DISPUTES (Hansard, 9 May 1975)

§ Mr. Tom King
I beg to move Amendment No. 36, in page 5, line 31, leave out subsection (1) and insert— '(1) If—

(a) the owner of a protected site on which a mobile home is, or is to be stationed—

(i) fails without reasonable excuse to comply with the provisions of section 1 of this Act; or

(ii) having in compliance with the said provisions offered to the occupier of the mobile home an agreement on terms and conditions which have been accepted by the occupier, fails without reasonable excuse to enter into a written agreement with the occupier to give effect to the terms and conditions so agreed within the period of one month following the date of such acceptance; or

(b) the occupier of a mobile home to whom an agreement has been offered by an owner of a protected site in pursuance of a duty under section 1 of this Act fails without reasonable excuse to signify within the period of three months following the date on which the agreement is so offered whether or not the terms and conditions contained in it are acceptable to him;

the occupier of the mobile home may, in a case falling within paragraph (a) above, apply to the court for the grant of an agreement which complies with section 3 of this Act or which contains the terms and conditions so agreed, as the case may be, and the owner of the protected site may, in a case falling within paragraph (b) above, apply to the court for the grant of an agreement which complies with section 3 of this Act'.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this amendment we shall take Amendment No. 37, in page 6, line 1, Clause 4, leave out subsection (4) and insert— '(4) On an application under subsection (1) above the court shall make an order for the grant of an agreement which—

(a) in a case falling within paragraph (a) of that subsection, complies with section 3 of this Act and contains such terms and conditions as the court thinks reasonable or. as the case may be, contains the terms or conditions so agreed or, where the court is not satisfied that terms and conditions have been agreed between the parties, complies with section 3 of this Act and contains such other terms and conditions as the court thinks reasonable; or

(b) in a case falling within paragraph (b) of that subsection, complies with section 3 of this Act'.

§ Mr. King
This redrafting will achieve objectives shared by all hon. Members.
1839 At the moment there is no provision with which to cover a situation in which an owner offered an agreement to an occupier and then did nothing more about it. Clause 4(1)(b) deals with the position and gives certain rights to an owner against a recalcitrant occupier. There was nothing to prevent an occupier from taking a long time to decide whether to accept an agreement. The matter was open-ended. He could keep the agreement on offer, have it in his pending tray and never decide whether to accept it. This was obviously not satisfactory. Subsection (1)(b) clarifies that point. Those are the two significant points of substance dealing with the way in which application can be made to the court.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas)
With this amendment we are to discuss Amendment (a) to the amendment, in line 3, leave out 'does not' and insert: 'did not at the time of the application'.

§ Mr. King
Amendment No. 27 is designed to cover a situation which the operator has entered into an agreement with an occupier but finds that the occupier is not living in his mobile home as his only or main residence. In Committee we discussed various aspects of this problem.
Somebody might try to convert a temporary residence into a permanent residence. Alternatively, somebody whose permanent residence it was might go to live somewhere else and try to retain the benefits which under the Bill are intended exclusively for those whose permanent or only residence it is. The amendment provides power for the court to rescind an agreement if the occupier does not occupy a mobile home as his only or main residence. The objective was discussed in Committee and was thought to be fair.

§ Mr. King
I beg to move Amendment No. 26, in page 6, line 5, leave out subsection (5) and insert— '(5) On an application under subsection (2) or subsection (5) above the court shall determine the matter in dispute and shall make such order as is necessary to give effect to its determination.' This is a further clarification of the court procedure, which was not thought to be satisfactory because it did not make clear to what extent the parties would be bound by the court's judgement. It is believed that this is a clarification of the legal position.

§ Mr. Tom King
I beg to move Amendment No. 27, in page 6, line 17, at end add—

§ Mr. Whitehead
I beg to move as an amendment to the proposed amendment, Amendment (a), in line 3, leave out 'does not' and insert: 'did not at the time of the application'. I intervene in an interrogatory sense, so to speak, and to say that I tabled my amendment because it seemed to me at the time, having had so little opportunity to scrutinise the amendments to the draft Bill, that I might have missed the point. If I did, I am sure that the Minister might have been well advised.
I wanted to make it absolutely clear that the position of a resident was protected in a situation where he might have changed his status vis-à-vis, the mobile home site in the course of the proceedings brought under any such application.
I simply want to write into Amendment No. 27, which otherwise I wholeheartedly support, the clear stipulation that it applies to the precise status of the mobile home owner at the time of the application being made. We have had constituency 1841 cases of people who in practice have had two homes. They have had a house some where in the country but, because of their job or because they are on contract labour, they have had to move around and have purchased a mobile home, and they have alternated between their house and their mobile home.
The proceedings may be brought at a time when they are trying to decide where their principal residence should be, or it may be that they become involved in a dispute with the site owner at a time when they are about to, or where he has reason to believe that they are about to, change their status, in that it may no longer be, from a point subsequent to the application, their residence as described in Clause 1.
I hope that what I have said makes sense to the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King). If he can assure me that the purpose of my amendment to Amendment No. 27 is covered by Amendment No. 27 as it stands specifically and clearly and without any possibility of doubt, I shall be happy to seek to withdraw my amendment to his proposed amendment and shall wholeheartedly support his amendment.

§ Mr. Kaufman
Perhaps I shall be able to clarify the position for my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead).
His amendment to the proposed amendment would tend to damage the occupier rather than to assist him, as it would make it necessary for the court to rescind an agreement even if subsequent to the owner's application the occupier in good faith began to use the mobile home as his only or main residence or resumed such use. Amendment No. 27 tabled by the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) protects the occupier in circumstances in which my lion. Friend the Member for Derby, North wishes him to be protected. I suggest that it would be better if the amendment of the hon. Member for Bridgwater were left as it is.

§ Mr. Whitehead
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment to the proposed amendment