| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The noble Baroness said: Although I am a vice-chair of the All-Party Group on Gypsies and Travellers, it is fair to say that the amendment is in the interests of all mobile home dwellers. The new clause seeks to amend the Mobile Homes Act 1983 to remedy a clear discrimination against all tenants of mobile home sites, whether Gypsy, Traveller or any other caravan dweller. All other tenants have the right ultimately to go to the courts to seek redress if there is a dispute with the landlord. Only mobile home park tenants have to put up with the site owners’ choice of arbitrator. The most welcome extension of security of tenure to Gypsy and Traveller residents of such sites, on which I congratulate my noble friend, nevertheless brought them to share this unjust situation with other mobile home residents.
The amendments are supported by the Traveller Law Reform Project and meet concerns expressed many times by groups representing mobile home residents. The concern is, briefly, that technically, under the
23 Jun 2008 : Column GC530
It is a matter of straightforward justice to incorporate these amendments in the Bill. They do not, of course, preclude alternative dispute resolution. The new civil procedure rules of 1998 make it quite clear that the court must actively manage the case by,
- “encouraging the parties to use an alternative dispute resolution procedure if the court considers that appropriate and facilitating the use of such procedure”.
The amendments provide only that, like everyone else, mobile home tenants can have recourse to the courts if all else fails. I hope that my noble friend will respect the wide support that the amendments have, and will accommodate them.
Recently the Department for Communities and Local Government published a consultation document on a new approach for resolving the disputes of mobile home tenants, no doubt aware of the unsatisfactory nature of the whole regime. The document recommends putting such disputes within the framework of the residential property tribunals. In theory, tribunals are an economical and accessible form of justice, in that lawyers are not required and the panoply of the judges’ courts can be dispensed with. That is the theory and it is attractive, but I have sat on tribunals and the fact is that at least one of the parties will be legally represented if they can afford it, which already creates an imbalance of expertise. Tribunals can be very drawn out, being much closer in nature to an inquisitorial process. The experience and the briskness of a judge have considerable advantages when we are dealing with a court of last instance and all other recourse has been tried. Although I commend the department’s recognition that the present system is not right, our solution has much more to be said for it. I beg to move.
6 pm
Lord Avebury: I am glad to support the noble Baroness in her amendment. I also declare an interest as a member of the All-Party Group on Gypsies and Travellers. It is curious that we have had this provision in the law regarding mobile homes that come under the 1983 Act for all this time, in spite of the many legal objections to it—not least that of the legal encyclopaedia, Sweet and Maxwell, which says that it is hard to see the purpose of such a comprehensive ouster. As the noble Baroness has explained, that applies not only to the Gypsies and Travellers, who come under these provisions for the first time—and I welcome that as a member of the all-party group—but to all residents of mobile homes. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Graham, who has always been such a doughty combater
23 Jun 2008 : Column GC531
I take this opportunity to refer to the situation in Hackney, where, as the Minister may know, Gypsies and Travellers have had some problems because they were displaced from the site they occupied for the needs of the Olympic Games. For a long time there was no proper solution to the question of where they should go. Now there are alternative sites, but another problem has arisen: the people have moved on to sites that are governed under different provisions. Some of them are in bungalows that in Ireland are called “group housing”, where they have facilities for caravans next to the buildings and are no different from anyone else who wants to live in a house or bungalow. I invite the noble Lord to consider whether, even within one borough, it is a satisfactory outcome of the move of the Gypsies and Travellers from the sites they formerly occupied that they will come under different regimes according to the type of dwelling where they live. That may be a subject that we should come back to on another occasion rather than under the clause, but as the issue has been raised with me by the organisation representing Gypsies and Travellers in Hackney, I thought I would take the opportunity of mentioning it. However, I warmly support the noble Baroness in her amendment.
Lord Best: I, too, have added my name in support of this amendment. The occupiers of all other homes have recourse to the courts and most also have access to an independent arbitration scheme to sort out disputes with their landlord or superior owner. The tenants of mobile homes on sites must be unique both in having arbitration scheme based on the landlord deciding on who the arbitrator shall be and in not having any recourse to the courts if they are dissatisfied at the end of the process. The Housing Ombudsman is there for disputes involving housing association and social housing tenants, and indeed for some private landlords’ tenants. I hope that, in the review by Sir Bryan Carsberg that came out last week, we shall see similar redress and ombudsman services extended to the tenants of private landlords. People who buy their own homes will have access to the redress and ombudsman scheme that will become compulsory later in the year under the Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Act 2007. However, in all these cases people also have recourse to the courts if dissatisfied with the arbitration proceedings. It is strange that this one group is denied protection either by the independent arbitration system or recourse to the courts. I hope that the Minister will be able to give me some reassurance that this position will change.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: 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
23 Jun 2008 : Column GC532
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:
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”—
- “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”.
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
23 Jun 2008 : Column GC533
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.
6.15 pm
The Lord Bishop of Exeter: I support the amendment, which addresses an issue of real concern and, as the noble Baroness has pointed out, of justice to all those mobile home residents on rented sites, of which we have a great many in Devon. Acceptance of the amendment or something very like it would be helpful in addressing those concerns, as it would mean that all such site residents could always take a dispute with their site owner to the county court, should they need to. I suggest that that is preferable to another option that I understand is being proposed in the consultation document produced by the Department for Communities and Local Government: that tenants of mobile parks should have their disputes taken to residential property tribunals. Referral of disputes to such a tribunal may well be an improvement over compulsory arbitration
23 Jun 2008 : Column GC534
It must be wrong to force residents to argue their own case on complex matters of law before a formal tribunal without the benefit of representation unless they pay for it themselves. My understanding is that legal aid is not available for tribunals. I also believe that DCLG is wrong to claim that residential property tribunals are more informal than courts. Tribunals are formal bodies. The key difference between a tribunal and a court being, as I said, that legal aid is unavailable for representation at a tribunal. Moreover, it is not clear why tenants in similar circumstances should be able to take the matter to court, whereas mobile home site residents would be precluded from that opportunity.
I am the bishop of a diocese that, together with its neighbouring diocese of Salisbury, has appointed a full-time chaplain to Gypsies and Travellers, so I am kept well informed of their worries about this matter. I wonder whether the Government have carried out a race equality or human rights impact assessment of the DCLG’s proposals, given that Gypsies and Irish Travellers on non-local authority sites, and that all Gypsies and Travellers on rented sites, are soon going to be affected by virtue of the impact of this measure.
It is important to get this provision right. I hope that the amendment will be given the serious consideration it deserves.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have entered into the spirit of this debate. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Whitaker, who is a strong and effective advocate for Gypsy and Traveller issues, as is the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I share their concerns about the potential for abuse to occur in respect of pitch agreements for local authority Gypsy and Traveller sites once the provisions in the Mobile Homes Act apply in respect of such sites when Clause 316 of the Bill is brought into force. However, we would expect local authorities, as public bodies, to act reasonably and responsibly in agreeing the use of arbitration in resolving disputes that may arise with Gypsy and Traveller residents on their sites. If the existing power is abused at all, therefore, it is far more likely to be abused by unscrupulous private site owners than by local authority site owners.
My noble friend Lady Whitaker was kind in her comments on reforms to the dispute resolution system under the Mobile Homes Act and referred to our proposal to transfer the jurisdiction of county courts to hear disputes, apart from possession proceedings, to residential property tribunals established under the Housing Act 2004. As part of that proposal, pitch agreements will no longer be able to require the use of arbitration for dispute resolution, so that injustice is particularly dealt with.
She was also right to identify the pressing need to reform the current system of dispute resolution under the Mobile Homes Act. That is why the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Welsh Assembly are consulting very carefully on reform. It
23 Jun 2008 : Column GC535
Comments have been invited from a wide sector of the community, including from those living, working with and owning homes in this residential sector, because it covers a variety of circumstances of which, of course, Travellers and Gypsies are an important part. No doubt my noble friend will be aware that the All-Party Parliamentary Group for the Welfare of Park Home Owners has long campaigned for reform in dispute resolution, and our consultation seeks to meet the concerns felt by many in the sector that the current system does not work as well or as fairly and proportionately as it should.
We also understand the concern about the imbalance in tribunal proceedings between those who can afford to be legally represented and those who cannot. If such an inequality exists, it manifests itself through the courts as well because the complaint we often hear is that park home residents cannot afford to bring or defend proceedings for fear of having costs awarded against them, and of course not all residents will have access to legal aid funding. But residential property tribunals have a wealth of experience in the field of adjudication in landlord and tenant legislation and it is quite normal for parties to represent themselves at dispute resolution hearings.
I say to all contributors to the debate that there is a consultation exercise in progress and I strongly advocate participating in it and making sure that the views which have been voiced today are expressed as part of that formal consultation. I will certainly ensure that those views are passed on.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is reminding me about his question on Hackney.
Lord Avebury: I was actually going to ask whether the Minister would ensure that the views that have been expressed today were fed into the consultation.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I was just saying that as the noble Lord rose to his feet. Of course those views will be fed into the consultation. The noble Lord knows that we have officials here, and we will ensure that those views are carefully noted. There is still some debate to be had and the consultation exercise may well lead to some further reflection.
I cannot answer the noble Lord’s question about Hackney. The noble Lord has referred in the past to the case and to the displacement issue at an earlier stage. This is clearly an issue. I need to go and find out the latest position and I will be more than happy to write to him about it.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Have my noble friend and his colleagues fully taken on board the possible avalanche of matters that might need to be resolved by
23 Jun 2008 : Column GC536
Is the Minister satisfied that there is a fund of knowledge or expertise available that is waiting to be tapped and used? One of the concerns that has been expressed to me is whether you are going to get what you might call a lay person—someone representing the element of the park home owner—into this nexus. We do not want to find that it is just a professional body doing a professional job; these people really need to have a feel for the issues they are going to look at.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: We are aware that a wide-range of issues could be brought before the tribunal. That is obviously an issue and we have to look at resource allocation. We are talking about an existing body, the remit of which would be widened. It has an existing source of expertise and professionalism that is very valuable. It is certainly respected in the areas that it currently covers. There is a resource issue. My guess is that if that is the eventual outcome and we go with that route, some further thought will have to be given to resourcing the tribunal. I cannot prejudge any of this because we are in the middle of a consultation and we need to listen to many voices and come to a fair view. I am grateful to the noble Lord for the opportunity to respond to the point and to all those who have contributed to this short debate. It has been useful to have it during the consultation period and I will ensure that views fairly expressed are passed on.
Lord Best: I declare an interest that I should have declared before: I am on the council of the Ombudsman for Estate Agents. In declaring that interest, I commend to the consultation exercise the concept of having an ombudsman and redress scheme, which works so well for the Housing Ombudsman and will work well for estate agents. In fact it already works well for estate agents but it will be compulsory in the future. There are useful parallels there. In both cases, however, it should be remembered that there is always recourse to the courts as well.
Baroness Whitaker: I, too, thank all noble Lords Spiritual and Temporal who have taken part in this debate. I thank my noble friend for his kind words. I am not wholly reassured. As the right reverend Prelate said, we still need a race equality and human rights assessment of the consultative document proposals. Let us see what comes out of the consultation. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Wilkins moved Amendment No. 116A:
In section 167 of the Housing Act 1996 (c. 52) (allocation in accordance with allocation scheme), after subsection (2E) insert—
“(2F) Subject to subsection (2), the scheme shall contain provision for the creation of a disability housing register consisting of—
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |