1

http://www.parkhomesphraanews.co.uk/http://www.facebook.com/Park-Homes-Residents-Action-Alliance

2

3

Well here we are again, the start of yet another New Year 2017. It only seems like yesterday that we were

heralding in 2016. My how time flies??? So, please let me begin this edition, on behalf of the PHRAA team,

by wishing all our readers, PHRAA members, the many friends, supporters and colleagues, existing and

new, and our fellow and often long suffering, park home owners that we have the pleasure of knowing and

working with over the years, a VERY HAPPY AND PEACEFUL NEW YEAR.

We sincerely hope that, within the much promised 2017 review, the Government will provide at least some

slight improvement to park home legislation to favour the vulnerable park home owner instead of, as usual,

bending over backwards to aid the aspirations of the ever growing band the unscrupulous park owners, now

monopolising this industry, but we won’t hold our breath!!!

The one sure promise PHRAA will give you, that we will continue to “TELL IT AS IT IS” and because of

this fact, PHRAA is proud to live up to its reputation of being the BLACK SHEEP of the National Park

Home Residents Associations just because PHRAA is the park/mobile home residents national organisation

who dares to persistently publicly expose the ever growing abuse and exploitation of vulnerable residents at

the hands of the ever growing number of Unscrupulous Park Owners (UPO’s) and the disgraceful failings of

an uncaring Government and all Authorities currently hiding behind this park owner biased legislation to

bring in the necessary BINDING and ENFORCEABLE LEGISLATION to end the suffering of up to an

estimated 250,000 residential park home owners, and many more thousands of Holiday Caravan and Lodge

Owners All victims of the all- powerful UPO’s. Ron Editor Jan 2017.

For several recent issues of PHRAA NEWS and on other PHRAA websites we have published the details of

an extremely worthwhile Petition currently published on the Government Petitions website calling for park

home owners to sign a Petition created by Colin Gray a long suffering park home owner entitled

“PETITION TO DIRECT COUNCILS TO USE THE MOBILE HOME POWERS DEVOLVED TO THEM

WITHOUT OPTION”

As this is the subject of the majority of park home owner’s complaints, PHRAA is very surprised and deeply

disappointed at the lack of support from park home owners in general who we would have thought would

have been pleased that someone had provided the opportunity for them to possibly help to at least bring this

situation to the attention of Government.

Whilst we can understand that many park home residents, especially those living under the control of a

UPO, will be extremely reluctant to put their signature to anything which may be seen to be detrimental to

the aspirations of a greedy UPO, because of the very real fear of retribution from their UPO. We also

understand that the reason may be because of the lack of support and wider publicity from others, which

concerns us (PHRAA) much more.

Besides PHRAA there are several other organisations claiming to represent park home residents nationally,

but it seems that none of these, in spite of being made fully aware, have taken the conscious decision to

withhold support and publicity for this Petition. In fact it is alleged that the other two National Park Home

Residents Associations refused point blank to give their support. An attitude which, quite frankly, disgusts

PHRAA. We thought the duty of Park Home Owners Representatives was to support park home residents

4

especially any initiatives which may help to bring the ongoing suffering of their fellow park home owners to

the attention of Government.

We are very well aware that the outspoken attitude of PHRAA is a very big thorn in the side of these other

organisations, because we are not afraid of upsetting their friends at the BH&HPA. But PHRAA always

understood that it was the duty of such organisations to fully support the ones they claim to represent against

injustice? After all, the BH&HPA fight tooth and nail to protect their park home owners against all threats,

should not national park home resident’s organisations do the same? PHRAA DOES!!!!

One final observation concerning the activities of the other national park home residents’ organisations…..

We cannot help but notice that if they propose a particular campaign, such as the current campaign calling

upon Government to review the 10% commission charge payable by residents to the site owner on the sale

price received for their home, (See more on this later in this issue) they expect others, such as PHRAA to

fully support them.

However it is very clear that should any other residents’ organisation or individual resident/s try to launch a

relevant campaign and/or Petition, such as the current petition published by a desperate resident/s calling

upon Government to require Local Authorities to use their enforcement powers against park owners refusing

to comply with the regulations, they have refused to support it, indeed, made very clear their total opposition

to any such petition.

This is not the first time these particular national park home residents’ organisations have combined together

and effectively blocked similar initiatives. As a recent example a few months ago a well- known campaigner

for residents’ rights set up a day of action to bring the plight of residents to governments’ attention. This

was publicly condemned by IPHAS, NAPHR and the Justice Campaign. It was made very plain to the

campaigner concerned, and obviously to any other person or group, that before any similar of action be

taken in the future, that the full permission of those particular national residents organisations must be

obtained from them and presumably their friends at the BH&HPA first. This obviously means that they, and

only they, believe that they are the only group entitled to put forward proposals purporting to represent the

views of park home residents???? PHRAA BEGS TO DIFFER!!!!!

Back in 1999-2000, our previously very happy park Silver Poplars was sold following the death of the

owner. It did take long for us to find out the hard way, that the new park owner, by his actions, was a very

extreme version of what is commonly known throughout the parks industry as an Unscrupulous Park Owner

(UPO)., and our well documented ongoing problems have persisted ever since with no sign of a let up.

As we had absolutely no idea at that time how to deal with this UPO and his ruthless bullying tactics we

decided to seek help and advice from IPHAS (Independent Park Homes Advisory Service) a national park

home residents association. Over time from our first joining IPHAS I was invited to train up for a post as

advisor, during which I became involved with Colin Packman, who was an IPHAS Consultant, who it turned

out, had many years of invaluable practical experience in dealing with parks residents problems, (Now

second to none amounting to some 48 years and counting) I then progressed from an Advisor to General

Secretary of IPHAS

As time went by, I, as also the Secretary of the then Silver Poplars Residents Association (NO

CONNECTION WHATSOEVER WITH THE CURRENT SITE OWNER RUN SPRA) realised that we

were wasting our time and getting absolutely nowhere whatsoever with dealing our own UPO, but also

rapidly learning that he was just one of the ever growing number of UPO’s abusing and exploiting the

mainly elderly and vulnerable park home owners. I also soon realised that the advice I was required to dish

out by the IPHAS hierarchy, to distressed members was mostly worthless and disillusionment, and a feeling

of hopelessness, took over.

5

The actual crunch came in 2000 when we were contacted by

investigators from the homeless magazine, the BIG ISSUE who

had heard about the ever worsening plight of park home owners

and asking for our help with the campaign they wished to run

for initially six weeks, highlighting our problems which they

published nationally. In addition to the media publicity, the

BIG ISSUE reporters, invited park home owners to attend a

rally which took place outside the offices of the now DCLG in

London where they presented a petition to the then Housing

Minister. This was followed by a march from there to the

Houses of Parliament where they had also arranged a meeting

of us all with the MP, who was at that time supporting park home owners’ rights, Mr Hilton Dawson MP,.

(See photo below)

As many of those attending were members of both IPHAS and NAPHR we suggested to the heads of these

organisations that we should support them with placards displaying the two associations. Imagine our deep

disappointment when both totally forbade us from displaying placards or any other forms of advertising their

organisations. Not one of their hierarchy attended and all references to their associations were totally

forbidden. In fact the head of the one organisation wrote to the BIG ISSUE chastising them for running the

campaign.

As a direct result of their total rejection of this genuine offer of help from a reputable magazine. Both Colin

Packman and myself left IPHAS and together with some like minded park home residents, PHRAA WAS

FORMED IN APRIL 2002

Later in this issue PHRAA is very pleased to include an extremely hard hitting and totally truthful article

written by the author of the above mentioned Petition. Perhaps those referred to above, if they can bring

themselves to read this brave man’s heartfelt exposure of what life is really like for park home owner on a

6

site owned by a UPO, which they have refused point blank to publish, should hang their heads in shame.?

Ron Editor January 2017

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATE TO RONS WATER SUPPLY BATTLE …… “HELL HATH NO

FURY THAN A UPO SCORNED” Cont……

Well, believe or not, it is now some six months since our site owner was ordered by Severn –Trent -Water

(STW) to repair serious water leaks they claimed were present on the park. As a result of this work about 3

of our homes still connected to the old existing lead pipe system have now been connected to the recently

installed water system supplying the new homes placed on site. However, the two worst affected homes still

remain exactly as before. My neighbours’ water pressure remains at a maximum of 1 Bar, mine remains at

0.7Bar and the water is still so foul tasting that it is undrinkable. In fact my Daughter, who lives with me,

flatly refuses to drink it or even give it to the dog. This means that we are obliged to buy in bottled water for

drinking etc., or fill up plastic bottles at a nearby home now connected to the new supply and use them.

As our regular readers will remember, that unlike many park home sites, the residents pay for their water

directly to the water company (STW) not the site owner, therefore it would be a natural assumption that it is

the responsibility of the water company to ensure that the water supply to your home was up to an

acceptable standard. Not so in the case of park home customers. Because of the unique legislation

governing park home sites, suppliers of essential utilities including water, are not allowed on to sites without

the permission of the site owner.

As an ongoing result of this ludicrous situation myself and neighbour are still connected to the old lead

supply pipe, still suffer from inadequate water pressure, and in my case, still have an undrinkable water

supply with no hope of any improvement any time soon.

As previously reported our site owner states that “he does not care” and by their continued lack of action,

neither does the local council. The trenches containing the new pipework remain open, unprotected and now

overgrown, still devoid of any warning signs, lighting or covering as they have been for at least 7 months.

An accident waiting to happen for any resident having cause to visit the electric meter shed, especially

during the hours of darkness, due to their having to negotiate the deep trenches right in front of the door. A

prime example of the uncaring attitude of the local council is the fact that their officers had to clamber over

these same trenches a couple of months ago during a site inspection. I am sure our readers will have already

guessed what action was taken following this inspection? YES you are absolutely right. NO ACTION

WHATSOEVER. As the reader will see from the accompanying photo, the trenches remain open and

increasingly over grown and open to the elements including the

forthcoming freezing conditions.

As the site owner says “he doesn’t care” neither it is obvious

from their total dismissive attitude, does the local council or the

other relevant authorities who also appear to dismiss the very

real complaints of the mainly elderly and vulnerable park home

residents suffering disgusting abuse and uncontrolled

exploitation at the hands of the ever growing numbers of

unscrupulous park owners (UPO’s), as just the moans and

groans of a bunch of miserable old “buggers” who have nothing

better to do!!! Ron Editor January 2017

7

http://www.parkhomesphraanews.co.uk/http://www.thephraa.website/

8

Whilst PHRAA fully supports the splendid efforts of the Justice Campaign and the other two national park

home residents associations IPHAS & NAPHR with their very worthwhile ongoing campaign aiming to

persuade government to abolish, or at least, obtain a reduction in the current totally unfair and unwarranted

compulsory 10% commission on the sale price obtained for their home charged to outgoing homeowners by

the park owner, which has to be one of the most resented charges ever imposed upon all park home owners

and certainly long overdue for abolishing. In fact it must be regarded as the last kick in the teeth for the

outgoing residents who has, over the years paid the site owner huge sums per year in guaranteed inflation

proof ground rent (pitch fees) and many other charges, just for the right to occupy his own home on the site

owners land.

Yes. PHRAA agrees that this unjustified charge needs abolishing. But usually before it can be imposed, the

resident has to be able to sell his home without illegal interference from the site owner. Unfortunately a

widely used tactic prevalent throughout this industry especially by the ever growing band of Unscrupulous

Park Owners (UPO’s) causing devastation to helpless, innocent and vulnerable, outgoing residents still, in

spite of misleading claims by the industry, BH&HPA and others operating national residents organisations,

9

who should know better, that due to so-called improvements to legislation much of that problem has been

resolved, very often prevents them from selling their homes.

This 10% issue was considered by Government a few years ago and although the majority of those consulted

called for its removal, the park owners and their trade associations won the day. A case of the minority vote

overwhelmingly defeating the majority. There is very little hope, bearing in mind the all powerful

BH&HPA (British Holiday & Home Parks Association Ltd) and their legal teams, that if that exercise was

repeated, the result will be any different. Quite frankly, if any one seriously believes that park owners are

going allow the loss of, what they claim, is a vital element of their income, which park owners cannot

survive without, then they must be living in “Cloud Cuckoo Land”.

There is no doubt about it that should, in the unlikely event, the industry lose its right to the 10%

commission charge on residents home sales, we can be sure that the BH&HPA, their “clever” legal teams

and parliamentary lobbyists will have a fool-proof plan involving increased charges on residents, already in

place to ensure park owners profit from its demise.

However regular readers of PHRAA NEWS and the other PHRAA website www.thephraa.website and

recently opened PHRAA Facebook page, will know that PHRAA firmly believes that there are far more

unaddressed injustices which, in PHRAA’s view, should take priority, the first being the ABSOLUTE

RIGHT, BY LAW, TO SELL YOUR OWN PARK HOME.

(2)…. The absolute legal right to occupy your home totally free from interference, abuse, intimidation,

harassment, backed by legally enforceable powers provided by the Police, Local Authorities etc,

(3)…. The absolute legal right of entry onto the site be granted to inspectors, maintenance workers

employed by utility companies in order to ensure the homeowners receive the service they pay for and have

the right to expect….

(4)….. PHRAA calls upon Government to scrap the outdated ludicrous official definition which officially

classes Park Homes as Caravans. Scrap the Park owner biased loophole ridden, Mobile Homes ACT, the

main cause of the current ever growing problems raging uncontrolled throughout the industry. Bring in

legislation to include residential park homes within their rightful place in the HOUSING ACT,. This is the

year 2017, not the dark ages Park Home owners do not deserve to be classed as Caravan Dwellers living on

CARAVAN SITES.

No doubt readers will have priorities of their own, PHRAA has only included a few examples PHRAA

welcomes your own ideas?….. Ron Joyce Editor January 2017..

NEW FEATURE

http://www.thephraa.website/

10

The first criticism I have regarding the claims of this publication is that it is not “BRITAINS ONLY

MONTHLY MAGAZINE FOR RESIDENTIAL AND HOLIDAY HOME LIVING”. We would like to

respectfully draw their attention to the fact that “PHRAA NEWS” the “TELLS IT AS IT IS” online

magazine aimed exclusively at residential and holiday park home/caravan and lodge owners and prospective

buyers, is also published very regularly( often monthly) by the Park Home Residents Action Alliance,

(PHRAA). The stark difference between these publications is that PHRAA NEWS is not

supported/sponsored by the Parks industry advertising etc., therefore unique by the fact that it is free from

industry censorship of any kind. It is also not produced upon very glossy paper, And a must and better still

it’s totally FREE TO VIEW AND DOWNLOAD by clicking onto www.parkhomesphraanews.co.uk or

www.thephraa.website or via www.facebook.com/Park-Homes-Residents-Action-Alliance

February 2017 issue….. (Noticeboard ) (Lease) page 99

Perhaps they are short of material this month but this months’ Legal Help article is a rerun of an article they

published a few months ago in which the Leasehold Advisory Service’s Antony Tregenna explains the

correct legal procedure to be followed when forming a Qualifying Residents Association (QRA) on your

park….. As before PHRAA notes that the same contradictory statements appear (i)… “Membership of the

QRA must be open to all residents who own a Mobile Home on the park…. It then goes on to state “each

mobile home is to be taken to having only one resident.” This implies that wives or partners etc., do not

count, reinforced by a further statement that stipulates that “All decisions taken by the QRA, with the

exception of administrative decisions – must be taken by way of a vote. Only one vote is permitted per

home. So for example, if a husband and wife have both joined the QRA they will still only have one vote and

will need to decide between themselves how they are to exercise that vote.” I seem to recall that part of the

marriage service states that “Whom God has joined together, let no man put asunder” Except if you own a

mobile home it would seem?

(ii)…..For a really outrageous example of a contradictory statement one needs to go no farther that this key

element of this particular clause in the QRA legislation….. “The QRA must have no link to the park

owner. In particular, the park owner, any employees on the park, agents or family members of the park

owner cannot be members of the QRA”. Fine. A plain and straightforward condition banning the above

mentioned residents from becoming members of the

QRA, but note what comes next…… “This is an

important condition to consider in circumstances

where a resident may assist the park owner by acting

as a warden on the park”. In PHRAA’s opinion the

addition of this particular comment is a deliberate

attempt by the law makers and the industry to insert

ambiguity to an otherwise very clear statement.

Either employees etc., of the park owner cannot be

members of the parks QRA or they can ???. As per

usual, park owners want and get it both ways?

http://www.parkhomesphraanews.co.uk/http://www.thephraa.website/http://www.facebook.com/Park-Homes-Residents-Action-Alliance

11

(3)…… “Moneymatters” Page 94 February 2017

“Steve Rowe keeps you updated with the latest financial facts and figures, plus has some

tips for those who are considering the option of working from their park homes to earn

some extra cash”.

“MAKING WORK HOMELY!”

Many park home owners will remember the recent national revision of Site Rules which once deposited with

the relevant local authority, were intended to be binding upon both residents and park owners, but in practice

are only actually binding upon residents, due to the exceptions specifically excluding site owners from

having to abide by their own site rules.

One of those new park rules, which were produced by the BH&HPA (British Home & Holiday Parks

Association Ltd) for use by all park owners, specifically banned park home owners from operating a

business from their homes. So we were completely surprised to find the following advice being issued to

park home owners. “If you’re retired or semi retired, working from home can be an ideal way to earn a

bit of extra money. Here are a few ideas to think about……” With savings now earning precious little

and inflation,” Not to mention ever rising compulsory annual RPI pitch fee increases and other charges

imposed by the site owner. R “starting to eat away at pensions, many people are struggling with their

finances. If you are retired and the thought of going out to work again is too much, why not consider

some form of home working……….. “ Here are a few suggestions……. (1)…. Search the web for jobs

advice….. (2)…..Take in language students. “consider taking in foreign language students, usually for a

week or two at a time and provide them with accommodation for which you will receive money from the

agency organising the visits……

(3)…. Manual work from home. Take in work from agencies such as laundry, ironing services, Ironing

men’s shirts etc….it can be a useful source of income….

(4)…. Baby sitting. Looking after local children, Pet sitting, Dog Walking…………..

(5)….. Make and sell. For example make Bird Boxes out of scrap timber then sell them on Ebay…..

The author of the above article is a regular reporter for the PH&HC magazine so he should be fully aware of

the dire consequences on the majority of park home owners, especially those living on UPO parks, should

they ever even attempt to follow this extremely misleading advice. The First Tier Tribunal Service would be

overwhelmed by the number of cases of breach of site rules brought by site owners against offending

residents. What a fool-proof opportunity this would hand to UPO’s lining up to pay their £100 fee to the

Tribunal as a cheap way to gain eviction notices.

PHRAA would have expected the magazine to have checked the accuracy of the advice before going into

print where it is very likely to be followed in good faith by vulnerable park home owners. Perhaps PH&HC

should consider a printing a retraction????

Just one more……… Taken from a list of parks promoted in the February 2017

issue. Page 30 Northwest special…..

BROARDFIELDS RESIDENTIAL PARK, MORCAMBE, LANCASHIRE….

Headed. “NO CAR REQUIRED” Advertised as being so close to amenities that residents do not need

a car whatever that means?

12

Please note the following claims included within this extract describing the homes on this park……

“All the park homes for sale at the park boast individual block-paved driveways” Why you would need

this when they claim you don’t need a car? “and beautiful privately landscaped gardens with plenty of

natural screening. Unusually they are also spaced approximately 20ft apart, which is more than most,

ensuring plenty of privacy between you and your neighbours.” Really? We note that the 20ft separation

distant given for the homes is the equivalent of 6 metres. This is the legal minimum separation distance

allowed by the legislation governing residential park home sites.?????

PS… Before you all dash off to claim your free Potato Growing Kits which includes planter bags and five

packs of lucky dip vegetable and salad seeds.. Page 76 February 2017 issue, Please check your park rules as

many park owners do not allow residents to grow vegetables.

Ron Joyce Editor PHRAA NEWS January 2017

PICK OF THE MONTH……. Interesting extract from a residents telling article published in full later in this edition of PHRAA NEWS

…………”I recently went back to the Tribunal to apply for a Decision to force our UPO ( Unscrupulous

Park Owner) to carry out his obligation to keep our QRA (Qualifying Residents Association) fully

informed, in writing, of anything that may affect residents, either directly, or indirectly. Now they want

me to list all the things our UPO hasn’t told us, but if we haven’t been told anything, how can we be

expected to read the UPO’s mind? CJ G January 2017

As a responsible dog owner when out walking the dog I always make sure that I clean up any piles of poo he

deposits on footpaths etc., and must express my absolute disgust for those who don’t bother to do the same

after their dogs. I also fully support the authorities who impose penalties under the law, on those who

deliberately walk on, leaving their dogs mess where it lands, only to walked into by the next passer by who

ends up with the stinking mess over their foot-ware.

But why is it that this law only applies to irresponsible dog owners? What about irresponsible Horse riders

who leave huge piles of Horse Poo in the middle of pavements, public paths and walkways. These piles are

often too large to avoid for the hapless walker. It should also be mentioned that Horse droppings do not

disappear in a matter of days, or after rain as does Dog poo, but remain in situ for weeks and when fresh are

often full of Horse Flies which can inflict a very unpleasant sting especially in summer.

As the law rightly requires that dog owners clean up after their dogs, is it unreasonable to require that Horse

Riders also be responsible to clean up after their animals???? One thing is certain, they would need much

larger Poo Bags…. Ron Joyce January 20017

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

This is a warning to all prospective buyers of Holiday Caravan and Lodges to carefully scrutinise the terms

and conditions set out in the contract you have entered into, or are about to enter into, with the site owner.

This step is absolutely vital as this contract, written agreement/statement or whatever else they chose to call

it, is the only possible legal protection you have, if things should go wrong and a dispute with the site owner

ensues.

There are several major and very important facts that holiday caravan and lodge owners should be made

aware of ….. (1)…. Unlike residential park homes, the site fees can be increased several times per year

simply by giving the homeowner a minimum of three months notice.

(2)….. Should the park owner decide that he is going to remove your caravan or lodge from his park he only

needs to give you a minimum of SIX MONTHS NOTICE….

(3)…. On many parks, homes will be required to be removed from the park on reaching the ripe old age of

ten years whatever their condition. Home owners will be presented with the option of either removing the

home from the site, or buying a replacement from the site owner as the only way to stay on his park. Hardly

the “significant investment” as stated in the advice on buying a holiday home given monthly in the Park

Home & Holiday Caravan (PH&HC) magazine under the heading of Insurance…. Which brings me nicely

to the main subject of this bulletin…. INSURANCE…..

One important clause to look for in your contract is the obligation that the homeowner keeps his

home/caravan fully insured. On many parks this cover is obtained by the homeowner from a relevant

company of their choice. However, some park owners have entered into an agreement with certain insurance

companies whereby the homeowners are required to insure their homes with this particular company, often

at a far higher premium that they could have obtained on the open market. Hence the PHRAA advice to

check the terms of the contract.

In some cases however, possibly as a result of a park ownership changing hands, the park owner unilaterally

decides to sell insurance himself and informs his residents that they now have to purchase their home

insurance through him. In the sample case being reported to PHRAA the cost of the necessary insurance is

alleged to now be almost double, the cost of previous cover.

It is also alleged that the park owner told residents that if they agreed to buy insurance from him, they would

be given £100 off their ground rent. But if residents refuse each will be charged £35 for filing it. As most

homeowners refused point blank to enter into such a restrictive undertaking, they have now learned that the

park owners intend to add this fee to next year’s ground rent. If they don’t get you one way, they’ll get you

another!!!

One final warning regarding owning Holiday Caravans and Lodges. Holiday Caravans and Lodges are NOT

CONVERED by the MOBILE HOMES ACT. BE CAREFUL……………. Ron Joyce for PHRAA

NEWS January 2017

26

27

28

29

See you all soon…….. Ron PHRAA NEWS….. Edition 31….January 2017

30

31

32