Insight report: Sale blocking on park home sites

November 2025

This report is the second of a regular series that LEASE will be producing to provide insights into the experience of our consumers and leaseholders more widely – highlighting the issues they face, their key concerns, and how government and the sector can support them. These reports will draw on a range of primary sources, including the administrative data our organisation collects from providing advice services and qualitative accounts of our consumers’ experience. Our first report focused on Section 20 consultations. This report focuses on issues in relation to Park Homes. It provides summary of the issues consumers have raised with us, as well as a deep dive into some of the key issues we hear from Park Homeowners.

What are park homes?

Park Home is the commonly used term for a mobile home or caravan located on a residential park site. There are approximately 1,800 park home sites in England with an estimated 159,000 park home residents^[1]. Welsh Government figures from 2012 estimated there were 91 park home sites in Wales which were home to 3,430 residents^[2].

These homes are largely marketed to older people, promoted as an affordable and low-maintenance place to live with access to community and amenities. A 2022 study found that 80 per cent of park homeowners were over 65.^[3] Older people are more likely to have characteristics that may make them vulnerable. Further in 77% of households all household members were economically inactive which can limit their income and financial resilience. This can make park homeowners a vulnerable group^[4] who may be less able to assert their rights than other homeowners across the UK.

An MHCLG-commissioned study in 2022 found that whilst 85 per cent of park home owners were satisfied overall with their park home^[5], there was considerable dissatisfaction with ownership and management of the park, including 44% who were dissatisfied with the park owner. Similar findings have been found in previous studies research^[6].

How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the following aspects of your park home and park?

Data from 2022 MHCLG study^[7]

Sale blocking

One specific issue that has historically been identified on park home sites is site owners blocking residents from selling their homes^[8]. Park homes can sell for hundreds of thousands of pounds, and whilst a site owner is entitled to 10% commission on third-party sales^[9], some site owners have sought to seek a higher financial return by obstructing sales and harassing residents so they can purchase the property themselves at a much-reduced price. The owner can then relist a park home on that pitch for its full market value, extracting substantial benefit.

A landmark case that underlined the presence of issues like this is Leisure Parks Real Estate who, in 2013, who were required to pay more than £300,000 in compensation having been found guilty of “putting pressure on homeowners to sell their homes back to them” and spreading false information to potential buyers.

Case study: Leisure Parks Real Estate, 2013

In this Crown Court case, Leisure Parks Real Estate Ltd, who owned Medina Park in Whippingham (Isle of Wight), was ordered to pay more than £300,000 in compensation after offences committed against residents.

Laura Gaudion, senior lawyer for the Isle of Wight Council, which brought the prosecution, said: “We have had a number of complaints about the conduct of the company and we investigated, finding out they were putting pressure on homeowners to sell their homes back to them.

“They also contacted potential buyers of the mobile homes and said they were pieces of junk, that the bases were cracked and they weren’t worth the money being paid.”

The charges dated back to 2008 and included telling potential owners they would have to pay a site rent of £140 per month, that a home was ‘worthless’ and would have to be moved, which would cause it to fall to pieces, and threatening residents with the intent to cause them to leave their home.

The Middlesex-based company was ordered to pay £33,000 – £3,000 per offence – and the court issued a confiscation order for £275,000, from which the compensation was to be paid. The confiscation order was designed to strip defendants of any money made from criminal activity. The company, which ran several park home sites around the country, were given six months to pay.

To address situations such as this, in 2013, new legislation was introduced to provide consumers greater protection and in 2015, the Government set up a Park Homes Working Group “to identify evidence of poor practice where it exists, and investigate how best to raise standards and further tackle abuse”.

As a result of this legislation and focus from the Government, today consumers do have greater protections and the authorities have legal powers to take enforcement against site owners engaging in sale blocking and harassment.

Legal protections and reform

Park homeowners on a protected site have the benefit of the contractual terms of their pitch agreement and the Consolidated Implied Terms^[10] which form part of the agreement. Paragraph 1 of the Implied Terms provides security of tenure, paragraph 4 gives protection from eviction, and paragraph 11 gives the right to ‘quiet enjoyment’ of their home and pitch. These rights can be enforced via the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) in England and the Residential Property Tribunal in Wales.

Park homeowners are protected from harassment and unlawful eviction under section 3 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968. In addition the government brought in further protections in 2013 & 2014. These are:

• a new offence of providing false or misleading information so as to prevent sale or occupation (Section 3(1AA) of the 1968 Act) which was inserted by the Mobile Homes Act 2013
• a new procedure for selling a park home, removing the requirement to notify the site owner for pitch agreements starting on or after 26/05/2013 and restricting the grounds on which a site owner could object to a sale for existing agreements starting before 26/05/2013 (see Mobile homes (England) (Selling and Gifting) Regulations 2013 and the Implied Terms)
• a new procedure for creating site rules that was introduced in 2014 (Mobile Homes (England) (Site Rules) Regulations 2014) so that existing rules were abolished by 03/02/2015 and new ones could only be introduced after consultation with homeowners; also the regulations banned any site rules which purport to prevent, restrict or obstruct sales or gift by the park homeowner

In Wales, similar protections can be found in the Mobile Homes (Wales) Act 2013.

Local authorities have been granted powers to enforce these rights. They include:

• the power under the Caravan Sites Act 1968, to investigate allegations of harassment or sale blocking and to prosecute site owners where there’s sufficient evidence; if convicted, the site owner could face a large fine or imprisonment; the right to charge for issuing a site licence and to enforce compliance with agreed standards; for example, they can require site owners to carry out necessary works and prosecute those who fail to comply
• since October 2021, a ‘fit and proper person’ test for residential and mixed use sites in England^[11]; the test is intended to improve park home site management standards and to ensure the person responsible for managing a site is suitable and of good character; operating a site in contravention of the regulations is a criminal offence, for which a person would be liable on summary conviction to an unlimited fine

What park home owners say to LEASE

Through our direct advice services (written and telephone), we receive circa 1,000 enquiries from park home owners each year. Unfortunately, we continue to hear of cases where clients are facing issues of sale blocking and related harassment. In the past year we received 53 enquiries relating to harassment and further 64 relating to sale blocking (see table below). This represents over 7% of all park home enquiries received.

We cannot verify that each of these cases would meet a legal definition of sale blocking, however, this is the number of cases where a park home owner has felt compelled to call for expert legal advice on their situation and has either raised sale blocking as a concern directly or their account has prompted one of LEASE’s advisors to provide advice on it. This is significant.

This is not the most common enquiry we receive; however, there is a persistent number of cases each year, and the impact on the clients is significant. They may fear for the security of their home and personal safety.

When these issues occur, we hear reports of site owners offering prices vastly below market to buy the property, which could have an enormous impact on people’s lives.

One client spoke of having a buyer prepared to purchase the property for £75,000 whilst the owner was trying to purchase it for £10,000. Another stated they had initially put their property up for £200,000 but were concerned they would need to resort to “asking the site owner for clearance value, from what I’ve seen online, that may be anything from £1 upwards”. All this also raises the risk that these cases are underreported through fear of retribution from park owners or embarrassment around the financial losses. This is a concern that’s been raised previously by organisations such as Park Homes Legislation Action Group Scotland (PHLAGS)^[12], and residents themselves in the 2018 call for evidence^[13].

Through an analysis of our caseload and conversations with park home owners, we have identified that most cases fall into two broad categories.

1. Giving false information to potential buyers

A common tactic is to misinform potential buyers. For example, we have heard numerous complaints that site owners are claiming there are serious issues with the quality and condition of homes that park homeowners do not recognise.

“Her words were ‘I want this heap of junk off my property and I want you off my property’. She has also phoned estate agents up and told them it’s not safe and that they are not allowed to sell it. The estate agent has just passed this information on to the potential buyers with no legal backup.”

2. Using threatening or intimidating behaviour

An alternative approach is to simply harass or intimidate sellers and potential buyers in order to achieve their desired outcome. Below, is the testimony of a client who had been told by the site owner that he intended to illegally remove their property from his site before they could arrange a sale.

“His approach and manner during the conversation were erratic and unstable … my husband’s a calm and mature person with experience of dealing with all sorts of people, some of them troubled individuals. However, by the end of the conversation, the level of implied menace was such that he was left physically shaking and had to go round and sit with neighbours for a while to recover. They had overheard the conversation and were concerned for him.”

Similarly, we have heard from park home owners that site owners have also intimidated or put off local estate agents to the point that they are not willing to even engage in sales on the site because they know purchases will be obstructed.

“The estate agents said they won’t put anything in writing, but they won’t sell on our site … It’s not worth the hassle for them.”

Issues with challenging bad practices

When cases are raised with LEASE we inform clients of their legal rights and their options for redress, but issues are often not easily resolved. As stated above, clients are often older, more vulnerable and can feel afraid to tackle the issues directly. The options for challenging sale blocking are as follows:

1. raise a complaint to the site owner and seek informal mediation resolution
2. raise the matter with your local authority, which has the power to prosecute site owners engaging in this behaviour
3. if your local authority doesn’t take action, you can instigate their internal complaints procedure and escalate the matter to the Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman if not resolved satisfactorily; however, we hear from customers, charities and campaign groups that often this process is insufficient for consumers to get appropriate redress

To illustrate some of these issues, here is the case of one of LEASE’s clients Mary

Case Study: Mary’s story

Mary purchased her park home in 2020. She had previously worked as a housing professional in local authorities. In 2022, new owners took over the park and quickly removed or downgraded facilities, increased pitch fees and became increasingly aggressive and insulting to residents.

When park homeowners came to sell their homes, they started to have significant difficulties. The site owner refused to provide prospective buyers with any information on key issues, such as future charges, leading to buyers pulling out. At one point, they even claimed to have introduced a new rule saying people on the site could only sell their homes directly to them, despite having no legal authority to do so. Residents were then notified that the local estate agent who had previously overseen sales on the site was no longer willing to do so, given the issues.

Reporting to the local authority

Whilst the residents had raised concerns to the site owner directly, their aggressive behaviour made it clear that direct mediation was not a viable option. As such, Mary raised the issue with their local authority. Unfortunately, the local authority was not swift to act. They informed Mary that they were “encouraging the owners to apply for a license” and were at this time unwilling to take any further action. When they later returned to explain that issues had persisted, seeking further support, they were signposted to Citizens Advice for advice on breaches of pitch agreements, who in turn signposted them to Shelter for further advice. None of this prevented the site owner from continuing their practices.

Given that the local authority was unwilling to take enforcement action, Mary took her case to the tribunal, citing wider breaches of her pitch agreement, as opposed to sale blocking specifically. Mary also organised the residents in her park and led an application to the tribunal. By taking the case as a group, they were able to split the costs; however, they were still unable to afford professional legal advice and support. Given her professional background, Mary represented the residents but found the process daunting and was at a significant disadvantage being faced with a professional barrister. Thankfully, given the strength of their case, the tribunal ruled in favour of the residents who received £2,000 in compensation. Further, during the tribunal case, the site owner agreed to sell the site to a new owner.

Whilst Mary was happy with the eventual outcome, she felt that park home residents had been let down. “It was all very, very stressful … the local authority can’t just leave it to park homeowners like this. They have that function for a purpose.”

Mary’s story highlights some key issues. Whilst there is legislation in place with mechanisms designed to resolve issues of harassment and sale blocking, it only provides local authorities with a power, not a duty, to take enforcement action. Local authorities may choose not to take enforcement action. This may be because they would prefer to resolve cases through conversations with site owners, as in Mary’s case, or it may be that they do not think there is sufficient evidence to take a case forward. Clients spoke about the challenges of documenting evidence with site owners savvy enough not to put incriminating evidence in writing.

It can also be because local authorities are concerned about the resource implications involved. Assessing the merits of a case, reviewing evidence and taking enforcement action is a significant undertaking in the wider context of local authority resourcing and capacity. Local authorities raised these concerns in the 2018 MHCLG call for evidence, where, in five years following the introduction of the 2013 legislation, local authorities had not made wide use of their new powers. For example, there had only been eight prosecutions for breach of licensing conditions, with the vast majority of authorities not taking any action^[14].

A further tool for local authorities to take action against site owners is through the ‘fit and proper person’ test. If a site licence holder fails a ‘fit and proper person’ test, they must apply for an alternative manager to be assessed and placed on a register of fit and proper persons to manage the site. Operating a site in contravention of the regulations is a criminal offence, for which a person would be liable on summary conviction to an unlimited fine. However, because a site owner who fails this test can submit further applications for another individual to manage the site, they can continue to control the site even if not as the official manager. There is no requirement for the site owner to be fit and proper.

A core issue that runs through all this is that the system for challenging sale blocking can place a significant burden on the victims of sale blocking. They need to challenge the behaviour of a site owner, to document evidence which may not be easy, to raise the issue with local authorities and to potentially challenge the inactivity of the local authority. Given the older demographic and vulnerability of park homeowners, this may be too onerous for them to be able to access redress.

Key insights

• Whilst legislation has strengthened park homeowners’ legal protections, issues persist around sale blocking and associated harassment on some park home sites.
• The impact that sale blocking and related harassment can have on park homeowners is significant, impacting their well-being and financial security. This is particularly troubling given the demographic of park homeowners who are older and have more modest incomes.
• Whilst local authorities have the power to tackle cases of sale blocking, they do not have a duty to act and we hear of cases where authorities are not intervening.
• The current process for challenging sale blocking places a large responsibility on vulnerable residents who may not feel able to challenge the behaviour, document the necessary evidence, and submit it to the local authority and challenge if the local authority does not act swiftly.

LEASE service update: October

Lease enquiry density across the UK (FY 2025)

Our service demonstrates extensive national reach, with a strong footprint covering the length and breadth of England and Wales. For the current FY we have received an exceptional concentration of enquiries originating from London, the South East, and major hubs in the North West.

Q2 volume breakdown

Written Enquiries: 1,616
Phone Enquiries: 3,134
Customers: 4,298

In Q2, we served a total of 4,298 customers, driven by strong inbound communication. Phone enquiries were the dominant contact method at 3,134, nearly double the volume of written enquiries (1,616).

Key drivers of customer contact: Q2

Park Homes: key topics

For the current FY, we have identified that the primary concerns of Park Homes enquiries are financial and transactional. Pitch fees (14%) is the top issue, followed closely by Disrepair (13%) and Utilities (12%).

Contacting Lease

• If you need advice about your rights and obligations you can contact the Leasehold Advisory Service at https://www.lease-advice.org/.
• And if you would like to be kept informed on issues relating to leasehold please sign up to our newsletter at https://www.lease-advice.org/newsletter-archive/

References

Age UK (2015) Improving later life. Vulnerability and resilience in older people

Communities and Local Government Committee (2012) Supplementary written evidence from Consumer Focus

Communities and Local Government Committee (2012) Written submission from the Park Homes Legislation Action Group Scotland (PHLAGS)

Department for Levelling up, Housing & Communities (2022) The impact of a change in the maximum park home sale commission

Department for Communities and Local Government (2012) Government Response to the House of Commons Communities and Local Government Committee’s First Report of Session 2012-13

Department for Communities and Local Government (2017) Review of Park Homes Legislation

Independent Park Home Advisory Service (2024) Park life

Independent Park Home Advisory Service (2025) Park life

Leasehold Advisory Service (2025) Protection against harassment under the Mobile homes Act

Leasehold Advisory Service (2025) Selling a park home

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (2017) Review of Park Homes Legislation Call for evidence – Part 1

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (2018) Review of park homes legislation: call for evidence – part 2

National Assembly for Wales (2019) Park Homes in Wales: Research Briefing

National Association for Park Home Owners (2025) Park Home Advice

Park Home Owners Justice Campaign (2025) Park Home Owner JUSTICE campaign

Parliament (2012) Park Homes – Communities and Local Government Committee

Footnotes

1 Department for Levelling up, Housing & Communities (2022) The impact of a change in the maximum park home sale commission ↩

2 National Assembly for Wales (2019) Park Homes in Wales: Research Briefing ↩

3 Department for Levelling up, Housing & Communities (2022) The impact of a change in the maximum park home sale commission: executive summary ↩

4 Age UK (2015) Improving later life. Vulnerability and resilience in older people ↩

5 Department for Levelling up, Housing & Communities (2022) The impact of a change in the maximum park home sale commission ↩

6 Communities and Local Government Committee (2012) Supplementary written evidence from Consumer Focus ↩

7 Department for Levelling up, Housing & Communities (2022) The impact of a change in the maximum park home sale commission ↩

8 Department for Communities and Local Government (2012) Government Response to the House of Commons Communities and Local Government Committee’s First Report of Session 2012-13 ↩

9 Parliament (2012) Park Homes – Communities and Local Government Committee ↩

10 Chapter 2 of Part 1, Schedule 1 to the Mobile Homes Act 1983 ↩

11 Similar rules have applied in Wales since 01/10/2014 under section 28 of the Mobile Homes (Wales) Act 2013 ↩

12 Communities and Local Government Committee (2012) Written submission from the Park Homes Legislation Action Group Scotland (PHLAGS) ↩

13 Department for Communities and Local Government (2017) Review of Park Homes Legislation ↩

14 Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (2018) Review of park homes legislation: call for evidence – part 2 ↩