What's the deal with residential park homes??????

[A9SheryRan]

My mum is 60 next year and is currently going through a messy divorce. She is having to sell her home in the process and will have to downsize.

She won't come out of the divorce with a lot of money and doesn't want a mortgage/loan in her retirement. She's currently looking for properties now and her only asks are that she has a garden (she LOVES gardening).

We've seen some residential park homes which are within her budget in some decent areas but what are they like?
She's young at heart and always spends time with the grand-kids. After she's settled she wants a pet too.

Are residential park homes a good route to go down? Anyone live in or know anyone who lives in them? What are the pros and cons for someone like her?

You should also point out that in most holiday parks, the site owner gets first refusal on the sale. They then take a large percentage if you do decide to sell privately.

These park home caravans are for sale on a site in a village near me. What I don't understand is they are priced a lot higher than a new one, but you don't buy the land they're parked on and pay a site rent.

Friends of ours love theirs.They have even extended to create another room

So?

Definitely check these costs and the depreciation.

I rented one in my late 20s/early 30s. It wasn't on a park site but had come from one. It could be cold and expensive to heat, which is not an issue when you are young and fit and only sleeping there really, but less fun when you are elderly and home a lot more. I was glad to get bricks and mortar back eventually.

My FIL lived in a year round one until he died. He coped. However, he never really had mobility issues. They are not level with ground so there are steps to climb. That said a neighbour who lived in a first floor flat moved to one in her mid sixties as she needed a knee operation and thought it would be easier to manage.

Being on a park site can give you a good community too, which can be a plus in retirement.

If your mum can avoid it, it is probably better though.

My mum has lived in a park home for about 20 years. Her park is all year round. She pays a monthly ground rent and costs for LPG to the owners. No pets (unless new people already have), no other rules really. Mostly retired people in their 50s and up.

Hers has actually appreciated in value. It’s in very good condition. You have to paint every 2 years and keep it warm otherwise it falls apart and gets damp. Heating can be quite expensive even though they are quite small.

She has a small but private garden. Lives on a corner plot on the edge of 2 fields so in a great position.

Downside is that the park owner needs to approve new owners and takes 10% of any future resale. You are also dependent on the owners to keep the infrastructure maintained. Roads, steps outside etc.

They had a good supportive MP and took legal action against the park owners at one point and this one is much better than most!

It’s difficult to find contractors to replace showers or
do repairs etc.

Most are too narrow to use a wheelchair inside or to get it easily through the front door. A possible consideration for older people.

Otherwise it allows people to live in comfortable conditions, in a potentially nicer area. Some have social facilities, this one doesn’t but people do help each other out and are a community.

Going on the experience of someone I know, it wasn't a good time for her. She was on a 50+ park, but all the other residents were older by about 15-20 years. She found it very cliquey and expensive with ground rent and other costs. However, maybe because she lived in a very expensive town, she did get more than she paid for it. It took a while to sell though.
Shared ownership has been mentioned as an alternative - my friend did this instead, and her only income is state benefits. She was still able to get a mortgage. It could be better for your mother, but she does need good legal and financial advice whatever she decides to do.
Retirement social housing (the ones I've visited anyway) are very small; your mother may or may not qualify depending on her financial situation.

Yeah. The clue's in the name.

Someone may already of said, so apologies if it’s a repeat. I have a relative that lives one one. They depreciate in value. If you ever sell and want to move on you have to pay the land owners a hefty percentage of sale. My relative wanted to leave as lack of public transport and it’s getting harder for her to drive as she is aging. She now can’t afford to move. The land it’s on is tiny, they are all very close to each other.

Watch out for fixed term leasehold for the pitch, restrictions on occupancy as often you cannot live there full time, annual site fees which can rise.

You own the chalet but not the land on which it sits. This leaves you at risk of unscrupulous owners who can hike up fees, or ban you from selling the home to anyone but them, at a vastly reduced rate. They can also hold to ransom on sewage removal and some utilities.
Of course there are probably some decently run park home sites. But in reality I'd say I'd be wary due to the vulnerable nature of the ownership.

There are some residential sites which are open all year
But they often have site fees almost equal the service charge at a retirement flat complex (where you'd get a warden, alarm system and often water and heating including, MIL does)
Also, sometimes silly clauses in the lease about the park homes only being 20 years old (you'd have to buy a new one after 20 years)
They are often in fairly rural areas so no walk to the corner shop although the management often arrange a shuttle bus to the nearest supermarket.
Some of them aren't that well insulated which has implications for heating bills. And if you have gas it's likely to be the huge propane canisters which need replacing at some point.
On the plus, there is often a good sense of community, and the peace of living in the countryside.

What about a sheltered scheme flat. Although they also have monthly service charges, they're usually not costly to buy and they wont depreciate as much as a park home. They usually have nice communal gardens you can potter about in.

My aunt lived in one full time for 40 years until she passed away. There was an age clause, no one under 55 and no children but obviously children could stay over with grandparents/aunts/uncles etc for a holiday Re pets, if you had one when you moved onto the site, you could keep it but not replace it when it died and you couldn't just get a pet if you already lived on the site.
The homes obviously belonged to the owners but you had to pay ground rent to the site owner.
The only gas you could have was calor gas which was very expensive. Most residents were friendly .
My aunt was generally really happy there, but when the site changed hands and the new owner wanted only new flash shiny mobile homes and i think my aunts 40 year old mobile home which was in a prime position didn't meet his standards. He met her several times with various suggestions of how it would be better for her if she moved from her prime central location to the back of the park. We had a blunt straight talking word with him and he left her alone after that. Overall it was a good appropriate place for her to live.

A lot of these schemes are based on residents having an award of attendance allowance or other disability benefit - and the monthly service charges can take up the whole of the award - around £400 a month, as well as ground rent. A friend moved into one complex offered by a very well known vendor. They had to move into full time care and the family are having a nightmare trying to sell the flat - made even more difficult by the generous chunk that the vendor is entitled to once the flat is sold. Just as with residential parks, the devil is always in the detail.

@Rosscameasdoody, there are definitely pitfalls but my mothers and my mother in laws sheltered flats didn't and don't have horrendous service charges although they are around £150 - £200 a month to pay for communal maintenance. These are not from the well known big providers with expensive properties and add ons.

No issues selling either, several bids for mil flat as it was very cheap for the area.

Never heard of anyone in a sheltered scheme having to have an attendance allowance or benefit award either. These are flats that you buy.

Yeah, always pays to think who is getting rich off your living situation. Retirement flats and park homes just seem like disasters to me although of course there will be the odd outlier.

I’d agree that social housing is a much more realistic and attractive prospect after retirement age (than for working age people where it is basically no longer available).

60+ social housing is generally habitable, of a good standard, maintenance is taken care of, it’s generally spacious, and usually has a decent thought-through location near services and transport.

think who is getting rich off your living situation
Isnt it awful how the leeches gather round the vulnerable😡
Ultimately of course we need legislation/regulation.

Yes they can do. My husband had a flat and it had a clause in the lease which gave the freeholder a right of veto about who he sold it to.

It also had a clause prohibiting sub-letting outright.

When I had a flat it was different - it was share of freehold, and I could have sub-let.

it depends on the lease and the flat.

My grandparents live in one in the North West, its lovely. Children are allowed to visit and stay over. They are allowed to live there throughout the year, don't need to vacate at all. Pets weren't allowed, but I think more recently there is a cat or two. Neighbours all seem friendly, it's very we'll maintained, people really take pride in their gardens etc. They have a big garden in front, behind and either side of their house and a parking space directly outside also. They have build a shed, a veranda etc.

Let me know if you have anymore specific questions x

@MrsSlocombesCat yes, if its a caravan park. You don't need to with a residential park, I've literally just enquired for my parents. They are leasehold properties, you can live in the all year round.

It doesn't matter how lovely they are.
It's critical that people see past that and see how the minimal legal protection means that they could end up in an incredibly precarious position.