Official Report 1106KB pdf
I ask guests in the gallery who are leaving the chamber to do so quickly and quietly because we are going back into session.
The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-15739, in the name of Murdo Fraser, on protection of park home residents. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament believes that there are approximately 100 park home residential sites across Scotland, including in the Mid Scotland and Fife region, and that these contain more than 8,000 residents, with a typical residency of pensioners and retirees; further believes that park homes are a growing component of the housing stock; notes that residents own their park home and associated structure, but not the land that the park home is located on, and understands that the average cost of such homes varies between £90,000 and £250,000; recognises that there are reported concerns about park homes being mis-sold as main residencies despite site owners only having holiday licences, which leaves occupiers vulnerable to eviction; applauds the work of the Scottish Confederation of Park Home Residents Association (SCOPHRA) in raising awareness of the legal issues facing park home residents in Scotland and in protecting its members, and acknowledges SCOPHRA’s reported calls for action on crucial areas such as including the organisation in the planning approval process for park home sites, supporting local authorities with proper training regarding park home legislation, and providing support for adaptations to park homes to aid those with disabilities and health conditions.
12:53
I thank all the members across the chamber who signed my motion, allowing it to be debated this afternoon. This issue is clearly of interest to many members. I pay tribute to SCOPHRA—the Scottish Confederation of Park Home Residents Associations—for its excellent campaigning and lobbying work on behalf of its members. Gordon Morrison, the chair of SCOPHRA, is in the gallery this afternoon. I also acknowledge the work of Colin Beattie MSP, who chaired a cross-party group on park homes of which I was a member and which helped to get some changes made.
I will put the issue into context. Park homes are a growing component of the housing market in Scotland. It is estimated that there are 100 park home residential sites across the country, which are home to more than 8,000 residents. A park home is one that is classed as a temporary structure—what might be better known as a chalet or lodge—whereby the owner of the property pays a ground rent to lease the land on which the structure sits. However, such properties are not insubstantial structures; the average cost of such homes varies between £90,000 and £250,000, and they provide a high standard of comfortable accommodation with all the amenities of a more permanent building.
Park home developments tend to be situated in scenic rural areas, often with an attractive outlook, and have become a popular option, in particular for retirees and those looking to downsize who want to be part of a community of like-minded individuals while reducing their energy and maintenance costs and who do not want the worry of maintaining a large garden. We are seeing more of those lodge developments springing up, and their existence allows larger family homes to come on to the market and become available for those who need additional accommodation.
Park homes are a positive development but, unfortunately, a number of issues that have arisen and impacted their purchasers have led me to the conclusion that the law about the purchase and occupancy of those properties should be updated and reviewed.
There are cases of disputes between park home purchasers and site owners going unresolved and of residents feeling threatened and intimidated by unscrupulous developers. Unlike the purchase of a permanent residence, the acquisition of a park home does not involve a formal conveyance. Accordingly, many purchasers do not involve a solicitor in their purchase, even when parting with substantial sums of money, which can leave them vulnerable to exploitation.
At present, the purchaser of a park home has the right to be given a written statement, which is a contract between the site owner and the resident and is enforceable in law by both parties. That statement will set out the details of the location and size of the pitch on which the home sits, the rules of the park and the annual pitch fee payable. That fee typically rises each year in accordance with the retail prices index, although I know that the Scottish Government has plans to change that to the consumer prices index. Despite the requirement for a written statement, we know that, in practice, there are park home owners who are not given such a statement and cases of statement terms not being met by site owners.
One of the most concerning situations that I have come across relates to the park home development at Bendochy, just outside Blairgowrie in Perthshire. In March 2022, Heritage Park Estates Ltd was given planning consent for 43 lodges and 10 glamping pods on the site of a former poultry farm, with the planning consent making it clear that the units would be used “for holiday accommodation only”. In August 2023, the Advertising Standards Authority ruled that the site owners had misled the public into believing that the homes could be used as permanent residences, and that a number of people had purchased them on that basis.
Roy and Susan Robertson are in precisely that situation. They sold their family home to purchase a park home at Bendochy park, believing that it would become somewhere they could spend their retirement. Properties there were advertised under the strapline
“Your dream home built your way”
and a prominent bullet point in the sales material stated that the park was
“open 365 days a year”
and made reference to the units being “homes”. It was only after they parted with their funds that the Robertsons realised, too late, that the planning permission for the property restricted it to holiday use. They, along with a number of other residents, have now been served with planning enforcement notices that require them to find a permanent residence elsewhere or face eviction. As members can imagine, that is an extremely distressing situation for those affected, who have had to apply to the local council for accommodation elsewhere and are being treated as potentially homeless.
I have raised the issue with Perth and Kinross Council and with trading standards, which were pursuing it with the company that carried out the development. That company has now gone into liquidation and the park has been transferred to another company that cannot be pursued, which is very unfortunate.
I appreciate Murdo Fraser raising this very important issue in Parliament. I do not disagree at all with the thrust of what he is saying, but does he agree that, in some instances, local authorities could make more active use of the existing powers at their disposal? The fit-and-proper-person test could be used in relation to those operating the sites and would afford better protection for park home owners, at least in the short term.
Graeme Dey makes a reasonable point about the enforcement of existing powers. Bendochy park was not treated as a caravan site, which meant that the fit-and-proper-person test did not apply in that particular case, but there are other cases to which that would apply, giving local authorities a legitimate role in intervening, which they could, in some cases, do more energetically. That is a reasonable point.
I will mention some other concerns that have been raised with me that affect park home residents. Typically, utilities are paid for centrally by the site owner and billed back to the tenants, which gives rise to concerns about additional charges and profiteering. In some cases, residents who wish to alter or extend their homes or carry out landscaping work such as installing decking or patios are permitted to have that done only by the authorised contractor of the site owner and it is done at an inflated cost. When a park owner sells their property, it is typical for 10 per cent of the sale price to be taken by the site owner as a fee.
Residents who are elderly or have a disability are not eligible for local authority grants for improvements or adaptations because park homes are not treated as permanent buildings. As the Minister for Housing knows, I have lodged some amendments to the Housing (Scotland) Bill, which we will meet to discuss next week, as I think that it would be reasonable to extend the existing law on adaptations to allow those who live in a park home that is their permanent residence to be eligible for those grants.
The other important amendment that I would like to progress relates to the resolution of disputes. At the moment, when park home owners are in dispute with the site owner, their only remedy is to go to the sheriff court. As we know, that is a very expensive and bureaucratic process. Civil legal aid is almost impossible to achieve, and finding lawyers with a knowledge of and specialisation in this area is immensely difficult. That is why SCOPHRA has been pushing for the resolution of disputes to be moved to the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland, which deals with other housing issues and would not require the same expense or, necessarily, the involvement of solicitors. I have proposed that in an amendment.
I have had very good engagement with the minister, as has SCOPHRA, and I know that he is very sympathetic to some of the concerns that have been raised. I hope that this members’ business debate will see the Scottish Government recognise that we need changes to the law in this area to protect some of the most vulnerable people in our society.
I remind all members who are seeking to speak in the debate to check that they have pressed their request-to-speak buttons.
13:02
I am pleased to speak in this debate to address an issue that affects many of my constituents in Midlothian North and Musselburgh and thousands more people across Scotland—our park home residents, many of whom are not receiving the support that they deserve. I thank Murdo Fraser for bringing the motion to the chamber for debate.
Back in 2011, when I was first elected, I convened a cross-party group on park homes that was formed to manage changes to legislation to correct anomalies that were seen as being unfair and unreasonable to residents. That was achieved successfully, but it now seems that those changes did not go far enough and that both legislation and enforcement need to be revisited.
Many of my constituents who reside in park homes are elderly or retired and they are almost consistently treated unfairly by their site owners. As I said, the Scottish Government has taken steps to improve conditions for park home residents, but I believe that more can and should be done to provide further protections for that vulnerable group.
We are all too aware of the energy crisis that has gripped our constituents’ lives as prices continue to rise, but it is hard to believe that some park home residents do not have fair and transparent access to the utilities that they pay for. If they purchase utilities from the site owner as part of their written agreement, no specific charges can be identified. That bypasses the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets maximum price limits, which are there to protect customers. That lack of transparency leaves park home residents open to exploitation. A simple step that our Government could take is to ensure that residents have clarity and openness in relation to how their utility bills are calculated. Site owners must be constrained from profiteering from their residents’ energy use.
Unfortunately, that is not the only common issue that residents face. The restrictions to qualifying for home adaptation grants have left many in the most appalling circumstances. I will share the story of a constituent who was given the most heartbreaking news. They had just had their second leg amputated, but because they lived in a mobile home, they did not qualify for financial help to install home adaptations, because the Housing (Scotland) Act 2006 states that any home that is not a permanent structure does not qualify. It is outrageous that anyone can be left trapped and isolated following a life-altering illness, and we must close that glaring loophole.
Following that correspondence, I reached out to the Scottish Government, which assured me that it was conducting a review of the adaptation system. I look forward to the outcome of the review, and I hope that it will bring welcome news to park residents across the country.
It is also vital that park home residents are included in wider discussions; their voices must be heard. Currently, that can be done via residents associations, which allow residents to organise and create dialogue with their site owners. I was pleased to meet the Scottish Confederation of Park Home Residents Associations this morning, where we discussed the importance of residents associations and how SCOPHRA can assist residents in creating their own associations. However, my constituents informed me that some site owners still refuse to consult with residents associations, and co-operation cannot be enforced. I encourage the Scottish Government to investigate where the legislation can be tightened to ensure greater co-operation between site owners and residents. Simple mutual respect seems to be lacking.
Park home residents are not asking for special treatment; they are asking for fairness, stability and the ability to enjoy their home without unnecessary hardship. By working together, we can ensure that every resident—every one of our constituents—can live with dignity and security.
13:06
I pay tribute to my colleague Murdo Fraser for securing this important debate and for shining a light on an often undervalued and overlooked part of Scotland’s housing landscape.
The Scottish Confederation of Park Home Residents Associations does a great job, but it is working without resource and on an entirely voluntary basis to make the case on behalf of thousands of residents. Given my constituency experience over the past eight and a half years, I was keen to speak in this debate and give voice to the legitimate concerns of local residents of park homes, who are often left without a voice or adequate mechanisms to address the unfairness and discrimination that they face. Their concerns are such that I do not want to give a number of specific examples today, because people are in such fear of the relationship that they have with park home owners and the control that they have over their home. That sort of thing would not be acceptable in any other part of the housing landscape.
Although overregulation concerns me in many other sectors, the situation here is quite the opposite. Too often, the park home sector feels like the wild west, where the normal rules do not apply. I know that some diligent site owners are doing the right thing, but too many operate to an unacceptable standard. They have identified it as a weak area in housing policy, where they can exploit vulnerable people, who are often older and disabled, and use them as a cash cow.
I am deeply troubled by the charges that are, as Colin Beattie mentioned, imposed for electricity usage, the lack of transparency around how those costs are calculated and the inability of residents to control them. How can it be right that households that are among some of the most vulnerable—many of whom have, as Murdo Fraser has said, moved specifically to try to make their homes more affordable—are totally excluded from the consumer protections that the rest of us enjoy?
Equally, I have seen a number of issues with, for example, water pressure on sites, on which there is no oversight. There are also the well-known and well-rehearsed issues of exploitative rates for changing ownership and excessive and inflated site fees. Too often, park home owners feel as though they are being treated like second-class citizens, and they are not, as other members have mentioned, given the full facts before signing on the dotted line.
However, it is not only site owners who give rise to concern. As has been referenced, local authorities are not doing their bit and too often take a hands-off approach when it comes to their statutory and other duties in relation to such sites. In my experience, they often opt for the path of least resistance rather than stand up for local residents, adopting a tick-box approach to site licensing and showing little interest when it comes to ensuring that site designs are fit for purpose. How can it be right that roads and planning officials have such limited powers to root out bad practice in that space? How can sizeable residential developments be allowed to be built and operated without proper roads, drainage and lighting?
We then come to another area of bad practice that has already been referenced—the misselling of homes on non-residential sites. I first became aware of the scale of the issue during the Covid pandemic, when many non-residential sites were asked to close, in line with regulations. My inbox was flooded with emails from people who had been asked to move out of what they considered to be their main residence to go to other homes that did not exist. Thankfully, the Scottish Government stepped in in that instance, but, given the prevalence of the practice, I think that there needs to be a more serious rethink. Local authorities should not be, on the one hand, collecting council tax, registering people to vote and providing other services to such individuals while, on the other, claiming not to know about them.
I urge the minister to back Murdo Fraser’s motion and get behind the cross-party efforts to ensure that park home owners are treated with fairness and given the same rights as other home owners.
13:10
I join other members in congratulating Murdo Fraser on securing a debate on the protection of park home residents, and I welcome the opportunity to discuss the issue, as it is not one that has been raised frequently.
According to the most recent estimate from the Scottish Confederation of Park Home Residents Associations, there are around 8,500 people living in park homes, and 100 parks, in Scotland. Park homes can be used as temporary holiday homes or as permanent residences. In recent years, the use of park homes as permanent residences seems to have grown as an option for older people.
The regulation of park home sites sits between permanent and temporary residency. The different system of rents, ownership and licences is outlined in the motion. The fact that residents own the home but not the land can cause issues. People who go on to SCOPHRA’s website will find tips for living in park homes, information about membership costs and a big warning notice, in red font, that is followed by a disclaimer telling those who want to buy a holiday home to seek professional advice.
That is because of the issue of residents being missold park homes on the false pretence that they were permanent dwellings when, for licensing purposes, they were designated as holiday homes. As a result, members of the public—often, people who were newly retired—are facing homelessness, despite the fact that their park home was advertised as a home for life.
The holes in regulation extend to energy. For example, in 2022, park home residents were initially left out of the arrangements for Government support for energy bills, and a separate scheme had to be established. In recent years, following storms, residents have been left without power for days on end; indeed, some have said that they felt as though they had been forgotten about by energy companies.
I note the motion’s call for park home residents to be given access to support for housing adaptations. I am often contacted by constituents who struggle to get adaptations made to regular homes, and I hear how worrying long waits are for them. I cannot imagine how it must feel to be getting older and frailer and not be able to make adaptations because of regulatory issues. Given that such homes are being used as permanent residences, in a similar way to rental properties, consideration should be given to how adaptations can be made.
I again congratulate Murdo Fraser on bringing the issue to the chamber. I understand that the Scottish Government is considering reviewing the licensing regime for park homes, and I look forward to hearing what the minister has to say.
13:14
I thank Murdo Fraser for bringing this important issue to the chamber. As a fellow representative of Mid Scotland and Fife, I am aware that residents of park homes face serious issues. At lunch time, it was good to meet Gordon Morrison from SCOPHRA, which I absolutely support in seeking reforms in this area.
It is clear that, as we continue to face a housing crisis in Scotland, especially in our rural areas, and as increased demand for homes outstrips supply, park homes will continue to meet a housing need. However, I agree with Oliver Mundell that the situation right now feels like the wild west, and further reforms really are needed.
Housing is a fundamental human right: everyone in Scotland deserves a warm, safe and secure home, including those who live in park homes. However, that does not seem to be the case at the moment. For example, Perth and Kinross Council has issued six enforcement notices to lodge owners at Bendochy, where lodges were being used as permanent residences when the original planning consent was not for that purpose. However, those units were clearly advertised as homes that were open year round and, arguably, they were missold as permanent residences. Residents there face uncertainty over their housing security, due to those misleading adverts from a company that has now been liquidated.
Does Mark Ruskell agree that it is wrong that individual residents, rather than park owners, are often more likely to face local authority enforcement action?
I feel that that is a very clear injustice. It is now up to the Government to consider whether amendments to the Housing (Scotland) Bill, and perhaps other legislation, could be lodged to rectify that. In the chamber, we often talk about the needs of tenants. Park home residents in Scotland are a particular type of tenant, and they face a particular type of issue. We need to understand that better and consider the options for reform.
All of the current issues are really concerning, particularly for the most vulnerable residents of the parks affected. We have already heard examples of that. People are in quite impossible situations. Often, residents are elderly or have disabilities, yet they are facing all that stress. What has happened in Blairgowrie, and elsewhere across Scotland, highlights the weakness in our current legislation on park homes and ownership rights, and shows that unscrupulous companies can missell to consumers, seemingly without any consequences.
We have also heard about energy supply issues. The Deputy Presiding Officer and other members will know that, following storm Éowyn, residents of the Fordell Gardens site in Fife were left without power for nearly 48 hours. However, they found themselves ineligible for emergency aid from Scottish Power, which meant that they had to either pay out of their own pockets for alternative accommodation or brave the cold until power was restored. The utility companies’ stance amid the current cost of living crisis is completely unacceptable. It raises the question why people who reside in park homes are not, as a point of principle and justice, eligible for the same protection as those who live in traditional dwellings.
I recognise that there is a wider housing crisis in rural areas, and that there is in some areas arguably an imbalance across holiday accommodation, private and social rents and owner occupation. We really need to address that, because I see it happening in Perth and Kinross and elsewhere. Older people need the ability to downsize and live in smaller lodge-style units for rent, surrounded by a supportive community, and possibly even with the option of co-housing, all of which bring a huge amount of benefits. That is the model that many people want and need, but it does not fit easily with the park home model or with existing planning policy.
I ask the Government to consider how we address what lies at the heart of the issue: the need of park home residents, and many other people in Scotland, to have a secure and peaceful place to retire to, free from anxiety. The points that have been made about reform are well made, including the possibility of having a statutory tribunal process. It is clear that these residents’ rights are not being protected right now.
Murdo Fraser’s proposed amendments to the Housing (Scotland) Bill provide strong food for thought. We will consider them, but I also look forward to working across the parties with other colleagues as we move forward.
13:19
Oliver Mundell got to the nub of the issue when he said that the owners of such homes feel that they, rather then the owners of the sites, are vulnerable. That is the crux of the problem.
In my constituency, there is Annsmuir park, which is near Ladybank. The owners of the site have been appalling. The site’s maintenance and issues around drainage and electricity have frequently been reported to me and my colleague Wendy Chamberlain. The site is split—it is partly a holiday park and partly a residential park—but the poor relationship between the owners of the mobile homes and the owners of the site is long standing. It is important to call the owners out when they have poor practice, because it is important that they improve their practice in the future.
As we have heard today, a common problem of such poor practice concerns misselling. Is it a holiday home or a residence? Are people staying there all year round? Do people understand that difference before they purchase their home? There are issues around poor maintenance and the distribution of statements—people frequently do not receive their statements. As Mark Ruskell has just alighted on, when there are power cuts, they are considered as commercial customers rather than individual residents, and their vulnerability is not highlighted in the power company’s system.
I pay credit to Murdo Fraser for securing this debate. I was impressed with the authoritative way in which he provided great detail and knowledge on the issue, and with his clear dedication to try to resolve it.
At Ladybank, we took the issue up with the local authority, but it was very passive about it. It was underresourced, which is a frequent state for many local authorities, but it was also passive in terms of how it applied the licensing process and the original planning process. I understand that it has many challenges across the piece, but there are clearly incomplete powers and underresourced licensing teams.
Murdo Fraser’s point about tribunals is valid. We need to look at a tribunal process and make sure that there is a vehicle for residents to be able to raise their concerns at an affordable price through an official channel, rather than having to use the ramshackle processes that exist at present. That may drive changes in the wider sector and improve the process. Even if the tribunal is not used very often, it will bring some discipline and order into the application of the process. I understand that there is provision for the tribunal process to be utilised in England, and I believe that it should be applied here as well.
This is an incredibly important issue. A lot of people are feeling very vulnerable just now. I hear about many cases of people living in what are actually holiday homes—they do not receive bin collections, they are not on the voting register and they do not pay council tax. Those people are all living on the edge of society. They think that they live in their homes, but they do not officially live in residential homes. That is where the nub of the problem is.
I welcome the fact that the Government is doing a review of the sector. It needs radical change, because my experience so far is that current processes are wholly inadequate.
13:23
I congratulate Murdo Fraser on securing this debate and I thank the Scottish Confederation of Park Home Residents Associations for its briefing. I also thank many of my constituents who are among the 70-plus residents of Bruce Court, Willow Park and Millglen Lodges for sharing their views with me in advance of this debate.
Park homes are a growing and welcome component of our housing stock, and residents are typically retired and looking to downsize and enjoy their retirement among like-minded people in a peaceful and attractive setting. In the midst of a housing emergency, park homes can offer a low-cost way of expanding the housing stock while freeing up traditional bricks-and-mortar homes for young families. However, it is clear from today’s debate that there is strong cross-party support for the Scottish Government to take action to protect park home owners.
Residents own their home but not the land that it is built on. They do not enjoy the rights that owners or renters of bricks-and-mortar homes have. Instead, any recourse in the event of a dispute is covered by consumer rights legislation or the park home licensing regime. The Mobile Homes Act 1983 requires that site owners must give the proposed park home occupier a written statement that sets out the rights and responsibilities of both parties and other relevant information. However, there is no standardisation of that important document. Some residents may not even have been given one, and there is no independent register of ownership.
The licence fee does not cover the cost of any enforcement action; instead, the local authority has to recover that from the business that is operating the park home. I have constituents who believe that that has held their local authority back from taking enforcement action where it is necessary, because site owners can refuse to communicate with residents associations and individuals, making it difficult to resolve issues and causing significant frustration.
There are also concerns about the lack of designated park managers to handle issues when site owners are away, which leaves residents without support during emergencies. SCOPHRA and individual constituents question whether the fit-and-proper-person test is weeding out unscrupulous site owners—we have heard from colleagues today of a number of alleged such owners.
Site maintenance and safety is a common complaint. A prominent example is site owners allegedly failing to spread grit during cold weather despite being asked to do so by vulnerable elderly residents. Such safety measures should be included in the licensing conditions to ensure compliance. As colleagues across the chamber have touched on, park homes are excluded from legislation on adaptations to help people with disabilities, because they are not a permanent structure. That is despite more park home residents being older and therefore more likely to have mobility issues.
Residents are concerned about the high cost of utilities such as gas and electricity, which are often metered by park owners. There are allegations of overcharging, and residents feel vulnerable to exploitation. The Office of Gas and Electricity Markets limits the maximum price at which gas and electricity can be resold to residents by site owners. However, that limit does not apply when an inclusive charge is made for accommodation—for example, when a park home pitch fee includes all amenities—or for the resale of liquefied petroleum gas. When the previous UK Government awarded households £400 off their energy bills, park homes were excluded, and Patricia Gibson MP had to take the matter to the floor of the House of Commons. Residents have also had difficulties with adding an electric car charging point to their park homes.
With regard to the 10 per cent commission on sales, in days gone by, the site owner often assisted in selling a park home, acting much like an estate agent and partly justifying the fee. Park home managers consider that commission to be important and argue for its role in supporting site facilities. However, the near-unanimous feedback from residents is negative; they see the commission as being more like a feudal levy. Often, residents are opposed to the commission in principle, as they consider it unfair or because they do not see a commensurate investment in site infrastructure.
The Scottish Government has pledged to review site licensing before the current session of Parliament ends. I trust that the minister is taking on board the concerns that colleagues from all sides of the chamber are raising today and will progress changes to better protect residents, thereby ensuring that park homes remain a viable and attractive housing option for our elderly population.
13:27
I thank Murdo Fraser for bringing the debate to the chamber. I must admit that I was not aware of this subject until I signed his motion. I was then contacted by constituents in Aberdeenshire asking me to meet them, and I spent a morning with park home owners to understand more about the issues that they face.
When I went to visit, I was struck by the sense of community. Everyone seemed to know everyone else in the park—I guess that we should not be surprised by that, because that is the whole idea of these parks. A park is a community of like-minded individuals who have their own space in the countryside with reduced maintenance.
No one should think of a park home as being any less a home than one that is made of bricks and mortar. We have heard the term “mobile homes” used in the debate, but that does not do most of these homes justice. They do not move about, and it is completely wrong for them to be covered by mobile home legislation alone. They are prefabricated homes, and the home owners deserve rights that are equivalent to those of other home owners.
During my visit, I heard of home owners not being given an adequate power supply to their homes, which meant, for example, that the oven could not be on at the same time as the heating. However, the site owner would not do anything about it. I heard stories of the local council asking for improvements to be made at the site but there being no evidence that the local council was actually checking that the improvement conditions of a licence were being met. Instead, the local authority was taking the owner’s word for it—no doubt due to limited budget, as we heard from Willie Rennie. I heard stories of site owners dismissing owners’ concerns out of hand and the owners having only a limited or expensive course of action open to them. That is not good enough. We cannot simply ignore those legitimate concerns.
That is why, on the back of my meeting, I submitted a number of questions on the subject to the devolved Government. The response to those questions was pathetic, to say the least. I asked how residents’ legal rights could be improved, and
“what new regulations are being considered to enhance the protection of park home residents.”—[Written Answers, 19 February 2025; S6W-34562.]
In response to my question on legal rights, I was told that the
“priority at present is to work to change the basis of pitch fee uprating from the Retail Prices Index to the Consumer Prices Index”.—[Written Answers, 21 February 2025; S6W-34568.]
That is an embarrassment—the only thing that the minister thinks should change is the price rise mechanism. There is nothing about improving legal rights and giving these residents more protection.
I asked the minister whether there were any plans to establish an independent body to oversee and regulate park home sites. Again, the devolved Government would rather turn a blind eye and do nothing. I asked the Scottish Government how it monitors and enforces compliance with existing regulations for park home sites. Basically, it does not; it just devolves all responsibility to our underresourced local authorities.
This Government has declared a housing emergency, and park homes can play a big part in helping to address that emergency. However, we need proper protections and regulations in place. The ideal chance to do that is the Housing (Scotland) Bill, which could put in place legal protections and set out a conflict resolution process and the rights that park home owners could expect from site owners. However, the bill does not do any of that. It is as though these homes and their owners just do not exist. I urge the minister to come with me to meet residents. He can tell them why the devolved Government does not care about their rights. He can tell them why he is content to turn a blind eye to rogue site operators. Minister, it is not too late. Listen to the issues, work with SCOPHRA, make sure that the housing bill works for all home owners and end discrimination against park home owners.
13:31
I, too, congratulate Murdo Fraser on securing today’s debate and, as Willie Rennie said, on opening the debate with great authority and great knowledge of the subject while also proposing solutions. Often, Government ministers accuse Opposition members of complaining about issues but not coming up with potential solutions. We will discuss that later, following the minister’s response, and, I hope, next week in relation to the Housing (Scotland) Bill.
I will focus on one point in my speech, but I want to acknowledge what others have said. Oliver Mundell was right to say that, although there is great interest in the issue in many of our constituencies and regions—I have dealt with the matter in this chamber and in the United Kingdom Parliament—some people are concerned about their names being mentioned in these debates, or even in correspondence to the minister, because of their fear that they will face repercussions from site owners.
I am not often the one who inserts balance into debates, but some site owners are very good. Sadly, they are sometimes in the minority, but I will give the example of a site owner who went to great lengths for elderly and disabled residents during the recent cold snap in Moray. The owner and his staff went out to clear the pavements and the ramps into residents’ homes. It is important to put that on the record, but, sadly, a significant number are not acting in the best interests of the owners in their parks.
Murdo Fraser was right to say—Douglas Lumsden pointed this out, too—that the parks are extremely welcoming. Many people come to Moray and the Highlands because they like the location, but the sites also look extremely appealing from the outside, so we can understand why many people want to retire and move there.
The issue that I want to focus on, which was briefly mentioned by Kenny Gibson, is the rate of commission on the sales of properties. I wrote to the minister earlier this month, and I got a very prompt response from him. Owners have to provide 10 per cent commission to the site owners when they sell their property. I accept that everyone knows about that when they buy their property in the first place, but we must look at whether that is still a reasonable cost for people when they want to sell their home. The minister nodded when Kenny Gibson explained some of the reasons why that rate of commission remains in place.
However, when the Scottish Government carried out a consultation on the topic in 2011, the response was split right down the middle: the site owners and their representatives wanted the commission to be maintained, and the home owners opposed it. We will not please both sides, but we must decide whether we want to keep supporting the site owners, who like that income, or whether we want to respond more to the concerns of the home owners.
In response to the consultation, residents groups said that the commission is not directly related to the services that are provided. An important point that came out of the consultation is that the commission provides an incentive for unscrupulous site owners to harass residents into selling their homes in order to maximise their own profits. That is why the issue needs to be looked into.
The Scottish Government did a review of the wider impacts of the situation in 2013. Looking at the Scottish Parliament information centre briefing and at the situation in England, I was surprised to see that the United Kingdom Parliament has not considered a change since I was born. The last change was made in 1983, when the commission went from 15 per cent to 10 per cent. Surely, 12 years on from the Scottish Government’s most recent review and more than four decades since the UK Parliament looked at the issue, now is the right time to consider whether the commission is still right and whether it should be set at 10 per cent.
Members’ business debates are often consensual, and we have seen that today. Ministers often say in their responses that they will go away and look into the issues, but it can be weeks, months and sometimes years before action is taken. With this debate, we have a real opportunity in days—this time next week—to make some of the important changes that Murdo Fraser has suggested in his amendments. I hope that the Government will consider them positively.
13:35
I thank Mr Fraser for securing the debate and members for their important contributions and for coming up with some solutions.
Mr Fraser and I have met previously on this issue, and he has my commitment that, as well as meeting next week to talk about the bill, we will meet again to discuss the issue. I have also met representatives of SCOPHRA. Mr Fraser has my commitment to on-going discussions.
We have heard from a few members about how residential mobile homes are an important housing option, especially for people who want to downsize and enjoy the lifestyle that a park home can offer in retirement. We have also heard that there are about 100 such sites in Scotland, and we have heard from many members that they have park homes in their constituencies. Everyone has the right to a safe and secure home, and we are committed to ensuring that those who live on permanent mobile home sites have appropriate rights and protections.
I will go into a bit more detail on some of the things that we have talked about. The Mobile Homes Act 1983 and the Caravan Sites Act 1968 were touched on. The 1983 act sets out implied terms that are automatically included in any contract between a permanent resident and a site owner. One of the key things that I have heard today is about how definitive that written statement has been for residents and tenants. The 1968 act protects residents against eviction and harassment.
My second point is about the licensing of mobile home site providers. That is one of the key things that I have heard all the way through the debate. On the back of today’s debate, I will write to all local authorities to remind them of the powers that they have. The fit-and-proper-person test has been mentioned a few times.
One of my concerns is that a lot of this sits with environmental health. There are good individuals working in that area, but they do not necessarily have the necessary experience, knowledge and housing expertise. Will the minister look at that when he contacts local authorities?
That is a valid point. It is not just about reminding local authorities of their obligations but about how they implement them. It is fine to have the powers, but are they able to implement them?
Licensing is important. The licensing system, which was introduced in 2019, provides local authorities with the range of powers that we have talked about to manage and, ultimately, revoke licences for sites that have received planning permission for residential use. A few members have discussed the issue, particularly with regard to Covid, of park homes that have been sold while being misrepresented. I remember a few cases of constituents coming to me because they were in the same situation. They were told that they had to move out for a period and were not aware of that right at the start—that had not been described at the start—so we have to eradicate that problem.
The Scottish Government provided model standards for local authorities to take into account when setting licensing conditions, as well as guidance to help with the operation of licensing systems and to provide some consistency. Mr Mundell’s point on that is really important.
In addition, mobile homes are a consumer purchase, and caravan park owners and operators are subject to consumer protection legislation. It is important to keep protections under review, and we are taking action to do that.
We have talked about pitch fee increases, which are regulated by the Mobile Homes Act 1983, so fees do not increase by more than RPI. We have listened to concerns from residents that the gap between RPI and CPI has been greater in recent years, with the effect being that pitch fees are growing faster than pensions income. The Housing (Scotland) Bill, which I will come on to in a second, includes a proposal to update the inflation rate in the 1983 act to CPI. As RPI is typically above CPI, we expect there to be a slower rate of increase in pitch fees once the change comes into force.
We are committed to undertaking a post-implementation review of the residential homes site licensing scheme before the end of this parliamentary session, as has been referred to by a few members. What we have heard in the debate today will be part of that discussion on how to address some of the problems. We will consider the issues that have been raised about the operation of the scheme to date.
I am aware of the on-going concerns of residents, as highlighted by members today. I have heard concerns directly from SCOPHRA, and I have a mobile home site in my constituency, so I know that there can be issues with sites. The issues that we have heard about today are ones that I have heard from constituents. I have met representatives of SCOPHRA previously, and I am happy to meet SCOPHRA, Mr Fraser or anybody else outwith the bill discussions that we have had.
I wish to address a few specific points. I thank Colin Beattie for the work that he has already carried out. He made some points about adaptations and Ofgem, and I will summarise some of those issues. Graeme Dey mentioned the role of local authorities. Oliver Mundell talked about site licensing and misselling—I will come on to site licensing. Foysol Choudhury talked about some issues concerning storms, and I will touch on what we are considering in that regard, too. I thank other members for the points that they raised.
I have talked about what we are planning to do with the licensing scheme. One key thing concerns energy. One of the actions that I will take away from today’s debate is to contact Ofgem about that. There are certain rules and regulations under which site owners should be operating. I will write to Ofgem today, and I am happy to share information with Mr Fraser on the back of that. That is a really important issue. There is guidance from Ofgem on site owners charging only at the price paid for unit energy, plus the standing charge, so site owners cannot profit from charges to residents.
We have spoken about adaptations. Local authorities have a duty to ensure that the needs of disabled residents, whatever their housing circumstances, are met and to offer support under the provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. We plan to undertake a review of the current housing adaptations system, which will make recommendations on how best to improve and streamline the system and how to better target resources.
Could provisions be changed through the Housing (Scotland) Bill to allow park home residents—who still pay council tax to the local authority, just like everyone else—to have adaptations made, just like other residents?
As has been mentioned, Mr Fraser and I are discussing his amendments to the Housing (Scotland) Bill, and we will pick up and discuss that issue.
There is a recognition of concerns about misselling, which can have a significant impact on individuals. We have heard about some similar cases coming through. Consumer protection policy on advocacy and advice is devolved to the Scottish Government, and we promote services to residents locally. Policy on redress and enforcement is reserved to the UK Government, so we are limited by the action that it takes in that area. That might be a matter on which I can write to my UK equivalent.
On access to justice, we are keen to support residents, and I continue to listen to the views of constituents, as well as those that have been expressed in the debate today. Residents can get support from Advice Direct Scotland and trading standards services. Issues about site licensing can be raised with the local authority.
Mr Fraser and I will be discussing the issue of transferring disputes under the Mobile Homes Act 1983 from the sheriff court to the First-tier Tribunal. Mr Fraser has lodged an amendment on that, and we will discuss it next week.
On the 10 per cent commission chargeable under the implied terms that govern the sale of a home, research in England has suggested that a reduction could have an impact on the viability of smaller parks. The point that Mr Ross made on that is very important. We have to strike a balance. It, of course, concerns the viability of the parks, but it is also about protecting residents.
I thank Murdo Fraser for securing today’s debate, and I thank members for what I think has been a very consensual debate. I commend SCOPHRA for its support to residents, and I look forward to meeting its representatives again. I also thank SCOPHRA for its proactive and collaborative work with stakeholders. It has worked with the Scottish Government—for example, in meetings with the Law Society of Scotland and in feeding back to local authorities on licensing issues—and I was pleased to contribute to its conference last year. I look forward to meeting Mr Fraser later this week and to working with SCOPHRA in the future.
13:44 Meeting suspended.Air ais
First Minister’s Question TimeAir adhart
Portfolio Question Time