Regency's new rules

As many of you will know, Regency recently carried out a consultation on their proposed new site rules.

One proposal, caused very real concern: the plan to scrap Dunton’s long‑standing no‑pets policy and replace it with a rule allowing each household to keep up to two pets. The reaction from residents was immediate and overwhelming. Many people chose Dunton precisely because it was a pet‑free site, and the strength of opposition reflected that.

Despite this, Regency has confirmed that they intend to press ahead with introducing the rule. Understandably, residents are furious. It is clear that this decision has just stuck two fingers up at residents just for commercial gain, giving the company greater freedom to market and sell homes which is not a valid reason for introducing a rule. Their attempt to present this as anything else has been deeply insulting, and the way this has been handled will not be forgotten.

Individual residents have the right to challenge any new rule at the First‑tier Tribunal within 21 days. Because Regency only consulated individual residents rather than the Residents’ Association, any appeals must be submitted by individuals.

Gary and I will be challenging the pets rule in our personal capacities. So, if your only concern relates to the pets rule, you will not need to submit your own tribunal application.

Please be aware that the fee to appeal a rule is £119, and a rule can only be challenged if it is unlawful or unreasonable. In our view, only a small number of the proposed rules are likely to meet that threshold, as most are standard across park home sites. We do not want to raise expectations that large numbers of rules could be struck out.

Given the short timescale and the potential volume of applications, it is unfortunately not practical for us to assist residents individually with completing tribunal forms. Our workload is already extremely heavy due to ongoing site issues. However, we are happy to offer general guidance to anyone considering an appeal and can give an honest view on whether a challenge is likely to succeed or whether it may not be the best use of your money.

We know that residents raised concerns about a wide range of the proposed rules. While some may have arguable grounds, the tribunal is likely to consider most of them reasonable. The proposed pets rule, however, attracted such an exceptional level of objection that it will be difficult for the tribunal to ignore. Furthermore, the Upper Tribunal in White v Simpson confirmed that the 2014 Regulations do not allow site owners to use the site rules process to change the essential nature of the park, which this would do.