DUTY TO OFFER AGREEMENTS (Hansard, 9 May 1975)

§ Mr. Tom King
I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 10, leave out 'is intending' and insert 'has notified the owner in writing that he intends'. This is little more than a drafting amendment. There is a difficulty in the Bill as it stands in establishing effectively that a person really intended to occupy. The amendment is designed to make it a requirement for the potential occupier to notify the owner in writing that he intends to occupy.
Amendment No. 2, which I understand will be taken later, is on the same point. There could be considerable dispute whether a potential occupier had made clear that he wanted to come on to a site and the stage at which he was in the process of being offered an agreement. Providing for notification in writing seems to me to be the most effective way of ensuring that there is a definite moment at which the potential occupier makes clear that he wishes to occupy, and he is covered by the protection afforded in the Bill of being entitled to an agreement.

§ Mr. Wellbeloved
I support the amendment. Although this is a drafting amendment which clarifies the matter, it 1804 is nevertheless concerned with a serious point. It is possible for mobile home traders to have mobile homes on various sites throughout the country, the main purpose being the storage of their goods. Even in my own constituency—and one can always best judge these matters on the basis of one's personal experience—a council site has been occupied by a mobile trader, although he has used it for a very short period during the year. During the remainder of the year it has been used for storage purposes in connection with his trade and business. I have reason to believe that he has been using mobile homes on sites throughout the country for temporary accommodation and for trading purposes. That is wrong, and this sensible amendment will go a long way to eradicate that abuse of residential facilities.

§ Mr. Tom King
I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 22 at end insert— '(4) An owner shall not be deemed to have offered to enter into a written agreement under the foregoing provisions of this section unless at the time of the offer he supplies the person to whom the offer is made with a draft of the agreement so offered.'. I have already alluded to this amendment. This relates to another aspect of the same problem to which reference has been made, in an effort to overcome the difficulty which arises when a site owner tries to play off possible intending occupants. We hope that this situation is covered partly by Amendment No. 1.
There is a time limit within which an intending occupier has to make clear whether he will accept an agreement, and this could be difficult if there were an argument about when the period started. This amendment seeks to make clear that the offer has not been made unless at the time of the offer the site owner supplies the person to whom the offer is made with a draft of the agreement.
This deals with the situation in which a site owner might make a verbal offer and be tempted to keep quiet about the small print which might refer to some unattractive conditions. The potential occupier might find himself up against time and be forced into an agreement when he had not had adequate time in which to study it.