Agenda item

(1)       At the meeting of the Advisory Board held on 2 September 2008, Members received a report regarding the passing into law of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008.  This Act will make most or all of the provisions of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 apply, for the first time to agreements between Councils and Gypsies and Travellers who live on Traveller Sites run by those Councils.

(2)       During the course of discussion, Members of the Advisory Board raised a number of issues particularly around the arrangements for succession to plot agreements.  Mr Forrester said that up to now there had been no rules for Council run Traveller Sites on who should succeed to a plot on the death of the licensee.  The Consultation did not ask questions about the Mobile Homes Act succession arrangements, but there are some important points that needed to be clarified.  These included the list of people who could succeed to the plot which included a “spouse” or “civil partner”, but there are many couples in the Romany Gypsy and other Traveller communities who are not legally married, but who were married as far as their community is concerned.  It was important therefore, that they are able to succeed to the Plot Agreement.  On the death of someone from the Romany Gypsy community, it is the custom that their caravan and belongings are burned.  Should this be the main living caravan, then it was important that the survivor who takes over the pitch can live in a new caravan on that pitch.  Mr Forrester said that a question asked in the consultation document was whether if there is no-one to succeed to the plot, the pitch agreement can be inherited by the person entitled under the deceased licensee’s estate.  This would be either under a will, or under the rules for intestacy, if there was no valid will.  One difficulty was that the person entitled to inherit may or may not be eligible to, or wish to, live on the site themselves and they may well have perfectly good accommodation elsewhere.  A second difficulty was that there could be delays during probate and during this period a vacant plot would need to be protected, until the issue was resolved.  This could also result in the loss of income to the landlord council.

(3)       Following further discussion, the Advisory Board recommended that the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Services be advised that:-

(a)       to oppose assignment of plots on publicly run Traveller Sites being permitted by law, recognising that such assignment could be introduced locally, by site or area, if circumstances made that desirable;

(b)       to support the succession to plots on death, but not allowing pitch agreements to be inherited under the wills or the intestacy, of existing licensees or those with pitch agreements in the future;

(c)        to support the proposal for the introduction of new pitch agreements across all council-run Traveller sites in England as follows:-

            “Authorities should have to make new plot agreements by a set deadline; if they do not, then the new applied terms would be added in on that date.”

(d)       to make the additional comments on the consultation as detailed in the report; and

(e)       to support circulation of the KCC response to other councils in Kent, in time for them to support it or use if for a response before 19 December 2008 deadline.