Park Home Owners Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateLuke Charters
Main Page: Luke Charters (Labour - York Outer)Department Debates - View all Luke Charters's debates with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for bringing the voice of park home owners to Parliament. For many people, choosing a park home is not just a housing decision; it is about investing in the next chapter of their lives. It is a choice for peace and a slower, gentler pace of life. People sell their brick-and-mortar homes and invest their life savings. They are not chasing luxury; they are seeking a bit of security.
Sir Alec, you will know that in York and North Yorkshire we have some of the best park homes in the country. When people go to Mill Garth Park or Mount Pleasant Park in my constituency, they see immediately that these are beautiful parks, set among nature, with close-knit communities—but for too many, what was meant to be a peaceful retirement has slowly, heartbreakingly turned into something else entirely. For some residents, their park home has become a financial prison.
Residents who believed they were buying certainty now lie awake worrying about pitch fees they cannot control. That is why I warmly welcome the Government’s plan to move annual pitch fee increases away from retail price index and towards consumer price index. However, there is one issue that still casts a very long shadow over the lives of park home residents: the 10% commission charge on resale.
One of my constituents simply wants to sell up to move closer to their son. Time is precious in life and, for however many years they have left, they just want more time together as a family; but when she and her husband sell up, 10% of the proceeds will go not towards the move or towards their future, but to the site owner. There is no other form of home ownership in the country that requires sellers to hand over 10% of their home’s value to another person. If I were at the Financial Conduct Authority, investigating a similar pricing structure in the financial services industry, I would be saying loud and clear, “Mis-selling, mis-selling, mis-selling.” It absolutely stinks.
I am genuinely pleased that the Government have launched a formal review of that 10% commission. After all, this is not just about regulations, commissions or fees; it is about dignity, security and ensuring that a home someone chose for peace does not become a source of fear. Retirees should be able to enjoy the life they have earned, without having to fight just to hold on.
Several hon. Members rose—