In the middle of a heatwave a chalet park has been left high and dry after the landlord turns off the taps
Get daily updates directly to your inbox + Subscribe See our privacy notice Thank you for subscribing! Could not subscribe, try again later Invalid Email
Spare a thought in this blistering heat for a group of chalet owners who have had their water supply cut off by the owner of the land where they’re sited.
He’s barred the vehicle gate too, so the owners have to trudge to the nearest village and carry back bottled water for drinking and washing.
The locked gate also means that there’s no access for the emergency services.
The dispute at the site at Claverley, Shropshire, began after a company called Sought After Location Limited bought the land and an adjacent caravan park.
The chalet owners claim that they’re being strong-armed into leaving by company director William Flannigan, 28.
Brian and Carrianne Byrne renovated their chalet after buying it last year. “He wants us to sign a holiday site licence, which he could revoke at any time and force us out,” Brian said.
Carrianne added: “We have to climb over the stile when we bring back bottled water.
“We use rain water to fill the toilet cistern. We can’t really shower.”
The pair spent £25,000 sprucing up their chalet with a new bathroom, kitchen and carpets. “It’s really nice but we can’t move it, it would fall apart if we tried,” said Carrianne.
(Image: Daily Mirror)
Another couple, June and David Northcote, bought their chalet in 2000 and say that they were promised a 99-year lease by the previous land owner.
“William Flannigan visited me and promised the same lease, shook my hand and promised to put details in writing, but never did,” says June.
“They’ve told us to sign the new licence or take our bungalows away. We cannot move them, they are permanent structures with planning permission.”
She added that there had been no site maintenance this year and now the dry overgrown grass was "a fire waiting to happen so close to the wooden bungalows."
(Image: Daily Mirror)
Another owner, Jo Finzi, bought her chalet 10 years ago and says: “Mr Flannigan promised me an offer for my chalet but never confirmed any price other than saying ‘It won’t be what you paid for it’.”
William Flannigan responded through his lawyer Lewis Griffiths of Excello Law, who says that the owners have no legal right to remain.
“They are not residents, they never have been, they never will be and they have never lived permanently on the park,” he said.
“Mr Northcote in particular keeps blarting on about ‘I was promised this, I was promised that’, well, you can’t sue on a promise.
“If I say I’ll clean your car and then don’t do it, you can’t sue me.
“The chalet part of the site does have planning permission for permanent residential use, but that’s nothing to do with the people who own the chalets and everything to do with the person who owns the land, which is now my client.”
Griffiths says the owners only have themselves to blame for not taking legal advice when buying the properties.
“Why would you spend a load of money on something without securing your position. Did you not speak to your solicitor?” he demanded.
“They just don’t seem to grasp the fact that they’ve got no security of tenure.”
Meanwhile, he says, the water is staying off until the new site licences are signed.
“They are not in a position to negotiate,” Griffiths adds.
“You’ve got to have something setting out the legal basis between the landowner and the person occupying the land. They don’t seem to grasp that.
“It may have been that the previous owner was a bit laissez-faire and didn’t renew the licences every year but I don’t care about that and neither does my client. We own the land now and not the previous owner.”
William Flannigan's father, William Flannigan senior, last year stood trial for fraud after residents at Lakeminster Park in East Yorkshire claimed they'd been duped into buying chalets as permanent homes when they were only had planning permission for holiday use.
The trial at Hull crown court was halted when the judge ruled there was insufficient evidence.