---

Housing and Regeneration Bill

I am grateful for the opportunity offered by the amendment to take a canter over this particular course. I begin by thanking the Minister, Iain Wright, most sincerely for listening carefully to the voices raised on the issue of dissatisfaction in resolving such disputes over the years. He and his colleagues have taken a major step forward in the consultation paper. But the Committee should be under no illusion that while for us it is an academic exercise and a political discussion, the people involved are sometimes subject to a reign of terror. Their lives are made thankless, so the problem is real and in earnest. Since last September, I have received 125 letters from residents in mobile homes, all of which I have sent on to the Department for Communities and Local Government; the latest batch went off only last week. I have done that because it is ultimately the department that these people have to rely on. Members of the Committee know the situation. It might be thought that people enjoyed the protection of the local council, along with the protection offered by environmental health officers. One would have thought there would be the aid of councillors, Members of Parliament, and advice from the BH&HPA, the NCC and various others. At the end of the day, when there is a serious dispute, very often the elderly, frail or disabled person, who has moved to a mobile home for the last period of their life, is told, ““Well, if you are not satisfied you can go to court””. I received a letter this morning in which the Committee will be interested. It states: "““Going to court could cost £20,000””—" so it could cost an ordinary person £20,000— "““and of course is risky, so it is not something to take on lightly. However my feelings are very strong on this matter. Especially that this could have been resolved much sooner, had the PO””—" the park owner— "““followed the code of practice and initiated arbitration. However, if I prove breach of contract, this of course would have huge implications for all those on the park. In essence it would mean you would have a clearer right to compensation, and possibly the retraction of unfair rules””." The letter continues: "““We have a right to enjoy the holiday park and caravan that we pay nearly £3,000 for every year””." I presume that that is the pitch fee. "““The definition of a holiday is 'Leisure time away from work; devoted to rest or pleasure'. Where is our rest and pleasure? When rules are imposed ad hoc, and we are caused greater inconvenience or even loss of facilities. NO! this is definitely not restful and pleasurable experience. Quite the contrary. PO management methods have caused distress, anxiety and alarm. If he feels that he can get away with his behaviour, unchallenged, then what are we to expect next year?””." Many of the illustrations that I have received—there are no details—show that the names of some unscrupulous park owners are as well known inside the department as outside it. Some of them know what the law is, blatantly disregard it and ignore the claims made by councils and so on. They are very defiant. The Minister has seriously to consider—but not in this debate—when these unscrupulous site owners are to be taken on. They are laughing. I have had letters from people who say that they do not think much of the arbitration route because the uneducated and the distressed—the people with a good case—will stand on one side of the court and the owner will be represented by a brief, someone who receives thousands of pounds as a daily fee. As my noble friend Lady Whitaker pointed out, the idea that this is an informal process whereby disputes can be resolved amicably, in a friendly, give-and-take way, is nonsense. These people who are acting criminally by terrorising their parks are quite prepared to spend a lot of money because a lot of money is at stake. I have got no answer as to whether the amendment will be a better way of solving the problem. I am grateful to the Minister and the Ministry for having gone as far as they have. We are in a period of consultation. The stakeholders, in particular, have a responsibility not only to come up with a solution but with the evidence for their solution so that the department can give it serious consideration. I hope that the very least that the Minister will tell my noble friend today is not only that she has been heard but that her points have been taken on board and will be taken into consideration with other aspects. I will say to my all-party group—I declare an interest as the secretary—that the tide has turned and the department, after a long period of cogitation on these matters, is now becoming more militant than it ever was before. However, there is much more work to be done—we are never going to be, satisfied—and these villains will always be there. In my view, there are people who should now be in prison awaiting trial. In one case, when the owner did not get his own way, he simply set fire to caravans with people inside them. The case is well known to some Members of the Committee. There are some terrible people about; I do not know the numbers but their names come up time and time again. Bear in mind that we are not talking just about a site owner; it is someone who owns 30 or 40 sites. The villains are making a business out of this, and they are quite unscrupulous. I have got that off my chest. I support the amendment, of course I do, and I know that the Minister and her colleagues understand full well what we are getting at. There are literally thousands of people out there—thousands out of more than 200,000, that is; I am not talking about a majority, or even a sizeable number, but there are many—who thought that they were buying themselves a little bit of paradise, only to find that unfortunately that was not the case, partly due to their not reading the rules and not understanding the situation, but mainly due to villains taking them for a ride. I hope that the Minister can give them some solace.