Ripped off caravan owners seek compensation

[blackrose]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gmy7xjewko

 

About 8 years ago when I first moored at Cogenhoe on the Nene (owned by Billing Aquadrome) I heard about caravan owners who'd bought caravans from Billing for £60k+ and then several years later were told by the management that the caravan was now too old to be kept on the site and would have to be replaced. Billing would offer them about £8k in part exchange for a newer caravan. They could of course take the old one off the site but finding somewhere to put it is very difficult.

 

At the time I thought "How can this be allowed to happen to people in the modern UK?" Most of them are working class people who really can't afford to get ripped off and many didn't read the small print and didn't understand what they were getting into. 

 

I'm glad this issue is finally being addressed with legal action and I hope those seeking compensation from these rip-off merchants win. There are certain statutory rights we all have that can't just be signed away with dubious and possibly illegal contracts and I'm sure these unscrupulous practices only continued for so long because anyone complaining was kicked off the site. 

Edited January 3 by blackrose

[Tonka]

Is it just caravans or does it include park homes.

I ask because I knew someone who had a Park home and there were a lot of rules. Could only buy LPG bottles from site owner. Could only sell park home back to site owner etc etc

[GUMPY]

Mostly static caravans and park dwellings.

[haggis]

Over 40 years ago my parents had a caravan on a site which had the same rules. Could only be sold through the site owners and the price was peanuts. They only allowed vans under a certain age so they had you over a barrel.. I assumed this practice had stopped but apparently not.

[5239]

 Me mam and dad had a static home. 
No choice for utilities other than buy through site owner. 
Plus pay ground rent. 
Site owner took a wedge when they sold the property and so did the estate agent,

I guess the difference is me mam and dad knew what the deal was and managed to make a small but tidy profit,

unlike the folk above 

Edited January 3 by 5239

[blackrose]

31 minutes ago, Tonka said:

Is it just caravans or does it include park homes.

I ask because I knew someone who had a Park home and there were a lot of rules. Could only buy LPG bottles from site owner. Could only sell park home back to site owner etc etc

 

Yes I think they're talking about static caravans in the article 

[Arthur Marshall]

Seems to be the normal rules for these things.

I'm sure there are a couple of people on here who have run sites - be interesting to get their views. I suspect the costs of running the businesses has risen considerably over the past couple of years, and, of course, rents for houses have also skyrocketed, so the grand a year increase she is saying has driven her off the site may be reasonable. Or, like most rent increases, be totally unjustified. Either way, it's what you sign up for. People who run such businesses are there to screw as much unearned income out of everyone else as they can. Or, if you prefer, to make a profit.

[haggis]

Yes, my parents should have read what they were signing but i think most of us sometimes sign without reading fully 

[nicknorman]

1 hour ago, blackrose said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gmy7xjewko

 

About 8 years ago when I first moored at Cogenhoe on the Nene (owned by Billing Aquadrome) I heard about caravan owners who'd bought caravans from Billing for £60k+ and then several years later were told by the management that the caravan was now too old to be kept on the site and would have to be replaced. Billing would offer them about £8k in part exchange for a newer caravan. They could of course take the old one off the site but finding somewhere to put it is very difficult.

 

At the time I thought "How can this be allowed to happen to people in the modern UK?" Most of them are working class people who really can't afford to get ripped off and many didn't read the small print and didn't understand what they were getting into. 

 

I'm glad this issue is finally being addressed with legal action and I hope those seeking compensation from these rip-off merchants win. There are certain statutory rights we all have that can't just be signed away with dubious and possibly illegal contracts and I'm sure these unscrupulous practices only continued for so long because anyone complaining was kicked off the site. 

It is being addressed, but I’d say it’s by no means certain that the complainants will achieve anything, unless they can get the law changed, and even then it won’t be retrospective. As far as I’m aware there is no law against what these companies do. You and I would call it a rip-off, they would call it running a business for profit. There is no security of tenure, it’s just like a marina. Only harder to move your property if you fall out with the establishment. If you buy something, there is generally no right to require the seller to buy it back years later at some not-very-big loss. Cars are nearly as bad, you buy a new one for £40k and after 3 years it’s only worth 1/2, but we seem to accept that.

 

Unless these organisations become regulated by law, I can’t see it changing and it is very much caveat emptor. I’m afraid that saying “I didn’t read the terms and conditions” doesn’t really cut it when you are going to spend many 10s of thousands.

Edited January 3 by nicknorman

[haggis]

I agree that if you sign something without reading it, you have  only yourself to blame .

It differs a bit from cars which you can sell to anyone and look for the best price. With static caravans you can only sell through the site owner and he dictates the price.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 3 by haggis

[Arthur Marshall]

9 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

It is being addressed, but I’d say it’s by no means certain that the complainants will achieve anything, unless they can get the law changed, and even then it won’t be retrospective. As far as I’m aware there is no law against what these companies do. You and I would call it a rip-off, they would call it running a business for profit. There is no security of tenure, it’s just like a marina. Only harder to move your property if you fall out with the establishment. If you buy something, there is generally no right to require the seller to buy it back years later at some not-very-big loss. Cars are nearly as bad, you buy a new one for £40k and after 3 years it’s only worth 1/2, but we seem to accept that.

 

Unless these organisations become regulated by law, I can’t see it changing and it is very much caveat emptor. I’m afraid that saying “I didn’t read the terms and conditions” doesn’t really cut it when you are going to spend many 10s of thousands.

And, rather like having a leisure boat that costs about four grand a year to keep on the water, it's only worth it if you use it a lot, and, if you do, it is. The woman in the article says she loves it there - you won't get many holidays any time you want in the year for that money.

It's, like a boat, only worth it if you're going to hang on to it for a few years. It's not the site's fault if the owner's circumstances change.

[BEngo]

I havd never had a park home or a static caravan but I have long known that the only winner, financiallly, is going to be the site owner. They have the upper ground in  all transactions, and innumerable ways to make money.

 

I feel sorry for people who have had a financial surprise, but almost invariably they voluntarily entered into to a contract that was not really to their advantage.  More regulation to protect the tenant may well be merited, but really the old principle applies :  Caveat Emptor.  Read the contract, get some proper advice if spending loadsamoney.  Know where you stand.  Back out if necessary.

 

"Retirement" apartments are not much different.

 

N

Edited January 3 by BEngo

[booke23]

It's always been the same with these static caravan parks. I remember my grandparents had one on a coastal site in the 1970's and the same 'sharp' practices from site owners were prevalent back then. 

[Onewheeler]

Anything to do with Alfie Best, Wyldecrest Parks amongst others? See just about any issue of Private Eye in the past few years.

[Arthur Marshall]

I've always reckoned on anything like this, whether it's boats, caravans, cars, guitars or anything else, it's worth considering the money you've spent on them is just gone and you're never going to get it back. And factor in that you've got ongoing costs in the upkeep of whatever it was (though guitar strings are fairly cheap... fiddle ones aren't and don't even think about the double bass). Then just relax and have fun with whatever you've splashed out on.

If you do get any money back when you're done, it's a bonus.

[Peanut]

Some lumpy boat marinas have terms that require you to pay them commission when you sell in their marina.

I believe, seldom enforced, and easily circumvented.

The terms are in the contract here, but not enforced. When I asked, "it depends" was the answer.

It has been discussed on the YBW forum, and considered unenforceable.

 

[booke23]

2 minutes ago, Peanut said:

Some lumpy boat marinas have terms that require you to pay them commission when you sell in their marina.

I believe, seldom enforced, and easily circumvented.

The terms are in the contract here, but not enforced. When I asked, "it depends" was the answer.

It has been discussed on the YBW forum, and considered unenforceable.

 

 

Most canal marinas have similar rules. 

[Peanut]

Possibly in a BMF specimen contract.

[Ianws]

I think I remember a post in the last couple of months from @Alan de Enfield saying older units were allowed on his site. I think as long as they were maintained to a reasonable standard. If I am remembering this correctly, this seems a proper way to treat people and a good way to get a positive reputation for your business, and respect from the people you do business with.

Okay. Time flies, it was back in April.

 

[blackrose]

This guy seems to have some pretty well out of the caravan park business. 

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1991773/uks-richest-gypsy-wealth

 

I can't help thinking he must have had a lot of unhappy customers although I've no evidence to back that up, it's just my feeling.

Edited January 3 by blackrose

[nicknorman]

8 minutes ago, blackrose said:

This guy seems to have some pretty well out of the caravan park business. 

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1991773/uks-richest-gypsy-wealth

 

I can't help thinking he must have had a lot of unhappy customers although I've no evidence to back that up, it's just my feeling.

He is Mr Billing Aquadrome of course. Plus some other stuff. A lot of other stuff!

[TheBiscuits]

16 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

He is Mr Billing Aquadrome of course. Plus some other stuff. A lot of other stuff!

 

Leftover tarmac from another job in the area?

 

[Ex Brummie]

There is no difference in this situation with caravans/park homes than there is with bicks and mortar leasehold properties where residents are faced with increased service charges and liability for repairs or rectification for compliance work with legislation. Such charges make sales difficult. Such draconian charges are made by some of the most reputable suppliers of retirement and sheltered accomodation, penalising people on restricted income who have surrendered a large amount of their capital to take up residence.

I have experience of working on such parks, and some residents were charged a percentage of my bill by the site owners. Many of these sites have grown up from licensed traveller sites, often with the benefit of 'retrospective planning permission' where councils have been somewhat dilatory in enforcing regulation, often due to threat of accusation of discrimination.

 

[Laurie Booth]

17 hours ago, blackrose said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gmy7xjewko

 

About 8 years ago when I first moored at Cogenhoe on the Nene (owned by Billing Aquadrome) I heard about caravan owners who'd bought caravans from Billing for £60k+ and then several years later were told by the management that the caravan was now too old to be kept on the site and would have to be replaced. Billing would offer them about £8k in part exchange for a newer caravan. They could of course take the old one off the site but finding somewhere to put it is very difficult.

 

At the time I thought "How can this be allowed to happen to people in the modern UK?" Most of them are working class people who really can't afford to get ripped off and many didn't read the small print and didn't understand what they were getting into. 

 

I'm glad this issue is finally being addressed with legal action and I hope those seeking compensation from these rip-off merchants win. There are certain statutory rights we all have that can't just be signed away with dubious and possibly illegal contracts and I'm sure these unscrupulous practices only continued for so long because anyone complaining was kicked off the site. 

I looked into buying a park home. I read the terms and could not believe anyone would get involved in the deal.

[Chris Lowe]

19 hours ago, Tonka said:

Is it just caravans or does it include park homes.

I ask because I knew someone who had a Park home and there were a lot of rules. Could only buy LPG bottles from site owner. Could only sell park home back to site owner etc etc

I lived on a Park home site with similar rules for nearly 20 years, it wasn't a problem as you could sell privately but the site had to act as agent & vet any buyers.

My original home got very old, & next doors burnt out, the site owners approached me to see if I would move so they could redevelope, I was given a much newer home that they sited just along the road, this was transported from about 25 miles away from one of their other sites, the underneath bricked in nice steps with railing built all at no cost to me.

I eventually sold it back to the site for £40k, my original home only cost £14k, making me quite a profit.