"RESIDENTS NEWS FROM THE COURTS AND TRIBUNALS"

FOLLOWING THE INTRODUCTION OF THE NEW LEGISLATION THAT WAS BROUGHT ABOUT FOLLOWING THE EXTENSIVE WORK

OF THE PARK HOME OWNERS JUSTICE CAMPAIGN,

MANY RESIDENTS ARE NOW CHALLENGING THE LAW AND THE TRIBUNALS TO OBTAIN WHAT IS RIGHTFULLY THEIRS.

THIS IS AN AMAZING STEP FORWARD

AND CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE PARK HOME OWNERS OF OUR COUNTRY

 WILL NO LONGER TOLERATE OR QUIETLY ENDURE THE ORDEALS

 THAT SO MANY HAVE BEEN MADE TO SUFFER.

SO THAT ALL CAN BE AWARE OF

WHAT IS GOING ON IN THE WORLD OF PARK HOME LIVING.

THE JUSTICE CAMPAIGN WILL BE HAPPY

 TO PUBLISH YOUR COURT AND TRIBUNAL NEWS.

BUT PLEASE REMEMBER THAT THIS WEB SITE WILL ONLY PUBLISH FACTS AND NEWS WHICH HAS BEEN PUBLISHED IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.

17th March  2016

Supplied to the Justice Campaign by Mr. Tony Turner 

CORNWALL COUNCIL TAKES FURTHER ACTION

JB & J SMALL PARK HOMES

Also trading as Sovereign Park Home Estates Ltd., Taunton

Sovereign park Home Developments Ltd., Taunton

Jeffrey Small Junior has agreed to a detailed undertaking pursuant to Section 219 of the Enterprise Act 2002 as an alternative to the Council taking action in respect of alleged breaches of the terms of the Order dated 27 January 2011, The 2011 order required the Smalls to adhere to the Terms of the Enterprise Act, to those of residents Agreements and not to undertake harassments of their land tenants in any business they operate, either collectively or individually.

This further undertaking does not prevent the Council taking appropriate action in respect of future breaches however is an attempt to raise previous issues with Mr Small so that he should be aware of the standards expected. Whilst this draws a line under previous offending, any previous alleged breaches will be allowed to be referred to in any subsequent proceedings under the Enterprise Act 2002  that the Council may deem to be appropriate to bring in the future. The order and these latest undertakings can in the future be used by any Local Authority if the need arises.

On February 18^th 2016, following failures to adhere to the previous directions of the 1^st Tier Southern Residential Property Tribunal, an order was obtained at Taunton County Court requiring Jeffrey Small Junior and Barbara Small to account for charges invoiced to more than 70 residents at St Dominic Park and fresh proceedings concerning other imposed charges have since been filed at Plymouth County Court.

Following previous confirmation by their accountants that they no longer act for them, notification has now been received that his London solicitors, Royce & Co., have similarly ceased to act.

6th January  2016

The following separate legal proceedings were filed by Tony Turner at the Court of Appeal

and Plymouth County Court on Monday 4^th January 2016

THE COURT OF APPEAL

County Court reference no.OTA01876

JEFFREY SMALL AND OTHERS trading as Small Park Homes

Claimants and Respondents to Application

and
ANTHONY TURNER
Defendant

APPLICATION UNDER THE ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT 1999, S 55(1) AND CPR 52.13 (2) FOR PERMISSION TO MAKE A SECOND APPEAL AGAINST AN ORDER THAT IS WRONG IN LAW (OR) TO ASK THE COURT TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS THAT HAVE LED TO THIS POSITION

________________________________________________________________________________

IN THE PLYMOUTH COUNTY COURT CASE REF : TBA

Between

HOME-OWNERS OCCUPIERS AS LISTED

IN THE ATTACHED SCHEDULE

( Applicants)

And

JEFFREY and BARBARA SMALL

(Respondents)

________________________________________________________________________________

APPLICATION SEEKING ENHANCED ENFORCEMENTS OF THE ORDER OF THE FIRST TIER SOUTHERN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TRIBUNAL UNDER

CASE REF: CHI/OOHE/PHC/2015/0001

(PROPERTY ST DOMNIC PARK, HARROWBARROW, CORNWALL, PL17 8BN)

________________________________________________________________________________

                                                                (REPRESENTATIVE - TONY TURNER ) 

19th December  2015

I  have sent the below to all my contacts including william Tandoh, brandon lewis and MP`s

.

All best wishes  T

NOT YET THE END OF THE MATTER

Now that the matter is in the public domain, I am able to provide the below final determination of the High Court concerning private sewerage charges applied by Messrs Smalls.  Although I am content at the refusal of Application to Appeal for the reasons rightly given, on the remaining grounds that the order secured at Smalls Appeal creates the constitutional issue that the will of Parliament in its legislation concerning charges that can be lawfully applied cannot be struck down by a civil order, I will now be filing an Application at the Court of Appeal to quash it.

It may be noted in the written determination of Mr Justice Teare, that the matter of the use in evidence by Messrs Smalls of forged and altered documents at their own Appeal was not been rejected by the Court, only that what I regard as the premeditated attempt to pervert the course of Justice for personal financial gain bore no direct relevance to the specific Application under consideration.

In all of the above and below, I also believe there remains the fitness of these traders to operate within a retirement housing sector that caters for the elderly and often vulnerable

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

ON APPEAL FROM THE PLYMOUTH COUNTY COURT

County Court reference no.OTA01876

Appeal ref no. CL/15/054/PL

Between

JEFFREY SMALL AND OTHERS trading as Small Park Homes

Claimants and Respondents to Application

and

ANTHONY TURNER

and

ALEX DEXTER

Defendants and Applicants

Before Mr. Justice Teare sitting in Plymouth Combined Court on 14 December 2015

ORDER

1. The Applicants’ application for permission to appeal is refused.

REASONS

2. This is a renewed oral application for permission to appeal from a decision of HHJ Griggs dated 18 March 2013 allowing an appeal by the Claimants as to the determination of the sewerage charges payable by the Defendants to the Claimants by DJ Walker dated 2 March 2012. An application for permission to appeal was made on 27 August 2015 and dismissed by Dingemans J. on 23 October 2015.
3. The application was argued in person by Mr. Turner fairly, cogently and with some realism. His submissions were set out in a written note dated 4 November 2015 and were expanded by him orally.
4. Mr. Turner and Mr. Dexter are the owners of a mobile home in St. Dominic Park. The Park is owned and/or operated by the Claimants. Jeffrey Small Senior, one of the Claimants, died in July 2014. So the remaining Claimants are his widow, Barbara Small, and her son, Jeffrey Small Junior.
5. The Claimants commenced proceedings against Mr. Turner and Mr. Dexter seeking the payment of certain charges. I was told that the greater part of the claim was dismissed by HHJ Cotter but that there remained a claim for sewerage charges which HHJ Cotter directed should be heard as a small claim. It was that claim which was determined by DJ Walker.
6. The sewerage services at the site are provided by the Claimants. They were not simply passing on charges for sewerage services provided by South West Water. Rather, they sought to charge a rate for their provision of sewerage services based upon the rate charged by SWW. They charged a rate equal to 95% of that charged by SWW on the basis that that was a reasonable rate. That claim succeeded.
7. The Claimants were nevertheless dissatisfied with the sum awarded and appealed. They succeeded before HHJ Griggs who held that there had been an obvious error by DJ Walker in the calculation of the sum due.
8. I was told that the sum awarded against the Defendants was of the order of £200 per annum. However, I was also told that there are some 75 owners of mobile homes on the site in question and that the total sum claimed by the Claimants from those owners in respect of sewage charges was of the order of £30,000 per annum. Although Mr. Turner is the chairman of the residents’ association and has defended their interests with courage, industry and tenacity, the claim was not, so far as I am aware, formally brought against him in a representative capacity. Thus the judgment in this case may not be strictly binding upon the other owners who were not party to the proceedings brought against Mr. Turner.
9. Mr. Turner submitted on his application for permission to appeal from the judgment of HHJ Griggs that it was clear that an invoice relied upon by the Claimants as evidence of the capital cost of the sewerage equipment was forged and that in consequence HHJ Griggs had been misled as to the cost to the Claimants of purchasing and maintaining the sewerage system at the site. The evidence which supported this very serious allegation was in the form of a witness statement taken by the police on 5 August 2014 from Mr. Marc Dewit, a director of the company which was said to have provided a quotation dated 21 September 2012 (that is after the hearing before DJ Walker and before the hearing before HHJ Griggs) for the installation of a new “monojet” designed for operating in the arduous conditions encountered in sewage treatment works at a cost of £10,844. Mr. Dewit told the police that the final paragraph of the quotation which referred to “an approximate cost of £90,000 - £100,000 to complete these works” was said to have been added because it was not part of the original quotation and an apparent signature was also said to have been added. In these circumstances Mr. Turner submitted that although he had applied for permission to appeal well out of time permission to appeal should be granted in order to ensure that the Claimants did not retain a benefit obtained by fraud. Mr. Turner very fairly recognised that there should be finality in litigation but submitted that where a court order has been secured by fraud that principle is displaced by the need to ensure that the administration of justice is not undermined by fraud.
10. Mr. Turner recognised that his application for permission to appeal was made very late but he submitted that he needed convincing proof of the fraud and that it was not until May or June 2014 that he was able to persuade the police to refer the alleged fraud to their Economic Crime Unit for investigation. Mr. Turner also submitted that the court, when considering whether there had been undue delay in seeking permission to appeal, should bear in mind that he also had to fight the Claimants on other fronts and in particular had to respond to a complaint of defamation which ultimately led to his being made bankrupt in June 2015 (by reason, I was told, of a costs liability arising out of his breach of a consent order). He also told me that he was aged 72, had suffered from cancer and a stroke and was exhausted by this litigation. He said he had 30 lever arch files relating to disputes with the Claimants.
11. The Claimants did not appear before me. They had had notice of this renewed application but were not obliged to attend. Thus the court has only heard one side of the story. A serious allegation of fraud, apparently supported by evidence, has been made. But the court does not know what the Claimants’ response to this allegation is.
12. Mr. Turner, although not a lawyer, has argued his case well. However, there is, it seems to me, a difficulty with it. Although it was part of his case before DJ Walker that the provision of sewerage services was covered by the annual pitch fee so that the Claimants could not charge for it in addition to the pitch fee there was no cross appeal against the decision by DJ Walker that sewerage charges in a reasonable sum could in principle be charged in addition to the pitch fee or that a rate based upon the SWW rate was a reasonable rate. HHJ Griggs recorded that Mr. Turner accepted that he was obliged to pay a sewerage rate. Further, he did not dispute that the calculation error identified by HHJ Griggs was in truth an error.
13. Thus, whether or not the Claimants produced forged documents in support of a claim that the capital cost of the sewerage system was of the order of £100,000, the appeal before HHJ Griggs would have succeeded. Mr. Turner, having failed to cross-appeal from the decision of DJ Walker that the Claimants were entitled to charge a reasonable sum for sewerage or that a rate based upon the SWW rate was a reasonable rate, cannot now challenge those decisions. The alleged fraud was irrelevant to the obvious error which enabled the appeal to succeed. I therefore agree with Dingemans J. who said that although reference had been made to a forged quotation “it does not appear that the judgment of HHJ Griggs depended on any such quotation, as he refers to correcting errors in calculations based upon South West Water tariffs.”
14. Mr. Turner said that this approach was mistaken because HHJ Griggs had plainly based his decision on the forged quotation. It is therefore necessary to look more closely at what HHJ Griggs did.
15. HHJ Griggs noted that there had been no cross appeal as to the finding that the SWW rate was a reasonable one. Nevertheless, he also noted that “there was some evidence about what was reasonable, the complaint being that the in the form of two letters from an accountant dated 25 October 2012 and 31 January 2013. Thus they had been written after the hearing before DJ Walker and before the appeal before HHJ Griggs and had been produced pursuant to directions made by HHJ Salomonsen for the hearing of the appeal. In setting out the costs of providing the sewerage system the accountant included a depreciation figure of £5,000 per annum. The accountant stated that “this was based upon on a cost of the equipment being £100,000 which you have provided and a useful life of the sewerage system which you have considered to be 20 years.” Thus the accountant’s depreciation figure appears to have been based upon the quotation alleged to have been forged. In the light of that evidence HHJ Griggs said that it could not be said that a charge based upon the SWW rate was unreasonable. However, he added that “there is no cross-appeal seeking me to make such a finding in any event.” He went on to say that since there had been an error in applying the SWW rate he allowed the appeal by correcting that error.
16. Thus, although it can be submitted that the Claimants’ accountant and hence HHJ Griggs were misled by a document said to have been forged, that was not the reason why the appeal succeeded. If the depreciation charge of £5,000 is ignored the accountant’s figures for revenue expenditure (said to have been based upon invoices and bank statements) plus a management charge of 25% would still have amounted to some £18,000 for 2011 (instead of £23,103) and some £24,000 for 2012 (instead of £29,438). Those figures, which were not the subject of challenge before me, would appear to support the evidence recorded by HHJ Griggs as having been given by Mr. Small in evidence before DJ Walker that the cost of providing the sewerage services was about £19,000. It is not obvious that a charge based upon the SWW rate was in those circumstances unreasonable and that question was not addressed by Mr. Turner. The appeal succeeded because of an arithmetical error made by DJ Walker quite unconnected with the quotation alleged to have been forged which had not been before DJ Walker.
17. For this reason I must refuse permission to appeal. The quotation alleged to have been forged was not the basis of the decision of HHJ Griggs allowing he appeal. I do not consider, once the reason why HHJ Griggs allowed the appeal has been correctly identified and once it is borne in mind that there was no cross appeal by Mr. Turner, that it can be said that the proposed appeal has a real prospect of success or that there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard.
18. In any event there has been considerable delay in seeking permission to appeal. The fresh evidence, namely, the witness statement taken by the police, was available in August 2014. It may be that it could not have been obtained before. But permission to appeal was not sought until August 2015. I appreciate that Mr. Turner had other matters to attend to, is not a lawyer and was handling this litigation himself but in circumstances where time had run out in April 2013 it was necessary for any application seeking permission to appeal to be sought promptly, once the fresh evidence was available. I am not persuaded that Mr. Turner sought such permission as soon as he could reasonably have done so. Permission to appeal would therefore have to be refused on this ground also.
19. But there is a further difficulty. The decision of HHJ Griggs was on appeal from the decision of DJ Walker. Thus, if I am wrong in saying that Mr. Turner did not cross-appeal from the decision of DJ Walker that the SWW rate was a reasonable rate and he is to be treated as having cross-appealed from it (by reason of having sought a breakdown of the Claimants’ costs in preparation for the appeal), then the appeal for which permission is sought is a second appeal. CPR 52.13 provides that in such a case only the Court of Appeal may grant permission to appeal. Thus the High Court does not have jurisdiction to grant permission to appeal.
20. For these reasons I must refuse permission to appeal.

15 December 2015

Teare J.

26th October 2015 

LAND SLIPPAGES AND SUBSIDENCES

AN IMPORTANT DETERMINATION

CASE REF: CHI/OOHE/PHC/2015/0001

RESIDENTS APPLICATION v JEFFREY/BARBARA SMALL

APPLICANTS REPRESENTATIVE: TONY TURNER. JBS ALLIANCE

SITE OWNER REPRESENTATIVE ROYCE & CO., SOLICITORS, LONDON

On October 15^th 2015, as part of a wider Application, the Southern First Tier Property Chamber made its determination concerning the responsibility for remedial works in the matter of land slippages affecting occupied pitches. In summarising its decision, the Tribunal confirmed that the residents repairing obligation is restricted to keeping the mobile home is a sound state to repair and that there is no corresponding liability on the home-owners to repair the pitch

Since 2009, the position of Jeffrey and Barbara Small had been that land slippages on the sloping site were the repairing responsibility of the affected occupiers. Following are relevant extracts from the residents Application:

FIRST ISSUE - SUBSIDENCES AND LANDSLIPS

1.1. The Applicants seek determination in respect of the Consolidated implied Terms 21(d) (ii).these being the Occupier’s obligations, versus the Site owners obligations in accordance with Consolidated implied terms sec 22(d) Also with reference to Sec 23, which states that `the owner shall not do or cause to be done anything which may adversely affect the ability of the occupier to perform his obligations under paragraph 21(c) and (d)` In this, it is the Applicants position that `doing nothing` can and should also be interpreted as `causing to be done`.

1.2. THE SITE known as St Dominic Park consists of sloping ground that is tiered and divided by roadways, the   majority of which are understood to have been originally created by the use of a bulldozer to carve out the grounds into three levels, where the bordering grounds were flattened to enable the installation of homes. Between the homes, which frequently back onto one another, no earth retaining walls were constructed and reliance's upon the prevention of land slippages was placed upon hedging and also some trees that were already in situ when the site was originally licensed as a holiday park..

1.3. These boundaries between homes have not been maintained by the respondents, whose position has been that these form part of the pitch at each home and therefore that any maintenance or remedial works are the responsibility of the respective occupiers. In this the respondents appear to rely upon consolidated Implied Terms 21(d) (ii).Occupier’s obligations which states that `the occupier shall maintain the pitch, including all fences and outbuildings belonging to, or enjoyed with it and the mobile home, in a clean and tidy condition`.
Conversely, the Site owners obligations under the Consolidated implied terms sec 22(d) require the site owner to `maintain in a clean and tidy condition those parts of the protected site, including access ways, site boundary fences and trees, which are not the responsibility of any occupier of a mobile home stationed on the protected site;

1.4. On a level site, this expectations of the occupier under sec 22 (d) may be reasonable but where a site is tiered, it is the position of the Applicants that it is wholly unreasonable for the respondents to impose the maintenance of such tiered boundaries, some above head height, upon occupiers, especially where there was no expectation at the time they purchased their homes that they would become responsible for potentially major groundwork's that affect the enjoyment of their pitches and in some cases the safety of their homes, these having arisen only due to the negligence's ( to save costs ) of others., including both the previous site owner/s and the respondents. It is also submitted that the
maintenance of any fences that are the responsibility of the occupiers is not possible were these have been or are being damaged by land slippages.
1.5. Notifications of earth slippages were first provided to the respondents in 2009 when the dividing banks were first becoming unstable. In part, it is accepted that this has been due to the dictate by the previous site owner ( Robert Cowell ) that since they were owned by him, no trees or hedges or bushes were to be lopped or pruned or pollarded and also that of years of seasonal rainfall, which has created further instability to the point where some homes have become at risk associated to subsidence's, or at risk of un maintained trees falling onto occupied homes where the height of such trees had compromised the rooting system which had previously provided anchorage.
1.6. In respect of Terms of the Mobile Homes Act ( as amended ) it is the position of the Applicants that determination of responsibility for the maintenance of the slippages may be approached through a process of eliminating the responsibilities of home-owners, the being that whilst it is the responsibility of the occupier `to keep their pitches and boundary fences tidy`, this does not extend to major including structural groundwork's - and to then conclude that such land slippages are instead the responsibility of the respondents. In this, it is submitted that the earth banks form an integral part of the structure of the site and consequential erosions or damage due to a lack of retaining walls or other form of adequate structures that prevents slippages or subsidence's, fall as the responsibility of the current site owner.
1.7. Although some residents have already collectively incurred costs totalling many thousands of pounds in undertaking remedial works, it is submitted that the occupiers should not be responsible for the negligence's of others in not adequately safeguarding their pitches and homes. The previous site owner/s should have made adequate provision to ensure the prevention of land slippages that may occur at a later date and the respondents should have undertaken due diligence at the time they acquired the site and made provision for future and reasonably foreseen remedial works to be undertaken within the agreed purchase price of the site. This they may have done but if not, is entirely unreasonable for them to expect home-owners to pay for their own basic failures in such due diligence. It is relevant to such maintenance obligations that since their acquisition of the site in March 2008 the respondents have derived income from the site in a sum exceeding £800,000, whilst keeping site maintenance to the bare minimum, excepting only works undertaken under Local Authority Works or Enforcement Notices
1.8 In all of the above, the Applicants seek a determination that such remedial works are the responsibility of the Respondents. This will then enable them to approach Cornwall Council to request of the respondents that such works be undertaken and if not responded to, the serving of appropriate Works Notices it is believed as were lawfully applied by Torbay Council at Hillside Park and and another of the respondents sites where similar problems and previous denials of responsibility by the respondents had arisen

THE TRIBUNAL DECISION

The Tribunal determines the “scope of the Respondents repairing responsibility “ as follows:

The respondent is obliged to keep and maintain those parts of the Park, including access ways, site boundary fences and trees that are not the responsibility of the occupier in a good state of repair and condition.

The wording of the Respondents obligation imports a different and potentially more extensive obligation than a mere p;promise to repair.

The respondent is obliged to repair the base on which the mobile home is stationed.

The Applicants` repairing obligation is restricted to keeping their mobile home in a sound state of repair. There is no Corresponding liability on the Applicants to repair the pitch. Th Applicants liability is limited to maintain he pitch and all fences and outbuildings and gardens thereon in a neat and tidy condition.

NOTE: Messrs Smalls had submitted that the land slippages were caused by the occupiers and since this is strongly disputed, the Decision included the following addition....

Further evidence is required to determine the nature and the extent of the respondents liability to maintain and repair in respect of the particular circumstances of each Applicant.

COMMENT BY APPLICANTS REPRESENTATIVE

The decision of the Tribunal is clear in the circumstances as described and in the event of a similar dispute, residents may now refer a site owner who denies liability to this determination. Affected occupiers should also contact their local Authority as the Terms of the site owners license is likely to include or imply that the site owner is required at all times to keep the site in condition that is fit for purpose.

The Leasehold Advisory Service has been provided with a copy of this determination but circumstances can differ . If you need any information or advice on any Park Home issue, the you can get personal advice by contacting them through their online enquiry form or by telephone on 020 7832 2525.  Lines are open Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm. 

7th October 2015 2015

Our Justice Campaign is happy to post this helpful information for residents which has been written by Tony Turner.

DIY TRIBUNALS       Although many Park Home owners who resort to the First Tier Tribunals decide to engage legal representatives to present their cases, those who prefer to do it themselves need have no fear of the procedures. This is not to say that engaging a professional service can sometimes be a better option, but if costs are an issue as they often are for most, a First Tier Tribunal hearing is not a daunting experience. The panel of Judges are used to dealing with Applicants who have no previous experience in assembling their cases and simply presenting them to the best of their abilities. What is important is the home-work that is necessary to as best ensure the certainty of your position and not to be put off if you find you are to be faced by a solicitor instructed by the other side. Provided you are confident in your position and are content to stand your ground, you will be on an equal footing with the lawyer and the Tribunal will ensure that you are not bullied into submission. The Judges will base their decision on matters of law and regulation and not against who may turn out to be the better advocate.

There are many sources of information about Tribunals and how they work and some are referenced at the end of this item, but the first thing to remember is that whilst there are set procedures in the way that each party conducts their case, the Judges will offer help and guidance and the hearing is always informal. You will be given every opportunity to explain your case but you will need to stick to the issues that you have detailed in your written Application.

PREPARATION        Preparation is, however, vital. Before the hearing you will have already assembled and submitted what is described as your bundles. These are simply duplicate files which consist of your Statement of case and any other documents that you believe to be relevant. The panel of Judges will already have read them, as will the other side and you will be able to refer to it throughout the hearing, drawing the attention of the Tribunal to any document that you think will help your case. Importantly, you will not be expected to have the same skills as a trained legal representative and you can prepare for exactly what you want to say in advance by writing you own script and reading from it. This way, you will keep on track, be able to present your case in a logical sequence and not miss out something you believe to be relevant.

THE HEARING        There will always be room for a sensible number of your fellow residents and since the Tribunals are also open to those not directly involved, you may feel happier if you have friends or relative in the room for support. They will not be able participate but their presence may offer additional comfort, but always tell the Tribunal well in advance of the numbers likely to attend so enough seating will be available in what is usually a limited space. Always research the laws and clauses that are relevant and quote the sections that you are relying upon to win your case and be prepared to answer questions about your Application. If possible, anticipate what these may be so you are not left floundering. If you do lose your focus, don't worry – just recover and carry on and at the end, if you believe that your site owner has acted unreasonably by forcing you to a Tribunal by not taking the opportunity to properly deal with the issue beforehand, you are able to ask for your costs, even if these are just limited to your Application fee. Remember, if you don't ask – you don't get.

This cannot be a fully comprehensive explanation of everything there is to know about the First Tier Tribunals but do regard them as a relaxed forum intended to enable both parties to explain what they would like the Tribunal to agree. Be polite but firm and remember also that every day, the Tribunals sit and hear from people who have never before needed to go to a Tribunal or a Court. You will be treated with respect and kindness. In short, whilst it is a low key adversarial procedure, there is nothing whatsoever to fear.

Helpful sources:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/236491/Residential_property_tribunals.pdf

http://parkhomes.lease-advice.org/the-jurisdiction-of-the-first-tier-tribunal-property-chamber-on-park-home-matters/

14th September 2015

10TH SEPTEMBER 2015
TRIBUNAL- CALLINGTON TOWN HALL
RESIDENTS APPLICATION
ST DOMINIC PARK - CORNWALL
SITE OWNERS MESSRS SMALLS
REPESENTATIVES S. COLLIE FOR SMALLS
TONY TURNER FOR APPLICANTS
CHAIR: JUDGE TILDESLEY – THREE MEMBER PANEL

About 40 residents including several from other of Smalls sites attended the three part Application heard on September 10th. Observers also included a representative from IPHAS and a senior Fair Trading Officer from Cornwall Council Trading Standards. The three issues included that of the remedial works responsibility for land slippages within residents pitches, a request for an Order requiring Small to provide home-owners with detailed and accurate Statements of Accounts and for the Tribunals determination in respect of the clockwise one-way system that had been previously reversed by Smalls without consultation, which the Applicants regarded a having created unnecessary risks.

The Tribunal was attended by Jeffrey Small, represented by a Fulham solicitor named Ms. Collie and two of Smalls employees. The Applicants evidence was heard but Mr Small declined to answer any questions, whilst two previously undisclosed documents purporting to be evidence which were passed over in the final stages of the hearing were not permitted to be entered due to breaches of the procedures.

Smalls have been given seven days in which to make written proposals concerning the provision of residents Statements of Accounts and the Tribunal's full written determination, expected mid October, will be published on these  pages

Wednesday 1st July 2015

WYLDECREST DUPED INTO BUYING A TRAVELLERS` SITE   
   
Leighton Buzzard Observer 25th June 2015   
   
Wyldecrest Parks spent £220,000 to purchase a site which for the last 38 years has been used as a seven pitch travellers’ site, however the company has claimed that when it bought the site from Buckinghamshire County Council the authority failed to mention that new planning permissions would need to be given.   
   
Now Wyldecrest’s plans hang in the balance after Aylesbury Vale District Council planning officers recommended that the proposal should be rejected– citing that it would “cause harm to the character and appearance of the open countryside”.   
A recommendation statement also infers that the District Council should hold the site back for its former use as “the council has an unmet need overall within the district and this site has history of being used for gypsy and travellers.”   
   
Wyldecrest Parks estates director David Sunderland said that the recommendation is “nonsense”and that without planning consent the site is worth just £20,000.   
He said: “When we came to the site it was a scrap dump, we cleared it and spent about £100,000 on works.   
   
“We were then told we would need planning permission, but we were already under the impression that there was planning permission for a mobile park as it was sold at that price.   
   
“I believed that the only reason they were pushing for a planning application was so that they could impose restrictions, so we went ahead with it.   
   
“We thought that it would be a formality but there seems to be a motivation within the council to refuse this.”   
   
Wyldecrest plans to turn the 1.09 hectare site into a park for the retired, with eight plots for premium mobile homes.   
   
   

Tuesday 30th June 2015

The JBS residents Action Alliance remains alive and well. Updates concerning site owners Jeffrey and Barbara Small can be tracked through Tony Turners`s Facebook page

search for tony turner facebook

Tony Turner

Founder & Team Leader at  JBS Residents Action Alliance Lives in  Callington, Cornwall

Sunday 21st  June 2015

Thank you message written by Tony Turner

It is important to me that I thank everyone from every part of the UK for the many hundreds of messages of support and their expressions of astonishment that Jeffrey and Barbara Small have secured a bankruptcy order against me.  However, no-one should believe that this event marks the end of what is to-date a five year fight intended to see justice. 

At this time, they have a number of their sites for sale and hopefully this is recognition by them that their days in the sector are now numbered.

I intend to continue my focus upon the eradication of criminality within the sector and to similarly fully support the JUSTICE Campaign in every way that is possible.  There is still much to be done and we must all stand up to be counted. The more prolific rogues are now known and their practices increasingly documented and there is no room for complacency or reliance upon others to stick their heads above the parapet. It is the collective battle of all home-owners in the sector who wish to see their lives restored to what they should always have been and to ensure that those who set out to demolish our retirements for personal financial gain are, one by one, held to proper account.

Again, thank you for your continued support, the latest kind offers that would have seen the Smalls paid off - but which I have declined - and most of all to everyone who continues to stand together in our collective fight for both judicial and natural justice. I may have been made temporarily bankrupt by persons described in the media as `morally bankrupt` but this event is by no means the end of the story.

Tony Turner.

Thursday 4th June 2015

Lakeminster Park residents lose second planning appeal

More than 120 chalet park residents face being evicted after losing a second planning appeal to live in their homes all year round.

About 76 properties at Lakeminster Park, near Beverley, were granted planning permission as holiday homes.

However, retrospective permission for people to live there all year-round was refused in 2012 by East Riding Council.

An appeal lodged in 2013 was refused but that decision was later quashed leading to the fresh appeal.

However, planning inspector Diane Lewis has now upheld the previous decision, which said granting permission to the residents to live at the park full time could be used by other developers as a precedent to breach planning permission elsewhere.

The 2013 appeal decision was overturned because the planning inspector had failed to take into account the National Planning Framework.

East Riding of Yorkshire Council has welcomed the decision and said residents have 18 months to comply with the council's planning notice.

Lakeminster resident David Aldcroft said: "I think what the council have done is cruel, it really is cruel.

"They have not thought this out at all. They should have come to some arrangement with us to satisfy everybody's needs here."

Tuesday May 26th 2015

THE NEW LEGISLATION IS BEGINNING TO WORK

Residents of Redhouse Park in Hampshire are overjoyed as the Fist Tier Tribunal ruled that the home owner is entitled to sell  her much extended home as it is , and any successor is entitled to keep any extensions built before 2001, the date when the current  owner purchased the Park.

Monday May 25th 2015

Lakeminster Park operator William Flannigan in court over 'deliberately mis-selling holiday homes'

By Hull Daily Mail  |  Posted: May 20, 2015

By Lucy Leeson

TRIAL: William Flannigan, operator of Lakeminster Park, inset, near Woodmansey. He faces ten counts of fraud by misrepresentation

THE operator of a Beverley holiday park deliberately mis-sold chalets that were not allowed to be used as permanent homes, a court has heard.

William Flannigan, 52, is accused of ten counts of fraud by misrepresentation in connection with the properties at Lakeminster Park.

It is alleged Flannigan, of Wilmslow, Cheshire, sold holiday chalets on the basis buyers could retire to live there permanently, despite East Riding Council stating the properties could only be sold or used as holiday homes, which would be occupied for 51 weeks of the year.

Prosecutor David Gordon told Hull Crown Court: "The prosecution says Mr Flannigan knew this perfectly as it was outlined in the planning permission he was given by East Riding Council, but he put his own financial issues ahead of their consideration and dishonestly misrepresented the situation to prospective purchasers."

Ministers and MPs on alert to bankruptcy of retirement park home champion View this email in your browser

Park home champion faces ruin over £44,000 libel dispute – Pensioners in park homes raise £8,000 to help – The Small family are “latter-day Rachmans”, Commons told – ‘Anti-gay mob surrounds mobile home’ – Barristers step in with free assistance – 311 sign petition to DCLG demanding new management A blogger and champion of pensioners living in park homes is facing bankruptcy proceedings next month after a £44,000 libel dispute. Tony Turner, 71, published a website highlighting what he saw as abuses at 17 sites across the West Country owned by JB and J Small Park Homes. The Small family, headed by Jeffrey Small (senior) who died in May last year, have been accused in the Commons of “holding people to ransom” and likened to “latter-day Rachmans”. Jeffrey (senior), his son Jeffrey (junior) and his now widow Barbara consented to a court order in January 2011 not to harass residents. Last year Jeffrey (junior) was fined £11,500 after admitting health and safety breaches, and there are criminal proceedings on six counts of misrepresentation to be heard in July. Earlier this year a petition signed by 311 park home residents urged the Department of Communities and Local Government to use the Mobile Home Act 2013 to remove the Smalls’ site licences. Instead, they want to have a court-appointed management, which is an option available to leaseholders. All 17 of the Smalls’ sites are restricted to those over 55 years old and in total provide 1,000 homes. They are considered an alternative to retirement flats by residents. Mr Turner, a former senior Thorn EMI executive fallen on hard times, moved to St Dominic’s park, Harrowbarrow, Cornwall, with his partner Alexander after recovering from cancer in 2006. Two years later the Smalls bought the site for £2.8 million and the troubles began. Tony Turner Mr Turner, who was made chairman of the residents’ association, began speaking out against what he claims was intimidation and overcharging. He admits that he has at times used intemperate language during these disputes, and has himself been subject to an anti-harassment PIN order by the police To deal with Mr Turner, the Smalls deployed criminal barrister David Osborne, 71, who went to work in 2010, rustling up witness statements alleging that it was he who was intimidating residents at the site, not the Smalls. Osborne wrongly sought, and obtained, an injunction against Mr Turner and was “severely reprimanded” by the Bar Standards Board (in July 2013). Osborne was made to attend a seven-day ethics course. He had obtained the injunction without disclosing all the facts material to the application, including the homophobic abuse heaped on Mr Turner and his partner. The  ruling is here At one point, a small crowd including some residents opposed to Mr Turner’s stance surrounded his park home, made slit-throat gestures and then cut down a shrub with a chain-saw, Mr Turner claims. “Our lives here have been really appalling at times,” says Mr Turner. “We have the backing of the vast majority of the 120 residents here with the exception of half a dozen.” A year later in 2011, Turner established a website, the “JBS Residents Action Alliance”, which lasted for 18 months. Infuriated by the public shaming, Mr Small (senior) again summoned up lawyers to shut the website down alleging libel. When a 10-day hearing in the London high court was listed – which would have cost hundreds of thousands of pounds –Mr Turner threw in the towel and began negotiations. The Smalls claimed £100,000 in costs, but this was whittled down to £20,000 to be paid after the deaths of Mr Turner and Alexander – ie when the park home was sold. The deal was brokered on Turner’s behalf in May 2013 by Heather Rogers QC, of Doughty Street Chambers, and solicitor Tamsin Allen, of Bindmans, who – like barrister Nigel Abbas, of 5RB Chambers – all worked for free on this case. Mr Turner said he would not repeat the libels, but within months broke these undertakings to the High Court by claiming that false evidence had been given in court by Mr Small (senior). He claimed that he had discovered that an invoice for a new sewerage system from US firm Ashbrook Simon-Hartley for £100,000 was fabricated. The website was closed down by the service providers following approaches by the Smalls’ lawyers, and attempts were made to have Mr Turner committed to prison for contempt of court in November 2013 and February 2014. These failed, but the Smalls successfully demanded their costs for both these actions of £9,512.50 and £12,600, bringing Mr Turner’s total liability to £44,000. As £20,000 is to be paid after the deaths of Mr Turner and Alexander, the immediate bill is £24,000. Pensioners in park homes across the country have so far contributed £8,000. But now Mr Turner and his new barrister Jonathan Price, also of Doughty Street Chambers who is also working for free, see a ray of hope. New evidence has emerged that they believe proves that Mr Smalls (senior) had indeed presented false evidence in previous court proceedings. At a hearing in February 2013 at Plymouth County Court in front of Judge Jeremy Griggs, Mr Small (senior) had produced the document from US firm Ashbrook Simon-Hartley showing that the sewerage plant at St Dominic park had cost £100,000. But a witness statement from Marc Dewit, an employee of the company, says that the letter is fabricated and the figures are entirely bogus. A paragraph had been added to read: “We have looked through our records and compared this with other systems installed within a similar environment. Based on our findings we anticipate an appropriate cost of £90,000.00 to £100,000.00 to complete these works.” With Mr Small (senior) now dead, neither his widow Barbara nor son Jeffrey (junior) have given an account of why the version presented in court differs from the original document. Mr Price argues that “the defamation proceedings were therefore brought by Mr Small (senior) fraudulently and must be set aside”. In addition, Mr Turner is claiming damages, costs and expenses resulting from the proceedings. It is a curiosity of the case that the Smalls’ solicitor is not one of the usual London libel firms, but Royce and Co, a three-partner firm of family solicitors in Fulham that specialises in wills and conveyancing. Until last year it was a member of Solicitors for the Elderly. Solicitor Sara Collie has rejected Mr Turner’s arguments in a robust statement to Carlex. The libels related to statements made in 2011 and were “nothing to do with” the document Mr Small presented in court in 2013. “Mr Turner’s published defamatory statements included statements that our clients were no better than wild scavenging verminous animals. “Mr Turner has also used racist language towards our clients (including calling Mr Small Junior a “gyppo” as he appears to have an issue with their traveller background) … “… Mr Turner’s is trying to “spin” the facts to avoid bankruptcy.” She adds: “The defamation proceedings bought by our clients were settled on terms which included Mr Turner’s undertaking to the High Court that he would not repeat the various defamatory allegations which he had made about Mr Small and Mr Small’s widow and son. “Mr Turner then proceeded to deliberately and knowingly breach those undertakings to the Court on many occasions. “This unacceptable behaviour resulted in further court orders and an injunction being made against Mr Turner including a finding that Mr Turner was guilty of many counts of contempt of court. “Costs orders were also made against Mr Turner, the majority of which remain unpaid. The bankruptcy petition relates to the failure to pay these costs orders. “Mr Turner appears to be of the view that he is not bound by injunctions of the High Court and that he can disobey court orders at will and should not have to bear the consequences of such disobedience ... “Mr Turner is now making, unfounded and unproven, allegations in relation to a document which he claims was used in county court proceedings in 2013 in an attempt to evade costs orders made against him for contempt of court in entirely unrelated proceedings.” Furthermore, Miss Collie claims that she has received abusive emails from Mr Turner and that he had behaved “very threateningly” towards her in the High Court. He dismisses this as “nonsense” and points out that the incident was in front of witnesses. He says that Miss Collie was attempting to provoke him. Miss Collie offered to send to Carlex examples of Mr Turner’s abusive emails, but she has not done so. We asked whether there was a police report for Mr Turner’s supposed threatening behaviour at the high court, but we have not received a reply. The case is being followed a number of MPs and parliamentarians. When Eric Pickles, as DCLG Secretary, introduced in 2013 the Mobile Home Act he said he had "called time on the crooks" in the sector. More here The Park Homes for Justice website can be found  here

13th May 2015

SMALL MERCIES

Private Eve a continuation of the article below.

28th April 2015

Please read article from PRIVATE EYE