Park homes – often referred to as mobile homes – are a distinctive and important part of England’s housing mix. For around 160,000 people, they are not a temporary arrangement or a lifestyle choice on the margins; they are a permanent home, a source of independence and the product of a lifetime of savings.
In my constituency of Rushcliffe, I represent six park home sites. They are found in a wide range of settings: on the edge of urban areas, in villages and towns, and in rural locations. Wherever they are, they are typically strong, supportive communities. They bear little resemblance to outdated stereotypes, and instead offer residents security, community cohesion and a manageable, more affordable way of living.
Indeed, most park homes belong to ordinary people living ordinary lives, which is why it is so important that we modernise the underlying policy framework.
Park home sites are geographically dispersed and typically small, meaning there is rarely a critical mass of residents in any one place. As a result, although their concerns are often raised in parliament, warm words are rarely followed by action. Yet 160,000 people is the equivalent of two parliamentary constituencies. Surely, on this basis, park home residents deserve more sustained attention?
At present, the regulatory framework doesn’t deliver fairness, transparency or effective protections to park home owners. Over the years, Members of Parliament from across the political spectrum have highlighted a consistent set of concerns: poor site maintenance, opaque utility charges, disputes over pitch fees, weak enforcement of existing rules, and barriers when residents seek to sell their homes are among the most common.
Underpinning many of these issues is a fundamental imbalance of power between site owners and residents. Park home residents typically own their property, but not the land beneath or around it. The site owner often controls the pitch, the rules, maintenance, utilities and, to a degree, the conditions of sale. When so much control sits with a third party, it is not surprising that residents feel exposed.
This imbalance manifests itself in several practical ways. Maintenance and site standards are a recurring concern for park home owners. Transparency around pitch fees and charges is another area of difficulty. In both cases, the system shouldn’t leave residents feeling that they are navigating a “wild west” of inconsistent practices.
Enforcement is also a persistent weakness, with a gap between the protections that exist on paper and the reality on the ground. And where electricity, gas or water is supplied via the site owner, residents often struggle to understand how charges are calculated and whether they are receiving a fair deal.
Finally, there is the issue that residents most consistently raise with MPs: the 10% commission fee charged when a park home is sold. For most, this charge represents a direct loss of equity, often at a point when residents need the money to move closer to family, to find more suitable accommodation, or to pay for care. While the percentage has remained the same for decades, the actual sums involved have increased significantly as property values have risen. What might once have seemed proportionate now feels, to many, increasingly unfair.
To that end, I and many other MPs welcome the government’s recent call for evidence on the 10% commission which closes at the end of May. It is an important step forward, and it is important that residents’ voices are heard as part of that process.
At the same time, it is important to recognise that the 10% commission is only one part of a broader picture that needs holistic action. Park and mobile home residents live under different rules to most of us, which is why questions of fairness sit at the heart of this debate. Like many campaigners, I want to see fairer terms and conditions on purchase and sale. Clearer and understandable bills. Support that is easy to access. Equal standing in law.
Many of the changes required to make a meaningful difference are not radical. Indeed, with relatively modest adjustments, this government could make a significant difference to 160,000 lives.
That is why I am determined that this Parliament turns warm words into meaningful action. The debate on 28th April was an important one but with wider housing reform already underway, there is a clear opportunity to act so that park home residents are not left behind.
With the right focus and a willingness to address long-standing issues, in the next session, this Parliament could finally deliver the meaningful change that has too often been promised to park home owners but not achieved. Finally making these changes is something that we could all be proud of.
