The BBCAround 1,200 caravan owners across the UK, many of whom say they feel they have been “rip off”, are to launch legal action against the holiday parks that sold them.
Members of the Holiday Park Action Group (HPAG) are seeking compensation for what they believe are unfair increases in annual pitch fees and misleading claims about the value of static caravans at the time of purchase.
Litigation is ongoing. BBC investigation It shows how people lost their life savings, inheritances and pensions when they lost the value of their holiday homes.
One of the parks involved said it provided “comprehensive information” to all potential buyers, while another said its sales contracts were “clear and easily understood”.
Joanne Horner-Bloomfield, 65, is one of those involved in the legal action.
She said she “lost everything” after buying a static caravan at Watermill Leisure Park in Lincolnshire and now relies on food banks.
In the summer of 2022, he used £29,995 from the sale of his late mother’s house to buy a caravan, spending an extra £7,500 on a deck and two storage sheds.
Mrs. Horner Bloomfield spent much of her time at the place, which she called “a beautiful place.”
In 2022 the annual pitch fee was £2,795, but in 2023 this rose to £3,041. When she was told the 2024 fee would be £4,100, she realized she could not afford the caravan.
Mrs Horner-Bloomfield, who worked as a carer before ill-health forced her to stop, and has yet to receive a pension, plans to sell the caravan back to park owners in September 2023. said
However, he was told that they would no longer buy caravans manufactured more than 10 years ago.
He said Park also told him his caravan would only fetch £5,000 on the open market.
Mrs Horner-Bloomfield said: “I was stunned. I said why did you charge me £29,995 a year ago for only £5,000? And he said, ‘Well that’s business isn’t it?’ ‘ I was furious.”
Watermill Leisure Park said its dealings with Mrs Horner-Bloomfield were “fair and transparent” and provided buyers with a “clear and easily understood contract of sale”.
It says there is “no obligation to buy back the holiday caravan” but that any offer based on factors such as time of year “fairly reflects the value of the holiday home park at that particular moment”. does”. and the level of demand.
Sales staff also advise that holiday caravans are aimed at long-term purchases, a spokeswoman said.
Mrs Horner-Bloomfield said she felt “betrayed and let down” because she was not told how low the resale value of her caravan would be when she bought it. will
He eventually sold his caravan for £5,500, of which £500 was paid to Watermill as a severance fee.
She added: “It breaks my heart. I am devastated that at 65 I am reduced to using the food bank.
“The money I was hoping to get away with would have made life so much easier for me.”
Mrs Horner Bloomfield said she hoped the legal action would help her.
“It would be nice if we could win and get some of our money back, but more importantly, make a law to stop these unscrupulous site owners from taking people’s life savings. Go.”
‘Hateful Conduct’
HPAG, which organized the group action, said most of the caravans were sold by the parks at a “significantly fixed price” which led to “significantly fixed prices” if buyers later decided to sell. A lot of damage was done.
HPAG has 70,000 members on its Facebook group where caravan owners air complaints.
Carol Cable, the group’s founder, said existing regulations were failing to protect consumers from unfair trading practices “on an industrial scale”.
It hoped the group’s legal action would put an end to such practices and called on the government to address “significant issues in the sector”.
The High Court will decide on the basis of very few identified test cases. The group’s barrister Hugh Preston QC hopes it will pave the way for other claimants to seek compensation. He is representing around 1200 people.
The first claim will ask the High Court to declare whether the annual pitch fee increase written into the contract between park owners and caravan buyers is fair and enforceable – and if not, whether the buyers are entitled to a refund.
The second claim will ask a judge to decide whether holiday parks selling caravans should be expected to explain to buyers, before purchase, that if the caravans are resold after only a few years. So they lose a lot of value – and if so, can they be compensated. lost value.
Mr Preston KC told the BBC: “It’s basically an unregulated sector, there are no legal regulations telling parks what to do or how to behave… and there are so many problems. Consumers feel they are not getting a fair price.”
A spokesman for the Department for Business and Trade said it was “aware of the difficulties some holiday home owners have experienced” and was committed to protecting consumers from “bullying”.
He added that the government plans to introduce stiff financial penalties for violation of the consumer law.
Some of those involved in the legal proceedings shared their stories with the BBC as part of our investigation in October.
They include James and Emma Richardson from Cleethorpes, who lost more than £50,000 in two years. Owner of a caravan in Tattershall Lakes Country Park in Lincolnshire. Mr Richardson hopes the case can “put an end” to the “abhorrent practices” of some holiday parks.
Sally Nicholls from Sheffield, He used up his entire pension pot and borrowed money to buy a £69,000 caravan. In the same park she managed to get just £15,000 for it when she sold it three years later. She says trying to change the law was more important to her than winning compensation.
Resorts away
Away Resorts, which runs Tattershall Lakes Country Park, said in October that it provided all potential buyers with “comprehensive information including detailed terms and conditions” to ensure they understand the potential risks of caravan ownership. know
He said he had no further answers about the initiation of legal proceedings.
Industry representatives, the British Holiday and Home Park Association, said it was not appropriate to comment.
The National Caravan Council said it was aware of the legal action but would not comment further.