Park Home Owners

Debate between James Naish and Samantha Niblett

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[James Naish]

Thank you, Sir Alec. I will press on, but the hon. Member is absolutely right and has touched on some issues that I will talk about. I congratulate him on ensuring his residents got their money back.

Most concerning, and often alluded to by MPs, is the imbalance of power. A park home resident may own the home they live in, but they are not in control of the land beneath or around it, and they often have a very limited say in related decisions. When the same person or entity controls the site, the pitch, the rules, the maintenance, potentially the utilities, and the conditions under which the home is sold, it is understandable that residents feel exposed.

That can and must change. It needs only relatively minor adjustments to legislation. I trust that the Minister and his team will prioritise that in the next parliamentary Session, given the tangible difference that can be made to the lives of 160,000 people up and down the country.

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[James Naish]

I will press on and see where we get to. I will not go into detail about many key issues facing park and mobile home owners—I am sure colleagues will touch on them, as they have already started to—but I want to mention, up front, some key items that are common across all sites.

The first is maintenance and site standards. Site residents frequently report poor upkeep, damaged roads, drainage issues and neglected communal areas, despite continuing to pay high fees directly to the site owners. One of my six park home sites has repeatedly raised issues about poor waste disposal, leading to rats on site, and intermittent issues with water and heating quality. Such issues raise fundamental questions about transparency and accountability in how residents’ money is used.

Secondly, there is the transparency of pitch fees and charges. While preparing for the debate, I was made aware of several threats of eviction for non-payment of pitch fees and charges, some of which have been legitimately contested by residents. More than once, the management of mobile home sites has been described as the wild west. It is clear that stronger protections are needed to prevent unscrupulous practices.

Thirdly, the word “enforcement” has already been mentioned. In one case, a constituent of mine was chased for six years by a management company to pay for drain clearance that was not her responsibility. Although rights exist, and local authorities have powers, many residents feel unsupported when issues arise. They may be passed between councils, tribunals and advice services. They may fear repercussions for complaining. That creates an enforcement gap between legal rights and the ability to exercise them, particularly for vulnerable residents.

Fourthly, transparency over utilities has been raised with me by constituents at one of my weekly surgeries. Where residents receive electricity, gas or water via the site owner, it can be difficult to understand billing, fairness and eligibility for support. Residents need clear, enforceable rights to transparent billing, fair pricing and clarity on the Government’s engagement with Ofgem’s work on resale pricing.

Finally, there is the 10% sales commission, which has been raised several times today. For residents, that is a direct loss of equity, often at the moment when they need their money most, potentially to move closer to family, move into more suitable accommodation or fund care costs. The charge is poorly understood, insufficiently transparent and increasingly disproportionate, as the value of park homes has risen. In 1983, a park home sold for £12,000 would have generated a commission of £1,200, about 14% of an average salary at the time. In 2026, a park home sold for £160,000 would generate a commission of £16,000, about 42% of the current average salary. The commission is still 10%, but the cash value has grown substantially.

I recognise that site owners argue that the commission forms part of their business model and helps to support investment in sites. However, there are already routes for that to be done transparently. For example, under the framework in the Mobile Homes Act 2013, improvements to a park can be reflected in pitch fee reviews, which involve a proper process and residents being consulted. What residents primarily object to is effectively being charged twice by site owners: once through pitch fees and other charges, and again through a 10% deduction from the value of their home when they sell.

The inequity is reflected in the ever-changing justifications for the commission. Depending on who people speak to, it has been linked to road maintenance costs, the offsetting of pitch fees, the maintenance of site viability and/or the modernisation of infrastructure. No wonder residents are sceptical about how and where the proceeds are spent.

This debate is ultimately about fairness. It is about whether residents can enjoy the home that they have bought on the terms on which they bought it. It is about whether people can understand their bills, challenge unfair charges and sell their homes freely. It is about whether the law is meaningful in practice, not just on paper, and whether a 10% commission charge introduced decades ago remains fair and proportionate today.

I hope that the Minister will respond to several points. First, will the Government consider stronger protections at the point of sale, so that buyers are clear about the legal status of a site and their ongoing obligations before they purchase? Secondly, will Ministers review whether local authorities have the resources, expertise and duties needed to consistently enforce site standards? Thirdly, will the Government work with Ofgem to ensure transparent and fair utility charging for residents who receive energy or other utilities through site owners? Finally, will the Minister confirm today that, following the call for evidence, the Government are prepared to consider real reform to the current commission arrangements?

Park or mobile home residents are not asking for special treatment. They are asking for basic fairness, transparency and security in the homes that they have bought. Many have worked hard their whole life, invested their savings and chosen park home living because they believed that it would suit them and offer peace of mind. Like all of us, they deserve a fair system that protects them when things go wrong. I look forward to hearing hon. Members’ contributions and the Minister’s response to Members across the House.

SEND Provision: Derbyshire

Debate between James Naish and Samantha Niblett

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) for securing this crucial Adjournment debate. As she rightly indicates, SEND provision in Derbyshire has reached crisis point. Her point about Conservative-run Derbyshire county council’s unspent SEND funding, and the heartbreaking consequences for families, is sadly all too familiar and echoes so many of the stories brought to me by my own constituents, who are in desperate need of support.

The scale of this issue is staggering. Throughout my election campaign, it was no secret that SEND would be a key issue for me if I was elected. A week after I was elected, I held my first community SEND meeting, which was packed. What I had not expected was that after seven months in office, a third of all my constituency casework would relate to SEND—and the number continues to climb. In my inbox, at my surgeries and on the doorsteps across South Derbyshire, parents tell me heartbreaking stories about the declining mental health of their children, who are out of education or stranded in inappropriate settings. Many parents, including those working in education, describe extreme stress, financial hardship and lost work time as they navigate a broken system. Others who are less familiar with the process find it totally overwhelming. Meanwhile, their children’s mental health deteriorates as they are left without the support they desperately need.

A lack of communication from Derbyshire county council leaves parents feeling unheard and their children forgotten. In some cases, SEND caseworkers have left post without informing families, leaving them emailing outdated contacts in desperation and without response. Gaps in specialist provision mean that many children, particularly those with social, emotional and mental health needs, are not receiving the support they are entitled to.

Under section 19 of the Education Act 1996, if a child is out of school for 15 days or more, the local authority must provide suitable full-time education. My constituents tell me that this is not happening. There is a lack of alternative provision, a lack of tutoring options and a lack of accountability. Despite parents, schools and professionals agreeing that mainstream settings often cannot meet SEND children’s needs, the local authority continues to name unsuitable placements on education, health and care plans. That forces many families into lengthy and costly tribunals that can take over a year to conclude. Valuable placements in appropriate schools are lost due to local authority delays, leaving children stranded and without education.

Consider my constituents Theresa and Nathan. Their daughter has cerebral palsy, autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Transitioning into mainstream secondary school severely affected her mental health, leading to self-harm and suicidal thoughts. Delays in her EHCP process meant that she lost a place in a suitable special setting. At 14 years old, she is on antidepressants and has remained out of education since January 2024—that is over a year. Theresa, Nathan and their daughter deserve better. The reams of families who contact me for support deserve better, and the countless families across Derbyshire who are fighting to secure the right provision for their children deserve so much better.

[James Naish]

This Government have made a very clear and welcome commitment to turn 3,000 spare classrooms into nurseries. Does my hon. Friend agree that where demand for nursery support is lower, we could look at alternative ways of using those classrooms to enhance SEND provision at a local level?

[Samantha Niblett]

I agree, but frankly it would be great if Derbyshire county council could get the basics right.

Although my team and I will always work constructively with the local authority to right the wrongs endured by SEND children and families across South Derbyshire, the council’s chronic mismanagement of this crisis is indefensible. Schools are struggling, parents are out of work and their children are left without opportunities to thrive. I stand firmly with my hon. Friend and fellow Labour MPs across Derbyshire in holding Conservative-led Derbyshire county council to account and calling on it to spend the millions of pounds in unallocated funding to make this right. The status quo cannot continue.