Park Home Owners

Chris Coghlan Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) on securing this important debate. Many of the issues he raised in his excellent speech affect a number of my constituents. My constituency is home to several park home sites, including Caddington Park on Skimpot lane, Hillcrest Park in Caddington, Brickhill Park in Pepperstock, Brookfield Park in Totternhoe, Whipsnade park homes, Woodside park homes and some others. I have had the opportunity to meet and correspond with many residents from those communities.

With about 80% of park home owners aged over 65, park homes can appear to be an attractive and affordable option for retirement. However, there are long-standing concerns about the regulation of the sector. I will touch on two issues that have repeatedly been raised with me: the 10% sales commission and rising pitch fees.

The 10% commission is one of the most contentious issues in the sector.

[Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Rachel Hopkins]

I will carry on, I am afraid. When residents sell their homes, they have to pay up to 10% of the sale price to the site owner. That can amount to tens of thousands of pounds, with little clarity about what the payment covers. One constituent recently told me that their home could sell for £280,000, resulting in a £28,000 payment to the site owner “for doing nothing,” in her words. The commission has real consequences for park home residents, effectively acting as a deduction from the owner’s wealth and limiting how much they can reinvest in a new home, use for care or rely on as financial security. Most park home owners are retirees who bought their homes outright using savings or proceeds from selling a traditional house, and they often rely on that capital later in life to fund care, to relocate or for other essential needs.

Alongside that commission, residents must also pay ongoing pitch fees for the land their homes sit on. Fees are typically reviewed annually, and often rise with inflation. That may sound reasonable, but those increases compound over time, especially for those on fixed incomes. Although pitch fees are intended to cover maintenance and site services, residents frequently express concerns about transparency and value for money. Another of my constituents living in a park home wrote to me last year and told me that her pitch fee was more than £200 per month. She stated that

“this should cover maintenance to the site, but in our case the owner does not do any maintenance, resulting in a roadway that is not fit for purpose.”

Overall, the current park home financial structure raises serious questions about fairness, transparency and long-term sustainability. I welcome the Minister’s action in recent months to launch a renewed call for evidence on the rationale for a commission payment on the sale of a park home, and to publish the responses from the previous research report. I look forward to receiving further updates on the Government’s plans to address this issue following the conclusion of the consultation on 29 May. I hope that that will bring long overdue reform for my constituents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing this important debate.

There are six park home estates in my constituency. They provide vital accommodation and a strong sense of community among residents who take pride in their homes and their estates. This debate raises a fundamental issue of fairness. Many of my park home residents are retirees, often on fixed incomes. Many downsize into park homes precisely to release equity, reduce costs and secure greater financial stability. When they come to sell their home, the requirement to hand over 10% of the sale price to the site owner causes real distress.

[Chris Coghlan]

Park home owners in my constituency tell me that site owners have pressured them into selling, in order to get that 10% commission. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is wrong and that the 10% commission should be abolished?

[Clive Jones]

I agree 100%. It is not a small administrative fee: it can amount to tens of thousands of pounds. That charge exists outside the protections that most homeowners take for granted. In the mainstream housing market, sellers are protected by competition and choice. Estate agent fees are negotiated. Services must be delivered to justify the costs and, if someone does not like the terms, they can walk away. Park home residents do not have that freedom.

We would not accept this in any other part of the housing system—we would not accept a mandatory 10% charge simply for the right to sell our own homes. People delay moving closer to their families and put off downsizing further. Even when their health declines, some remain in homes that no longer meet their needs simply because they cannot afford to lose such a large portion of their asset. No group of homeowners should face a system that strips away rights and imposes disproportionate financial penalties.

It is time to bring fairness back into the system. That is why I support the PHOJC’s calls for the 10% charge to be ended without delay or replaced with a fairer system that does not penalise residents. Changes should also be made to ensure that park home residents have the same protection and fair treatment as all other homeowners, bringing park home living in line with normal consumer and housing rights.