Mobile Homes Act 1983 - pitch fee uprating: consultation analysis

6) Summary of Consultation Responses by Question

Question 1: Do you agree with the proposal that Consumer Price Index (CPI) is the most appropriate inflationary index for pitch fee uprating for Scottish contracts under the Mobile Homes Act 1983?

169 respondents provided an answer to this question. The majority of respondents (92%) agreed with the proposal that the CPI is the most appropriate inflationary index for pitch fee uprating for Scottish contracts under the Mobile Homes Act 1983, as shown in Table 2:

Table 2 - Do you agree with the proposal that Consumer Price Index ( CPI) is the most appropriate inflationary index for pitch fee uprating for Scottish contracts under the Mobile Homes Act 1983?

Option	Number of Respondents	Percentage who answered this question
Agree	158	92%
Disagree	11	7%
Not Answered	2	1%

The majority of respondents who identified as residents or residents’ associations agreed with the proposal, as did respondents from local authorities. Site operators were more divided with some agreeing with the proposal and some disagreeing.

Reasons Given

There were 144 responses to this part of the question. The reasons respondents gave for agreeing with the proposal were that the CPI is a more accurate statistical measure, that it is used for uprating pensions and benefits so that increases would be aligned, that it will improve affordability, and that it would provide consistency with the rest of the UK.

Some respondents to the question felt that the CPI is the best suited statistical measure of inflation for pitch fee uprating. For example a mobile home resident highlighted accuracy and a Local Authority Representative organisation explained that it is already used by local authorities as a standard index:

“CPI provides the most accurate reflection of current inflationary pressures and the state of the economy as a whole.” Mobile Home Resident

“[…]the argument to move from RPI to CPI is clear, it’s a set standard used across the whole UK, and would ensure one standard index was being used. CPI is used by local authorities, therefore a legislative change from RPI to CPI would not pose a risk to LA’s.” Local Authority Representative Organisation

Some said that use of the CPI would bring the uprating of pitch fees for residential mobile homes in line with uprating of state pensions and therefore make them more affordable for older residents. This comment from a resident highlights alignment with pension reviews:

“As most park home occupiers are of pension age, the change to CPI will bring pitch fees into line with pension reviews and current statistical measures of inflation.” Mobile Home Resident

A minority said that the CPI is lower than the RPI, meaning that pitch fees would therefore be more affordable. As one respondent stated, the use of a lower inflation measure would be particularly welcome in the context of the current cost of living crisis:

“CPI is usually less than RPI and due to the cost of living crisis, everything helps.” Mobile Home Resident

A few respondents pointed out that the change to the CPI has been or is being made in the rest of the UK and that Scotland should follow suit. As one respondent noted, this would bring inflation measures into alignment with those used in England and Wales:

“RPI isn’t a good measure of general inflation. A change to CPI would align Scotland with Wales and England.” Organisation representing the interests of Mobile Home Site Operators

A few respondents disagreed with the proposal because of a preference for another measure or no measure. No two suggestions for an alternative measure were the same. For example, the following comments from respondents suggest the CPIH, a bespoke option such as alignment with Council Tax increases or an option without an index could be appropriate alternative measures:

“I believe that CPIH is more suited. It does then apply to housing.” Mobile Home Resident

“The only true comparison would be the Council tax. We are now paying more than we do in council tax for our site fees and the two things are very similar as they are for services provided. I therefore think the site fee should be raised by the same amount as the Council tax and if there is a water and sewage charge that this too should rise by the same as it does on the council tax.” Mobile Home Resident

“Pitch fees should not be linked to any index but rather be a set figure with the option to increase annually provided the land owner maintains that land in a fit state and there is value to residents also from any increase.” Mobile Home Resident

Some respondents who identified as site operators disagreed with the proposal because of the potential impact on income, particularly in light of increases in operational costs. In the comments below, one site operator states a preference for remaining with the RPI and another highlights that costs are not limited by the CPI so a change would make it more difficult to afford increasing running costs:

‘To give you an indication why I prefer RPI is because for instance running costs, take £6,400 for pot holes in one go, insurance rose by 350% in one year.’ Mobile Home Site Operator

“The costs of operating the park are not restricted to CPI. E.g. electricity for street lighting, security systems, gates, sewage pumps. Collection of trade waste, general park rates covering office and ancillary required to operate a park also not restricted by CPI.” Mobile Home Site Operator

Question 2: Do you agree that the proposed change in uprating from Retail Prices Index (RPI) to Consumer Prices Index (CPI) should take effect for both existing and future contracts?

170 respondents provided an answer to this question. The majority of respondents (96%) thought that the proposed change in uprating from the RPI to the CPI should take effect for both existing and future contracts. A breakdown is given in Table 3:

Table 3 - Do you agree that the proposed change in uprating from Retail Prices Index ( RPI) to Consumer Prices Index ( CPI) should take effect for both existing and future contracts?

Option	Number of Respondents	Percentage who answered this question
Agree	165	96%
Disagree	5	2%
Not Answered	1	1%

The majority of respondents who identified as residents or residents’ associations as well as those representing local authorities agreed that changes should take effect for existing as well as new contracts. Some of the small number of respondents who identified as site operators agreed and some disagreed.

Reasons Given

There were 116 responses to this part of the question. The main reasons given for agreeing with the change were to promote fairness and reduce the potential for confusion that might arise if two different measures were in use.

Some respondents who agreed said that it was important to avoid unfairness between residents on the same site with existing and new contracts. For example two residents highlighted that it would be unfair if only new residents benefitted from a change to uprating as it could compound existing inequalities:

“To expect existing home owners to pay a higher increase year on year as opposed to new owners paying lower increases will result in the gap between payments growing wider and wider, this is unfair. There are already different rates payable on the same sites by older and newer contract holders.” Mobile Home Resident

“It would be grossly unfair to leave existing residents on the RPI index as the majority are over pension age and their homes are generally older so less valuable.” Mobile Home Resident

Some highlighted the need to avoid confusion about which uprating measure applies to a resident’s contract. This was noted by a resident but also by organisations who highlighted the potential benefits of consistency for administration:

“It will end up in total confusion to have some people on one system and others on another system.” Mobile Home Resident

“To avoid customer confusion and complicating administration.” Organisation representing the interests of Mobile Home Site Operators

“From an accounting perspective having 1 agreed index standard is better, which would cover all future agreements and bring existing agreements inline as they renew.” Organisation representing the views of Local Government

A few site operators who disagreed gave the negative impact on income as a reason. One site operator indicated that a change to existing contracts should not be made because residents agreed to them in advance:

“Everyone has a mobile home agreement, they bought and live there understanding what is what. That's why it should not change.” Mobile Home Site Operator

QUESTION 3: Do you think a further change should be made to the Mobile Homes Act 1983 so that the statistical basis for uprating pitch fees can be amended by secondary legislation in the future, to keep pace with developments in statistics?

166 respondents provided an answer to this question. The majority of respondents (86%) thought that a further change should be made to the Mobile Homes Act 1983 so that the statistical basis for uprating pitch fees can be amended by secondary legislation in the future, to keep pace with developments in statistics. Table 4 gives a breakdown of responses:

Table 4 - Do you think a further change should be made to the Mobile Homes Act 1983 so that the statistical basis for uprating pitch fees can be amended by secondary legislation in the future, to keep pace with developments in statistics?

Option	Number of Respondents	Percentage who answered this question
Yes	147	86%
No	19	11%
Not Answered	5	3%

The majority of respondents who identified as residents or residents’ associations agreed, as did local authorities. Those respondents who identified as site operators were split in their views on whether secondary legislation should be used in the future, with some agreeing and some disagreeing.

Reasons Given

There were 103 responses to this part of the question. Many respondents stated that secondary legislation would be a quicker, simpler or more flexible mechanism.

For example, two site residents pointed to the relative speed and simplicity of secondary legislation:

“Secondary legislation is a simpler, more efficient way of implementing change. It is therefore a quicker way of responding to a demonstrated need, should one arise.” Mobile Home Resident

“It removes the need for protracted primary legislation.” Mobile Home Resident

The reasons given for disagreeing were that there should be no further change to the index in future, concern about complexity and that secondary legislation would reduce the level of scrutiny of a future change. For example, one resident indicated that they thought it would be less democratic, potentially because the opportunity for scrutiny of secondary legislation is less intense than for primary legislation.

“Secondary legislation may be quicker and cheaper but it is less democratic.” Mobile Home Resident

Question 4: Are there any additional considerations in relation to this proposal as it affects public sector Gypsy/Traveller sites or any other types or site or contract covered by the implied terms under the Mobile Homes Act 1983?

93 respondents answered this question. More than half of respondents to this question explicitly stated they had nothing further to add. Some respondents thought that Gypsy/Traveller sites should have the same treatment as any other site. For example one site resident expressed the opinion that the law should apply across all mobile home sites:

“It makes sense for this change to apply across all mobile home sites whether operated by local authorities or as in a lot of cases multi millionaires who operate numerous sites. The same law should apply to all.” Mobile Home Resident

One organisation representing local authorities highlighted current exceptional circumstances for public sector rent setting.

“It should be noted that due to the emergency legislation that is the Cost of Living (Scotland) Act 2022, ALACHO and COSLA, have a statement of intent in place that means social rents will not rise above £5 per week, annually. Most LA’s with pitches are choosing to extended this same agreement to pitch fee increases. The statement of intent of intent is only to remain in place as long as the Cost of Living (Scotland) Act 2022. A caveat to the above is that rent increases for HRA services should not be constrained by the application of a CPI index. Rents should be set by the Council based on the need to balance income with expenditure.” Organisation representing the interests of local government

Respondents did not identify any additional requirements or issues in relation to Gypsy/Traveller sites.

Question 5: In your opinion, what is the likely impact of the proposed change in pitch fee uprating from Retail Prices Index (RPI) to Consumer Prices Index (CPI) on businesses or other organisations?

126 respondents provided an answer to this question. Of those respondents who identified as residents, a minority said that they thought there would be little or no impact on mobile home parks because of the relatively small difference between the RPI and the CPI, potential alternative income sources for site operators or a view that expenditure on site maintenance is already limited, so a reduction in income would not impact.

An organisation representing residents associations highlighted that the difference between the RPI and the CPI is typically 2-3% resulting in a relatively small impact.^[3] This was also the view taken by a respondent identifying as a site operator:

“… believe that there will be minimal impact on businesses particularly site owners, since the difference in percentage between RPI and CPI is likely to be no more than 2% to 3%.” Organisation representing the interests of Residents Associations

‘“I do not think there would be much of an impact on businesses as they will still get an increase.” Mobile Home Site Operator

Some residents gave the view that they don’t see evidence of the pitch fees being used to maintain sites and that pitch fee income is often retained by the operator. Some highlighted other income sources for site operators, such as the 10% commission payable on the sale of a mobile home, as in these comments:

“There would be very little impact on businesses as they already make a great deal of money from the park homes often for little or no maintenance.” Mobile Home Resident

“Many Park Owners are already making money from selling units, the 10% sales commission…” Mobile Home Resident

A few commented that more disposable income for residents would benefit local businesses, as in this response from a mobile home park resident:

“The park site owner would still receive his yearly increase from all park home owners but still freeing up a bit more money in the pocket of the individual park home owner to spend locally or nationally on businesses or just to allow them to keep their heating on that bit longer.” Mobile Home Resident

A few residents and site operators said that they thought the change would result in a loss of income for site operators and therefore reduced future maintenance or a threat to site viability, as in these responses from site operators:

“Loss of income and reduced maintenance” Mobile Home Site Operator

”Any legislation restricting the profitability of business will only see closures or loss of availability of such homes at a time when the government can ill afford to lose more housing.” Mobile Home Site Operator

One respondent requested stability if the change is made, so that businesses can plan ahead:

“Any sound business copes with changes in income and overheads. What all businesses need however is stability. Once a rate is set, businesses have some idea of how to plan for their future.” Mobile Home Site Operator

Question 6: In your opinion, what is the likely impact of the proposed change on residents and other individuals?

123 respondents provided an answer to this question. Some respondents did not think that there would be much or any impact on individuals from the proposed change. Some repeated points from previous questions on the importance of fairness or the detrimental impact of high pitch fee rises. The most common impact mentioned in responses was reduced cost for residents and therefore a potential financial benefit. Particular groups identified as benefiting were older people and people with health conditions or disabilities. Respondents indicated that these groups make up a large proportion of mobile home residents as this type of accommodation is popular with people downsizing^[4].

A minority of responses specifically mentioned older people as benefitting because many site residents are older and living on pension incomes, as outlined in these comments from mobile home residents:

“The impact will bring a very small measure of relief to a group which are generally of pension age and often in receipt of benefits. It will equally bring the same advantage to disadvantaged groups.” Mobile Home Resident

“It should ease the financial burden on people who are on a fixed income. which is most people staying on a residential park.” Mobile Home Resident

A few responses also pointed to benefits for disabled people or people living with long term health conditions as in these comments from site residents:

“I am disabled and don’t have an increase in benefits to cover the increase. My elderly neighbours have a pension which has not increased by the amount of rental increase so any reduction to these prices will help improve their quality of life. For me with the massive hike in cost of living plus a rent increase this has meant accruing debt in order to stay warm and eat, a stressful situation that is not helpful.” Mobile Home Resident

“As a disabled person I would hope it would mean that my site fees don’t exponentially outstrip my benefits/pension income. I would hope the same for other pension recipients struggling now & in the future.” Mobile Home Resident

These examples also highlighted the benefit of reduced stress or financial worry which was repeated in comments from respondents who did not mention a disability:

“As these increases are a constant worry to older residents who are on a limited budget this will be of great relief to both their budget worries and Mental Health.” Mobile Home Resident

In addition, a few responses highlighted an impact on the morale of residents because they feel that their voices have been heard or the balance of rights with site operators has been shifted, as in these comments from site residents:

“Slightly beneficial, but a big jump in morale as it is a shift towards residents rights rather than site owners’ rights.” Mobile Home Resident

“Fewer suicides, less depression, affordable housing, an air of happiness amongst residents, less violence, less feeling of being hard done to. More chance of low income families/people being able to afford mobile homes which are in essence great places to live.” Mobile Home Resident

Other Issues Raised

Among the responses to all of the questions, there were some comments about different aspects of policy and practice on mobile homes that did not relate directly to the questions asked. Themes emerging in these comments included:

• dissatisfaction with the level of maintenance or other operation of sites e.g. the way that fee reviews are carried out;
• concerns about other parts of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 e.g. the 10% commission payable on the sale of a mobile home;
• concerns about standards on sites or tighter enforcement on site licensing conditions by Local Authorities;
• concerns about resolving disagreements under the Mobile Homes Act, a request that these should be heard by a Tribunal rather than a Court or for a new oversight body to be established; and
• emphasising that mobile homes are very different to caravans and some suggestions that mobile homes to be re-classified.