Pay 10% Of Sale Price Rip Off When You Sell Yor Home

Running_Horse

symikins wrote: »

historically, park homes are usually for the retired eg 65+ who will usually made the move as their final one in their lifetime.

My wife's parents looked into this a while back in order to free up capital for their children. Luckily all four children told them not to be so silly, and to live their retirement in comfort.

dolce_vita

As I said in post #2 of this thread (I was the first to reply) the people who owns these parks tend to be crooks and gangsters.

I have been involved in property for over 20 years and in that time I have done everything - Buying as an FTB, setting up a family home, buying for investment, flipping, BMV, BTL and any other thing you can think of.

I have also come across many opportunities to get involved with this "park home" game. And so have many people I know.
I don't mean as a buyer of one of the "units" ; I mean as a buyer of the site.

And every single time, when it comes down to the final deal, the people I have met have been either crooks or gangsters.

*Louise*

I knew about the 10% going to the site if you sold - my mum owned a static caravan on a site for 15 years

What I didn't know was that they can get rid of you whenever they want and you can lose everything..:mad:

My mum bought her second static home in '95 for £15,000. Paid the fees every year and her van was in excellent condition.

Last year, the site owner told her they were putting new models on her road, and her van was getting scrapped. She could either buy a second hand van (£7,500, stinking of smoke) or they would buy her van from her. They offered her £300 :mad: :mad: :mad:

She was, and still is, gutted, but there was nothing she could do. She couldn't even sell her perfectly good van to someone else as it was in the contract that she could only sell to the site (that didn't matter to her when she bought as she had planned on always having it)

You live and learn, eh.

macaque_2

Running Horse, Rubbish. Everyone has choice. It is patronising to suggest poorer people should not be expected to understand terms and conditions on a contract. Most poor people are not forced into park homes.

It would have been patronsing if I has said as much but I didn't. Show me the bit where I suggested that poor people could not understand terms and conditions. Perhaps you should get someone to check your replies before you post them.

I have no problem with any of these taxes and professional fees. We moved recently and spent thousands on such things. Nobody works for free, and we all use government services paid for by taxation.

Pliable and happy to pay bills without question. A lawyer's dream client.

Running_Horse

macaque wrote: »

Pliable and happy to pay bills without question. A lawyer's dream client.

Feel free to post up a list of lawyers who will work for nothing. Would you?

clutton_2

we're talking about caravans and macaque says

""Doubtless they would be vehemently defending slavery providing it was legal (and they weren't slaves)""


now for me - THATs the dumbest comment on this website ..........

macaque_2

clutton wrote: »

we're talking about caravans and macaque says

""Doubtless they would be vehemently defending slavery providing it was legal (and they weren't slaves)""

now for me - THATs the dumbest comment on this website ..........

You are getting steamed up on this and another post. Calm down.
I maintain that the terms being imposed on people living in Park Homes are grossly unfair. Pastures New defended this practice as follows:

There's nothing illegal that's gone on.

As unpalatable as you may find it, slavery used to be legal and was condoned by a significant number of people. Today no reasonable person condones it and it is illegal. If you go back to the time of slavery however you would have found both supporters and objectors. It is inevitable that the supporters of slavery would have said "we are doing nothing illegal". It always concerns me when people's yardstick for what is right and wrong is purely based on what is legal or illegal.

neverdespairgirl

Running_Horse wrote: »

Feel free to post up a list of lawyers who will work for nothing. Would you?

I spend about 1/3rd of my time working for free. OH spends about a 1/4 of his similarly working for free. We are both barristers. There is a lot of pro bono work done at the Bar!

PasturesNew

macaque wrote: »

As unpalatable as you may find it, slavery used to be legal and was condoned by a significant number of people. Today no reasonable person condones it and it is illegal. If you go back to the time of slavery however you would have found both supporters and objectors. It is inevitable that the supporters of slavery would have said "we are doing nothing illegal". It always concerns me when people's yardstick for what is right and wrong is purely based on what is legal or illegal.

An odd choice for comparison.

In slavery the slaves had no part of the deal.

In mobile home parks a willing buyer buys from a willing seller.
A willing park owner makes available their park to the willing buyer.
A legal agreement. set out in law, is signed. The agreement is then adhered to.
Job done.

How you can twist legal park home agreements into the whole issue of slavery is beyond me.

Running_Horse

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

I spend about 1/3rd of my time working for free. OH spends about a 1/4 of his similarly working for free. We are both barristers. There is a lot of pro bono work done at the Bar!

In the context of housing? I'll call on you next time we move. If you can afford to donate that much time free, then the legal gravy train is worse than I previously thought.