Open call for evidence

Park homes: reasons for commission payments

Published 5 March 2026

Applies to England

Overview

This call for evidence seeks to understand the rationale for the commission paid when a park home is sold, how the commission rate was set, and the role it plays within existing legislation and the sector’s business model.  

There has been considerable debate about the commission payment since it became a statutory requirement in 1975. Since then, debates and reviews have largely focused on the impact that changes to the commission rate could have on the sector. While this remains important, there remains a need for a consistent understanding of what the commission is charged for. To date, no clear or agreed rationale has been provided.

Through this call for evidence, the government is seeking additional information from the sector to help determine the future of the commission payment.

Geographical scope

This call for evidence only relates to England.

Body responsible for the call for evidence

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government

Duration 

This 12 week call for evidence will be open from 5 March 2026 to 29 May 2026.  

How to respond 

We welcome responses from all interested parties, in particular park home residents and site owners. You do not have to answer all the questions or answer a question if you do not hold a view or have any supporting evidence. 

You may respond by completing the online survey on Citizen Space.

You can also respond via email. If you choose to do so, visit the ‘Ways to respond’ section of this call for evidence and download a response form. Then email the completed form to parkhomes@communities.gov.uk.

Enquiries

For any enquiries about the call for evidence contact: parkhomes@communities.gov.uk

About you questions

Question 1

In which capacity are you completing these questions?

• park home resident
• on behalf of a national residents’ association
• on behalf of a Qualified Residents’ Association
• site owner (individual)
• site owner (organisation/company)
• trade body
• advisory body
• legal practitioner
• other (please specify)(free text)

Question 2

If ‘Other’, please specify.

Introduction

Park (mobile) homes provide housing for nearly 160,000 people in England. According to The impact of a change in the maximum park home sale commission report (2022), 80% of park home residents are aged over 65. The sector also plays an important part in supporting local communities and the manufacturing economy, with over 98% of residential park homes manufactured in the UK, according to the National Caravan Council. The government is committed to promoting transparency and fairness in the sector to ensure its long-term sustainability.

The history of the sector goes back to the period after the Second World War. To address post-war problems with housing, coupled with the growth of the domestic tourism sector, the government introduced the Town and Country Planning Act 1947. This Act aimed, in part, to curtail and control unwanted and unregulated building. Problems with mobile home sites being established in the wrong places or being insufficiently equipped for residents led to a detailed review of the sector and the enactment of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (the 1960 Act).

The 1960 Act, which introduced a system for licensing sites, was about land use and did not deal with the contractual relationship between a site owner and a caravan owner. With no legislation in place to regulate contractual relationships on residential sites, caravan owners faced significant challenges from evictions and a lack of security. The Caravan Sites Act 1968 was then passed and gave caravan owners some protections from illegal eviction and harassment. There was however recognition that more permanent and comprehensive legislation was required to address other concerns including security of tenure and the resale of caravans on sites. As an interim measure, the government supported the introduction of the Mobile Homes Act 1975 which made the payment of a commission a statutory requirement. Following discussions with the sector, the government set the maximum commission rate through secondary legislation, at 15% of the sale price of a home.

A more comprehensive piece of legislation, the Mobile Homes Act 1983 (the 1983 Act), was later introduced and passed. The 1983 Act required site owners to offer new statutory agreements to all mobile home residents and also maintained the requirement for residents to pay a commission on the sale of a home. Following consultation with the sector, the government reduced the maximum rate of commission from 15% to 10%. 

The payment of the commission has generated much debate over several decades. Park home residents see it as an unfair and unjustified charge which has a negative impact on their finances and mobility. Site operators argue that the commission is a vital part of their income and a substantial reduction in the commission rate would reduce total income, without reducing expenditure, thus threatening the financial viability of parks.

With the growth of the sector over the past 5 decades, the amount of commission paid could currently range from a few thousand pounds to tens of thousands for the most expensive homes.

We know there are different interests and concerns in this long running debate about the commission payment. The sector must however have the clarity and certainty it needs to enable both individuals and businesses to plan accordingly for their future. The key to achieving this is by ensuring that the relationship between site operators and park home residents, particularly in relation to payments and charges, is transparent and fair.

The government has undertaken a significant amount of work in recent years to increase transparency and fairness in the sector. This includes the introduction of  statutory processes for selling homes, making site rules and reviewing pitch fees. These measures have ensured that existing residents and prospective purchasers have the information they need at the outset of those processes to enable them to make informed decisions. We want to build on this work to also achieve greater fairness and transparency in relation to the commission payment.

The government carried out research to enable an assessment to be made on the impact on the sector of a change to the commission rate. The 2022 research report made 4 recommendations including that:

Work is needed to explore the rationale of the commission and to clarify this rationale for park owners and home owners. The current lack of a shared understanding in the purpose of the maximum commission leads to highly subjective arguments about the commission’s role and impact. A change to the commission would therefore currently be predicated upon the impacts of the commission rather than the commission’s justified role in the park home sector.

In September 2023, the government sought feedback from key stakeholders on the report’s recommendations, including clarification on the rationale for the commission. A summary of stakeholders responses is available.

The feedback received reinforced our views that there was no clarity or consensus within the sector on the rationale for the commission. Without this clarity, discussions would continue to be based on incorrect assumptions and lead to wrong conclusions. We want to give the sector a further opportunity to provide additional evidence to enable the government to consider what, if any, changes are needed to the payment of a commission, what the options are and how they would have an impact on the sector.

Establishing the rationale for the commission

To establish the rationale for the commission, we will first consider its relationship to a site operator’s other income streams and how they are calculated.   

Site operators’ income streams 

The 3 main income streams for site operators are from the sale of new homes, the pitch fee, and the commission from the sale of homes.  

In the development cycle of a park home site, a site operator will receive their first income stream when they sell a new park home when the park is first established (but new homes can also be sold at a later date after the site is established). 

The purchaser of the home will sign a written agreement under the rules of the Mobile Homes Act 1983. This will permit them to occupy a pitch on the site, for the same length of time as the site’s planning permission, except in certain limited cases. The  written agreement will set out the resident’s obligations which include  paying the site operator a pitch fee. The pitch fee, which is set by the site operator, will provide them with their second income stream for the duration of the agreement.  

If the park home resident later sells their home, the site operator will be entitled to a commission of up to 10% of the sale price. This will give the site operator their third income stream. 

Pricing  

According to the 2022 research report, 98% of site operators are a type of business entity. When calculating the unit price for goods and services, a business would be expected to take account of all their relevant costs and also add a margin of profit. In terms of the initial sale price of a home, a site operator would, for example, be expected to take account of factors such as, but not limited to, the cost price of the home, delivery and installation costs and their profit margin. Similarly, when setting the initial pitch fee , the site operator would be expected to take account of all relevant costs associated with the goods and services the pitch fee is paid for and add their profit margin.   

The Mobile Homes Act 1983 defines a pitch fee as:  

the amount which the occupier (resident) is required by the agreement to pay to the owner for the right to station the mobile home on the pitch and for use of the common areas of the protected site and their maintenance. 

The definition sets out what the pitch fee is intended for and provides  an indication of the costs a site operator may take into account when setting the initial pitch fee. For example, the pitch fee could reflect the cost of, but not limited to, granting the right to station a home on the pitch and maintenance and repair of the common areas of the  site. 

After the initial pitch fee is set and agreed, it can be increased through the annual pitch fee review process and usually by no more than the rate of inflation (CPI). The purpose of the review process is to ensure a site operator is able to recover increases during the year, to the costs included in the calculation of the pitch fee, as a result of inflation.    

In relation to the commission payment, there is a lack of clarity about what it is charged for which means we are unable to determine, in the same way, what goods and/or services should be taken into account when calculating the amount of commission to be paid by residents.

What commission is charged for

It is not entirely clear in which year the commission was first introduced to the sector, but anecdotal evidence suggests it was sometime before 1975 and was charged at between 20-30% of the profit made on the sale of a home. Following the introduction of the Mobile Homes Act 1975, the rate was set at 15% of the sale price of a home. There is a lack of evidence to explain how the rate was set at about 20-30 % prior to 1975, how the rate was later calculated to be 15% and its relationship to the sale price of a home.

We want to understand more about when the commission payment was introduced and what it was charged for before it was made a statutory requirement in 1975.

Question 3

What was the commission charged for prior to the introduction of the Mobile Homes Act 1975? (free text)

Question 4

Was the commission charged as a percentage of the profit made on the sale of a home or a percentage of the sale price of a home and what was the reason(s) for charging it on that basis? (free text)

Question 5

How was the commission rate calculated and set at around 20-30%? (free text)

Question 6

Were park home residents charged other fees in addition to the commission? If so, what were the charges for and how were they calculated? (free text)

We have heard a variety of reasons through previous engagement with the sector, on what the commission is charged for. They include that:

• “in essence, the pitch fee covers a site owner’s running costs and  the commission represents their profit”
• “it is a compensation payment to the park owner for the continued loss of the use of the land on which the home sites. In other words it is the price for security of tenure given to the park home resident”
• “it is a transfer fee on the private sale of a park home that recognises the value of the park home on the park with an agreement under the Mobile Homes Act 1983, maintains more affordable pitch fees, compensates the park owner for the use of their land and preserves park home owners’ security of tenure”
• “the commission payment is payable on the sale of a home and therefore site owners are able to offer lower on-going pitch fees to residents, with a one off payment being made to match an inflow of income for those residents at the point of sale”
• “an advance payment by the buyer to help the operator run a viable business which complies fully with its obligations to all homeowners whilst making a fair profit”

The above reasons suggest that the commission is for granting security of tenure, keeping pitch fees low, compensating site operators, helping site operators meet their obligations, a site operator’s profit, or a combination of these. The different reasons given highlights the lack of a shared understanding and why it must be clarified.

Commission as an advance payment to a site owner 

The commission has been said to be an advance payment by the buyer (not the seller) to help the site operator maintain a viable business and compensate them for the time they spend in the business. The commission is also said to be a transfer fee which, amongst others, recognises the value of the park home with a written agreement, on the park on which it is sited.  

We want to understand the factors that might affect the sale price of a home, how these are taken into account by the seller and the role of the buyer in the sale process. 

Question 7

What factors would a park home owner take into account when setting the sale price of their home and how would they value those factors? (free text)

Question 8

Commission is deducted from the sale price set and received by the seller. How would this be reconciled with the commission being an advance payment by the buyer?  (free text)

Question 9

If the commission is an advance payment by a buyer, should the buyer be made aware of the specific goods and services the payment represents, whether it is a part of full payment and when any outstanding amount will be due? Please provide reasons for your answer. (free text)

Question 10

What are the implications of receiving commission income at an undetermined point in the future on a site operator’s business planning or how they manage the park? Please expand on your answer.(free text)

Question 11

How is the value of a park home on a site calculated and how is this linked to the sale price of the home? (free text)

Commission as compensation for the site owner 

Since 1960, it has been a requirement for a person wishing to operate land as a caravan site to obtain the relevant planning permission. This requirement is primarily to determine what the land can be used for. If planning permission is granted for land to be used as a residential caravan site, the land will become a ‘protected site’.  A park home owner on that site will be entitled to a written agreement (under the Mobile Homes Act 1983) which will include terms which give them the right to station their home on the site and security of tenure. Those and other terms are implied into every such agreement and will apply equally to all park home residents irrespective of the site on which they live, the size of their home or how much they might sell their park home for. 

The commission is sometimes said to be compensation to the site owner for the loss of the use of the land to ensure security of tenure to a resident. When calculating that compensation amount, it would be fair to expect a site operator to take the cost of all relevant factors into account. We want to understand how a site operator would determine and calculate that compensation. 

Question 12

Having applied for and received planning permission to operate a residential caravan site, what reasons might there be for a site operator to claim ongoing compensation for a loss of use of the land? (free text)

Question 13

How would the commission, as compensation for granting a resident security of tenure, relate to the payment of a pitch fee which, as defined in the Mobile Homes Act 1983, gives a resident the right to station a home on a pitch for the duration of the agreement? (free text)

Question 14

Would the equal application of the implied terms to every agreement be taken into account when determining compensation paid by each resident, and if so, why? If not, please provide reasons. (free text)

Question 15

How is the monetary value for security of tenure or compensation calculated and linked to a percentage of the sale price of a home? (free text)

The mobile homes legislation and commission

Pitch fees  

A pitch fee is defined in the Mobile Homes Act 1983 as:

 the amount which the occupier is required by the agreement to pay to the owner for the right to station the mobile home on the pitch and for use of the common areas of the protected site and their maintenance, but does not include amounts due in respect of gas, electricity, water and sewerage or other services, unless the agreement expressly provides that the pitch fee includes such amounts.  

When a new home is sold, the site operator will set the pitch fee which the home owner will pay for the duration of the agreement. The pitch fee can be increased annually but, usually, by no more than the rate of inflation. The commission is sometimes said to ensure pitch fees remain at a lower ongoing rate for the duration of an agreement. We have also heard, somewhat in contradiction, that park operators are not public bodies and are not engaged in the provision of a statutory housing function. This could imply that park operators have no obligation to keep their pitch fees low.  

We want to understand what pitch fees are charged for by site owners and what costs or factors are taken into account in the calculation of the initial pitch fee. We also want to understand how the pitch fee is linked to a site owner’s ongoing maintenance costs and the future receipt of commission.  

Question 16

What is your understanding of what the pitch fee is for, as defined in the Mobile Homes Act 1983? (free text)

Question 17

What factors and costs would be taken into account when calculating an initial pitch fee and would future commission income be taken into account? (free text)

Question 18

What factors would be taken into account when deciding the level at which a ‘lower ongoing pitch fee’ would be set, how would it be calculated and would commission income be taken into account in the calculation? (free text)

Question 19

What would the rationale be for a park home business to keep initial pitch fees low if it has ongoing maintenance and repair costs and is seeking to make a profit? (free text)

We have heard that if the commission rate is reduced, site owners would have to recover any loss of income. They would, we are told, need to do this by increasing existing pitch fees to enable them to meet their maintenance or repair obligations which they had previously cross-subsidised using the commission. 

We want to understand why pitch fees should be increased if commission income is reduced.

Question 20

Taking into account responses to questions 17 and 18, if all relevant costs are taken into account when an initial pitch fee is calculated, what would the reason(s) be for pitch fees to be increased to offset a loss of commission income? (free text)

Question 21

If all relevant costs are not included in the calculation of the initial pitch fee, what would the reasons be for not doing so and how was it intended to recoup  those costs? (free text)

Question 22

If pitch fees are increased to offset a loss of commission income, how would that loss of income be assessed and verified to ensure residents are not charged for goods or services they may have already paid for? (free text)

Question 23

If the commission represents a site owner’s profit, what income and costs are taken into account to determine that profit and how is it calculated to be equivalent to a percentage of the future sale price of a home? (free text)

Question 24

Given a site owner will have ongoing maintenance costs, would the commission income offset expenditure already incurred or would it represent future expenditure? Please explain your answer. (free text)

Improvements

Under the Mobile Homes Act 1983, the cost of an improvement’ can be recovered in a pitch fee review. This holds true if the improvement is for the benefit of the occupiers of the site, there has been consultation with occupiers and the majority have not disagreed in writing to the improvements being carried out, or where the majority have disagreed, a tribunal has ordered that the costs can be included in the pitch fee.   

We have heard that many site owners choose not to charge for many discretionary improvements they undertake, through the pitch fee. We want to understand what types of improvements are made to parks, why they are not charged for and any interactions between the payment of commission and the consultation requirements, if improvement costs are to be included in the pitch fee.

Question 25

Do you have any examples of improvements being made to your site and if so, what were the improvements made? (free text)

Question 26

Were residents consulted before the improvements were made and what was the outcome of the consultation(s)? If residents were not consulted, why not? (free text)

Question 27

How does the use of commission for improvements to a park reconcile with the requirement to consult residents if the cost of improvements is to be recovered through the pitch fee? (free text)

Question 28

Improvements to a park would be expected to benefit all residents and the costs apportioned equally between them. If the commission payment is used for improvements, how can this be reconciled with the different amounts (based on the value of a home) paid by residents on the same park? (free text)

The sector’s business model

Government compensation for site owners   

The Mobile Homes Act 1983 made it a requirement for the Retail Price Index (RPI) to be used as the inflationary index in pitch fee reviews. In 2013, RPI lost its designation as a national statistic and was replaced as a measure of inflation by the use of consumer price indices. For the park homes sector, RPI continued to be used for another 10 years in pitch fee reviews. This ended when the Mobile Homes (Pitch Fees) Act 2023 changed the pitch fee review inflationary index to the Consumer Price Index (CPI). We have heard that the change to CPI has had an adverse impact on site owners. 

We have also heard that there are no other options for site owners to generate additional income apart from increasing pitch fees or receiving direct financial compensation from the government through, for example, loans or a reduction in business rates and/ or tax allowances. If the government does not pay compensation or permit pitch fees to be increased, site owners have said that they would likely need to reduce their maintenance and repair costs, services, facilities or staffing. They could also change their operating model and the function of parks, by introducing, for example, rental tenures and removing minimum age requirements.  

As set out earlier, when pricing goods and services, businesses would be expected to take account of all their relevant costs. We want to understand whether site owners routinely do so, whether they should receive compensation from the government if the commission income is reduced and whether they would change their existing business model to offset any reduction in income.

Question 29

Do site owners take all their relevant costs into account when setting initial pitch fees and prices of new homes? If so, what exceptional reasons would there be for the government to provide site operators with financial support if commission income is reduced? (free text)

Question 30

If the government should provide compensation to site operators, what factors should be taken into account and how should the compensation support package be calculated? (free text)

Question 31

If pitch fees are not permitted to be increased or compensation paid, should site owners consider changing their existing business models if doing so would reduce their costs or generate additional revenue, and if so, how? If not, why not? (free text)

Sale of new homes

We have been told that the Mobile Homes Act 1983 affords a resident unlimited security of tenure which does not give a site owner a right to recover possession. Site owners are therefore unable to generate additional income to meet ongoing obligations and make a profit. This, we understand, poses a particular challenge for most park home sites as they are fully developed parks and would have made decisions based on the current legislative framework. If changes are made to the payment of commission, fully developed sites would become unviable and may have to be sold and in some instances to rogue operators.  

A business that is planning to operate a residential caravan site would, under the existing legislative framework, have to apply for planning permission and if granted, the site would become a ‘protected site’. Anyone who bought a home on the site to use as their main residence, would be entitled to a written agreement (under the Mobile Homes Act 1983), which would give them security of tenure for the duration of the agreement. The site owner would earn income from the sale of other new homes and the initial pitch fees they charge. When all pitches on the site become occupied, the site owner will rely on the commission from the sale of homes by residents, which could occur regularly or after a considerable number of years.

Industry data seems to indicate that, between 2000 and 2025, an average of approximately 1800 new park homes were shipped to residential sites each year. The data does not include the cost prices, but Other publicly available data provides some details of a manufacturer’s price list. We do not have any information on what the homes were specifically ordered and shipped for, but it is possible that some could have been used to replace old homes on fully developed sites.

It would be fair to expect businesses to take all their relevant costs plus a level of profit into account, when setting the price and initial pitch fees of those new homes. Doing so would likely increase their ability to meet their obligations and remain viable.

We want to understand the sector’s income generating opportunities and whether its pricing and business models enable it to meet its obligations effectively.

Question 32

Would new homes be purchased directly from manufacturers by a site owner or the consumer and who would be responsible, in either case, for the delivery and installation of the home on the pitch? (free text)

Question 33

What is the average total cost of siting a home, the average selling price of homes and the average profit per sale (by type where possible)? (free text)

Question 34

In setting sale prices for new or second-hand homes and initial pitch fees, would all relevant associated costs be taken into account and a level of profit included, to enable the site operator to meet their obligations? (free text)

Question 35

If all relevant costs are taken into account when setting prices of new homes and initial pitch fees, what costs would the commission payment represent? (free text)

Question 36

How would site owners, particularly those with fully developed sites, fund any repair and maintenance obligations in the short term, if no commission income is received for a significant period of time? (free text)

We have heard from a site owner that park home operators are prohibited from purchasing park homes from residents except if they are paying a fair market price. There may also be times when a quick sale at below market price may be in the best interest of the park home owner. We have also heard that a significant proportion of park home re-sales are carried out by beneficiaries of a resident’s estate, rather than the original purchaser.

These could suggest that site owners may have opportunities to purchase second hand homes from residents or their beneficiaries if both parties agree to the sale and a price. We want to better understand how the purchase of second-hand homes by site operators from residents or their beneficiaries, contributes to their income streams and enables them to meet their obligations.

Question 37

Are you aware of site operators purchasing homes from residents or beneficiaries of a resident’s estate? Please provide examples or evidence. (free text)

Question 38

What options would a site operator have to generate additional income from a home purchased from a resident or a beneficiary? (free text)

Question 39

If a business had no options to raise additional income, would it consider streamlining its operations to reduce its costs and, if so, how would this be achieved? If not, what would the reasons be? (free text)

About this call for evidence

This call for evidence document and call for evidence process have been planned to adhere to the Consultation Principles issued by the Cabinet Office.

Information provided in response to this call for evidence may be published or disclosed in accordance with the access to information regimes (these are primarily the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 and UK data protection legislation. In certain circumstances this may therefore include personal data when required by law.

If you want the information that you provide to be treated as confidential, please be aware that, as a public authority, the Department is bound by the information access regimes and may therefore be obliged to disclose all or some of the information you provide. In view of this it would be helpful if you could explain to us why you regard the information you have provided as confidential. If we receive a request for disclosure of the information we will take full account of your explanation, but we cannot give an assurance that confidentiality can be maintained in all circumstances. An automatic confidentiality disclaimer generated by your IT system will not, of itself, be regarded as binding on the Department.

Are you satisfied that this call for evidence has followed the Consultation Principles?  If not or you have any other observations about how we can improve the process please contact us via the complaints procedure.

Personal data

The following is to explain your rights and give you the information you are  entitled to under UK data protection legislation.

Note that this section only refers to personal data (your name, contact details and any other information that relates to you or another identified or identifiable individual personally) not the content otherwise of your response to the consultation.

1. The identity of the data controller and contact details of our Data Protection Officer    

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) is the data controller. The Data Protection Officer can be contacted at dataprotection@communities.gov.uk or by writing to the following address:

Data Protection Officer,
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government,
Fry Building,
2 Marsham Street,
London
SW1P 4DF

2. Why we are collecting your personal data  

Your personal data is being collected as an essential part of the consultation process, so that we can contact you regarding your response and for statistical purposes. We may also use it to contact you about related matters.

We will collect your IP address if you complete a consultation online. We may use this to ensure that each person only completes a survey once. We will not use this data for any other purpose.

Sensitive types of personal data

Please do not share special category personal data or criminal offence data  if we have not asked for this unless absolutely necessary for the purposes of your consultation response. By ‘special category personal data’, we mean information about a living individual’s:

• race
• ethnic origin
• political opinions
• religious or philosophical beliefs
• trade union membership
• genetics
• biometrics 
• health (including disability-related information)
• sex life
• sexual orientation

By ‘criminal offence data’, we mean information relating to a living individual’s criminal convictions or offences or related security measures.

3. Our legal basis for processing your personal data

The collection of your personal data is lawful under article 6(1)(e) of the UK General Data Protection Regulation as it is necessary for the performance by MHCLG of a task in the public interest/in the exercise of official authority vested in the data controller.  Section 8(d) of the Data Protection Act 2018 states that this will include processing of personal data that is necessary for the exercise of a function of the Crown, a Minister of the Crown or a government department i.e. in this case a consultation.

Where necessary for the purposes of this consultation, our lawful basis for the processing of any special category personal data or ‘criminal offence’ data (terms explained under ‘Sensitive Types of Data’) which you submit in response to this consultation is as follows. The relevant lawful basis for the processing of special category personal data is Article 9(2)(g) UK GDPR (‘substantial public interest’), and Schedule 1 paragraph 6 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (‘statutory etc and government purposes’). The relevant lawful basis in relation to personal data relating to criminal convictions and offences data is likewise provided by Schedule 1 paragraph 6 of the Data Protection Act 2018.

4. With whom we will be sharing your personal data

MHCLG may appoint a ‘data processor’, acting on behalf of the Department and under our instruction, to help analyse the responses to this consultation.  Where we do we will ensure that the processing of your personal data remains in strict accordance with the requirements of the data protection legislation.

5. For how long we will keep your personal data, or criteria used to determine the retention period.

Your personal data will be held for 2 years from the closure of the consultation, unless we identify that its continued retention is unnecessary before that point.

6. Your rights, e.g. access, rectification, restriction, objection

The data we are collecting is your personal data, and you have considerable say over what happens to it. You have the right:

a. to see what data we have about you

b. to ask us to stop using your data, but keep it on record

c. to ask to have your data corrected if it is incorrect or incomplete

d. to object to our use of your personal data in certain circumstances

e. to lodge a complaint with the independent Information Commissioner (ICO) if you think we are not handling your data fairly or in accordance with the law.  You can contact the ICO at https://ico.org.uk/, or telephone 0303 123 1113.

Please contact us at the following address if you wish to exercise the rights listed above, except the right to lodge a complaint with the ICO: dataprotection@communities.gov.uk or write to:

Knowledge and Information Access Team,
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government,
Fry Building,
2 Marsham Street,
London
SW1P 4DF

7. Your personal data will not be sent overseas.

8. Your personal data will not be used for any automated decision making.

9. Your personal data will be stored in a secure government IT system.

We use a third-party system, Citizen Space, to collect consultation responses. In the first instance your personal data will be stored on their secure UK-based server. Your personal data will be transferred to our secure government IT system as soon as possible, and it will be stored there for 2 years before it is deleted.