative MPs on this, and indeed, I know it to be a proper cross-party issue. I have a huge amount of respect for the Minister, who I know will continue to ensure that this issue is addressed, build on the legacy of my Government, and continue to push the matter forward, hopefully at speed. I look forward to him giving that commitment when he responds to this debate.

Despite its expensive charges, FirstPort does not even provide an adequate property management service. One of my constituents made me aware that carpets were not being replaced and walls were not being repainted. There is also a high turnover of property managers, which is ineffective for maintaining the estate and symptomatic of a poorly run company. When we were in government, we brought in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, which required transparency about leasehold service charges. It would have allowed leaseholders, such as those in Penn Place in my constituency, to scrutinise and challenge increases if they are unreasonable. The Act has received Royal Assent, but it is yet to be brought fully into force. I understand some of the reasons behind that, but I urge the Minister to get moving on this. I am sure he will give us that reassurance a bit later. In closing, what assurances will the Minister provide to my constituents and many across the country, who constantly face service charge increases but no increase in service, and how we can better protect those residents?

Oral Answers to Questions

Gagan Mohindra Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris]

The Government are committed to investing in coalfield communities, and I was pleased to meet my hon. Friend and Mayor Ros Jones to talk about their exciting plans in Doncaster, which we are investing in. We are looking very closely at what the Coalfields Regeneration Trust has sent us; the trust is, of course, a great legacy of the previous Labour Government, and we are committed to working with it.

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

My constituent Ryan from Carpenders Park wrote me with concerns about the lack of community spaces, especially alongside the Government’s housing targets. Will the Minister reassure the House that the Government will ensure there are community spaces to support any new housing developments?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I say two things to the hon. Gentleman. He will forgive me if he knows this already, but we did strengthen the provision for infrastructure in our recent changes to the national planning policy framework. Beyond that, we want to strengthen the existing system for developer contributions—where infrastructure and affordable housing comes through planning agreements—so that local authorities can extract more public gain from that process.

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government

Gagan Mohindra Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

I commend the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) for bringing forward this estimates day debate. It is a pleasure to serve under her stewardship on that Committee.

This country continues to feel the impact of Labour’s disastrous and anti-growth policies. The day-to-day spending of this Department is increasing by more than £2.4 billion—an increase of 22%—which is welcome, but it is clear that Labour’s plans to save on our planning system and the cost of local government are once again a false promise. The £2.3 billion extra being given in local government resources grants will not help our communities and local people, as £500 million of it is just to fund Labour’s detrimental increase in employer national insurance. That tax is hurting every business up and down this country, and it is placing unsustainable pressure on key sectors, such as the care industry and those who provide early years care.

Labour continues to U-turn on its commitments and policies. The impact of its changes to personal independence payments and its cruel cuts to winter fuel payments can be seen in the £800 million increase in costs for adult social care. That is yet another example of Labour’s headline mistakes costing money. An additional £399 million has already been allocated for the affordable homes programme, and continual rises for that are unsustainable. Labour will not deliver its target of 1.5 million new homes, with Savills recently predicting that as few as 840,000 homes could be built. That is significantly less than the 2.5 million homes and 750,000 affordable homes built under the last Conservative Government.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem with the Government’s housing policy is that they are failing to identify the right places to build the right homes? Until they do that, they will not deliver these eyewatering numbers, especially if they are relying on greenfield rural sites.

[Mr Mohindra]

I agree with my hon. Friend. We are fortunate that the Minister has a background in local government, so he understands those pressures. I look forward to further clarification on grey belt and building on brownfield first, which every constituency MP wishes to see, but it is not yet transposed on to local plans and the growth ambitions of this Government.

I was about to come on to green belt and the changes to the national planning policy framework. Those changes will not solve the problems that we all have identified as the bottleneck in increasing development on non-green-belt land. Labour’s policies unfortunately simply cause damage.

In the spring statement, the Chancellor claimed that the planning reforms would be the main driver of the reduction in borrowing that she has promised. However, there is no obvious reduction yet in the money given to local authorities, with the amount estimated for the day-to-day spending of local government up 22% from the main estimate last year. Although the Treasury might celebrate that as being 3% less than budgeted at the spending review, this dramatic increase, along with the increases of 30% in communities day-to-day spending and 27% to the communities capital fund, is simply unsustainable.

Labour continues to show how it prioritises areas where it has support to the detriment of rural areas, such as in my constituency, and areas in need of support around the United Kingdom. The cuts of £101 million in the levelling-up fund and £183 million in the UK shared prosperity fund are disappointing, and the non-delivery of the services grant and the rural services delivery grant will place pressure on services that are already struggling in rural and semi-rural areas such as my constituency, including bus services.

Instead, Labour is rewarding poor financial management by Labour-run councils and mayoralties across the UK, with £823 million being used for a recovery grant and a funding floor and the Labour-controlled Greater Manchester and West Midlands authorities receiving the first integrated settlements, which could cause an increase of over £400 million in spending.

Labour says that it is cutting local government costs by creating unitary authorities, but that is just placing greater control in their hands at the expense of local democracy. This estimate shows how little control Labour has over local government spending—and I will have to finish on that point. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how he will deal with these matters.