Park Home Owners

Debate between Joshua Reynolds and Matthew Pennycook

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Alec. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) on securing this important debate. I thank all other hon. Members who have participated, and like many of them I welcome the strong cross-party nature and tone of the debate. I have valued the opportunity to hear the individual stories hon. Members have shared, including some really egregious examples of harassment and intimidation, such as the case of Dennis, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume).

One challenge in considering law and policy in respect of park homes is the huge variation in arrangements across the approximately 1,832 sites in England. The more real case studies that can be brought to the Government’s attention, the greater rigour we can bring to policy development.

Despite representing less than 1% of housing stock, the park home sector is an important part of the housing market. Mobiles homes, as has been mentioned, provide housing for around 160,000 people, some of whom are among the most vulnerable in our society. As hon. Members are no doubt aware, park home sites are often advertised on the basis that they offer a luxurious, secure and supportive lifestyle, particularly for older people. In many cases, that is true, and it is important that several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith), mentioned that there are some great park home sites. Unfortunately, as the debate has powerfully reinforced, the experience of many park home owners is far removed from that idyllic vision.

I am unlikely to be able to cover all the points raised in this wide-ranging debate in the time available, but let me ensure that I at least cover the two main issues raised: site licensing and enforcement, and the commission payment. On licensing and enforcement, the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 provides the foundational legislative underpinning for the site licensing regime operated by local authorities. The primary purpose of that regime is to ensure that sites are set up in the right places, which is why site owners are required to obtain planning permission to operate land as a caravan site. Unless a given site is exempt from having one, it will require a licence after planning permission has been granted, with relevant conditions attached by the local authority. The requirement for a licence is designed to ensure that sites and the amenities on them are properly maintained and kept safe for residents and other users.

The wide-ranging Mobile Homes Act 2013, introduced changes to the procedures and penalties for enforcement of site licence conditions on residential parks. The new site licensing system, subsequently brought into force in 2014, gave local authorities substantial enforcement powers, including the ability to issue compliance notices and the discretion to refuse to grant or transfer applications. It also provided local authorities with powers to charge annual fees, to provide the resources they need to carry out their functions.

Since 2021, there have been additional requirements for all site owners to be assessed by the local authority and placed on a local register of fit and proper persons. I commend Peter Aldous, a very valued former Member of this House, for the private Member’s Bill he took forward on that issue. A person can be included on the register, with or without conditions, for up to five years, and local authorities can charge fees to cover their functions in respect of the fit and proper person test. Taken together, those measures provide a robust range of powers for local authorities to draw on, and the Government expect them to be used effectively to ensure that sites are well managed by competent persons.

At this point, I want to acknowledge the commendable work done by individual local authorities over the years, as well as the notable successes some have had in ensuring that sites are well maintained and in successfully prosecuting non-compliant site owners. However, my Department is aware that some local authorities do not apply or enforce existing legislation as effectively as they could and should. There are a variety of reasons for that, including cost and, on occasion, lack of expertise, but in some cases local authorities might simply decide not to take appropriate enforcement action. I therefore encourage residents who have concerns about health and safety on their site to raise them initially with the local authority if the site owner fails to address the problem. They can then consider escalating the matter to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman if their local authority does not deal effectively with their complaint.

Turning to the commission payment, the 10% commission fee charged on the sale of park homes has been the subject of intense debate over many years, as we all know. Park home residents see it as an unfair and unjustified charge that has a negative impact on their finances and mobility. Site operators argue that the commission is a vital part of their income and that a substantial reduction in the commission rate would reduce total income without reducing expenditure, thus threatening the financial viability of parks. That important point was raised by the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale); there are many elements of this complex problem.

I fully understand hon. Members’ desire to secure change in this matter, and I assure those present that I share their impatience. Unfortunately—this is where I have to take issue slightly with the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan)—research undertaken by the previous Government was not conclusive on either the purpose of the commission or the impact of its removal or reduction. The final report, published in 2022, recommended further work to clarify the rationale of the commission so that the Government can make informed policy choices. In 2023, the then Government sought feedback from stakeholder representative bodies on the report’s recommendations. The feedback reinforced the view that there was no clarity or consensus in the sector on the rationale for the commission.

We are not consulting for consultation’s sake. There is a reason the Government published a call for evidence on 5 March this year concerning the rationale for the commission payment. Through that call for evidence, we are seeking to understand the following: the reasons for charging a commission before it became a statutory requirement in 1975, and whether those reasons have changed; what goods and services are paid for by the commission; how the commission rate is calculated to be a percentage of the future sale price of a park home; how the commission payment relates to other charges in the sector; and how receiving commission in the future enables site owners to meet their obligations effectively and efficiently.

To date, we have had 400 responses from park home residents. I encourage residents and site owners across the country to engage with that call for evidence before it closes on 29 May. I encourage all hon. Members here to tell their constituents about it so that we can get the maximum amount of evidence submitted. Then we can properly consider what, if any, changes are needed to the payment of a commission, what the options are and how they would impact on the sector.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds]

Many park home residents in Maidenhead have told me that complete swathes of the consultation are not relevant to residents but are to site owners. Can the Minister clarify which questions he expects residents to be able to respond to, because many feel that those questions are just not relevant to them?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am sorry to hear that feedback. We will take into account any feedback that park home residents wish to submit—even in general terms and outside the strict questions they have responded to—when we are making policy decisions. I emphasise once again that I want the widest possible response from across the country that grapples with the complexity and the particular arrangements in place on specific sites so that we can make informed choices.

I want to come on to the timeline, because several hon. Members have pressed me on it. Following an assessment of the responses received, we will publish a summary of them in the summer. I intend to outline our final position at the very latest by the end of this year. To respond to the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey), it is one of many priorities—but a very real priority—for the Government to bring the clarity that both park home residents and site owners require and have been calling for now for some years. I will strain every sinew to ensure that that happens as early as possible, but I give the commitment that we will have clarity on the position by the end of the year.

Hon. Members raised a series of other matters, including written agreements, contractual rights, conveyancing, the adequacy of existing redress mechanisms in respect of pitch fees, overcharging in relation to utilities, and harassment by site owners. I assure them that the Government either have taken action or are exploring action in a number of those areas. That might take a range of forms, such as raising awareness about the protections and enforcement mechanisms that already exist or providing further guidance. We are taking some very real steps, not least in respect of utilities, which I want to speak to briefly.

Chinese Embassy

Debate between Joshua Reynolds and Matthew Pennycook

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I simply do not accept that characterisation of the Government’s approach to China. We have to take a consistent and pragmatic approach, but we recognise that China poses a series of threats. As I have said, no decision has yet been made on this case, and all material planning considerations will be taken into account when one is made.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

I have raised multiple times with the Government the harassment of a constituent of mine, Carmen Lau, by the Chinese authorities. This has included bounty letters, deepfake pornography and her family being interrogated by national security agents in Hong Kong. Every time I am told that the safety of Hongkongers is of the utmost importance to the Government. Given that, does the Minister accept that to approve this application while China is still committing transnational repression would be a kick in the teeth to Hongkongers such as Carmen?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The safety of Hongkongers is of the utmost importance to this Government, and we remain steadfast in our support for the Hong Kong community in the UK. I understand why the hon. Gentleman is asking me, but I cannot comment on a live planning case that is before Planning Ministers in my Department.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Joshua Reynolds and Matthew Pennycook

Monday 3rd March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

Let me explain, as simply as I can, what we want to do. As the White Paper makes clear, we will ban the sale of new leasehold flats so that commonhold becomes the default tenure, and we will ensure that the process of conversion is as simple as possible so that those leaseholders in existing leasehold blocks who want to make that change can do so as simply as possible. But we have to ensure that those who do not want to make that change have the powers, rights and protections in relation to their homes that will give them the immediate relief that my hon. Friend talks about.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

What steps are the Government taking to help those leaseholders with doubling ground rents who now feel trapped and unable to remortgage or sell their properties without meeting the massive costs of changing their leases, which, as I know from personal experience, can amount to five-figure sums?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I well recognise the problem. As the hon. Gentleman will probably know, historically ground rents were nominal sums—often peppercorn sums—but over the past 20 years we have seen a very different system develop. We have made a commitment, which we will honour, to take action on unregulated and unaffordable ground rents through legislation, and we will provide further details in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Joshua Reynolds and Matthew Pennycook

Monday 20th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

We are very much aware that some managing agents provide a very poor quality of service to people like Tom and leaseholders across the country. Managing agents play a key role in the maintenance of multi-occupancy buildings and freehold estates, and their importance will only grow as we transition towards a commonhold future. As such, we have made it clear that we will strengthen the regulation of managing agents to drive up the standard of their service, and we are considering carefully the recommendations made in Lord Best’s 2019 report on regulating the property agent sector.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds]

Residents of a housing development in Maidenhead bought their properties 10 years ago on 99-year leases. Now they are coming to sell their flats, they are faced with a charge of £15,000 to £25,000 each to extend their lease so that the new owners can get a mortgage. What will the Minister do directly to help those residents?

[Matthew Pennycook]

In terms of lease extensions, there are provisions in the 2024 Act that will provide some assistance to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents. As with other parts of that Act, those provisions, in many cases, require a detailed programme of secondary legislation. In some specific circumstances, we cannot switch on the provisions until we have made the fixes through primary legislation that I referred to in answer to a previous question, but we are working at pace. I am more than happy to have a conversation with him about what we are doing in this area.