Official Report 373KB pdf
Mobile Homes Act 1983 (Amendment of Schedule 1) (Scotland) Order 2013 [Draft]
The third item of business is to hear evidence from the Minister for Housing and Welfare on the draft Mobile Homes Act 1983 (Amendment of Schedule 1) (Scotland) Order 2013. The draft order is laid under affirmative procedure, which means that the Parliament must approve it before the provisions may come into force. Following this evidence-taking session, under agenda item 4, the committee will be invited to consider a motion to recommend approval of the draft order.
The purpose of the draft order is to protect vulnerable mobile home residents from exploitation by unscrupulous site owners while ensuring the viability of the many well-run privately owned sites, which are often family-owned small and medium-sized businesses.
I welcome the draft order. I have a number of residential sites in my constituency and have been aware over the years of unscrupulous owners. For example, people might believe that their council tax is part of their rent but then get a council tax bill or be charged for utilities without there being any way for them to check that the charges are fair or are monitored in any way. Can you say a little more about the protection that the legislation offers occupiers and how you will raise awareness of that? It is important that site owners who have been indulging in such practices know that they will not be able to get away with it any longer.
The protections for owners will be laid out in an agreement between the site owner and the resident on the site. There will be a statutory duty to lay out that information, which will cover things such as charges for fuel and utilities and pitch fees, which will be reviewed annually. As I said in my introductory remarks, the resident will have the protection of having full possession of their property. That is not the case at the moment, as some unscrupulous owners who have come on to premises have moved mobile homes and the residents to a less-favourable site. The legislation will cover all of that and the residents will be protected under it.
Will the legislation apply retrospectively? Will people who are currently resident in a mobile home have increased rights?
Yes. If approved, the rights will apply to everybody from 1 September.
The other issue that was raised with me by an occupier is the issue of the 10 per cent commission. Some people are still unhappy about the idea that the site owner can get up to 10 per cent commission.
We looked at that issue carefully, and it was one of the more contentious areas. However, some sites are well managed, well looked after and in good locations, which is reflected in the sale price that a resident will get when they sell their property. Also, the commission is a considerable part of the income for some owners, which are small and medium-sized businesses. There is not a huge turnover of mobile home sales in a year, and the commission is a considerable part of a site owner’s business income, which they will use to keep the site up to date. We looked at the issue and we felt that it was fairest to keep the commission.
As the minister pointed out in her introductory remarks, although most of the provisions apply to Gypsy Travellers, there are a couple of specific provisions that do not cover the occupants of Gypsy Traveller sites that are owned by local authorities or registered social landlords. Can the minister say a bit more about those specific omissions?
Those omissions are to do with the terms of the 10 per cent commission on sales, as some Gypsy Travellers on RSL and local authority sites do not own their mobile home—it is owned by the local authority. In addition, by their nature, Gypsy Traveller communities travel and are not permanent site residents, unlike the otherwise generally elderly population of residential sites. It was therefore felt that it would be unfair to include them in those provisions.
No. That is pretty accurate.
Do those omissions in any way prevent Gypsy Travellers from receiving the same protections that other members of the community receive?
No—not in terms of access to their home and the other rights that apply. They will still have all of that. However, they will not have to give the site owner 10 per cent commission, because they are not deemed to be permanent residents on the site.
So the omissions do not create any disadvantage for the Gypsy Traveller community.
No, they do not.
I have a number of mobile-home sites in my constituency. In preparing the legislation, did you get an idea of the percentage of mobile homes in such sites that are owned by the park owner and let out as opposed to being used only by the person who owns the mobile home?
I may ask my officials to answer that. The legislation deals with the agreement between the site owner and the home owner in residential sites rather than holiday sites or rental sites. Lindsey Henderson might want to add to what I have said.
That is right. The implied terms that the order will amend deal with the situation where a resident of a mobile home owns the mobile home and rents the land from the site owner. Those terms do not apply in the case where someone is renting the whole thing.
Nevertheless, mobile homes on such sites are rented out by the park owner. What protection do those people have in the sorts of situation to which Elaine Murray referred and where the home is not up to standard? Does that come under other legislation?
I think that it might come under other legislation—
Perhaps I can answer that. The Mobile Homes Act 1983 applies to any agreement under which a person is entitled to station a mobile home on land and to occupy the mobile home, so I think that that would probably cover the scenario where someone is renting a mobile home. The protections would cover all residents.
I can think of situations in which a mobile home should really be demolished because it is no longer wind and watertight. If a mobile home is not insulated properly, the bills for liquefied petroleum gas can be around £200 a week and people cannot really afford that. What protection do people have in that situation?
We can get back to the committee on that in writing, because there might be licensing issues as well. We will come back to you specifically on the issue of rented properties, if that is acceptable.
You mentioned that the legislation was drawn up with the help of park residents associations. How widespread are such associations in mobile-home parks across the country?
My understanding is that the majority of parks have some representative. Certainly, I know that each of the several mobile-home parks in my constituency includes someone who has a connection to one of the representative groups—there are some national groups and some smaller groups. We simply wanted to ensure that we get the message out to every mobile-home site and to every local authority that licenses such sites. That is a key way of getting the message out there.
As you will be aware, the only written submission that the committee has received is from the British Holiday & Home Parks Association, which wants to redress the balance between park owners and home owners or tenants. Are you content that the various issues that the association raises have been sufficiently addressed?
We are satisfied that we have the right balance in response to the British Holiday & Home Parks Association’s comments. We are satisfied that we have struck the correct balance.
Unless members have any further questions, I thank the witnesses for their evidence.
Does any member wish to speak to the motion?
I just want to say that the order will provide vital protection for owners and residents of mobile homes that are on sites owned by other people. We have been lobbied to provide such protection for a long time. Although the minister said that she would need to contact us in writing on one or two issues, I do not think that those are substantive and I am keen to see the order approved by the committee today.
Thank you very much.
Previous
Petitions