"ILLEGAL TO LIVE IN AN RV FULL TIME" A new HUD proposal on the horizon

The friendliest place on the web for anyone with an RV or an interest in RVing!
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

SargeW

Site Team
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Posts
8,515
Location
Where ever we park it!
That's about the size of it. The DW came in tonight and informed me that HUD, (Housing and Urban Development)  a Federal department is trying to push through legislation that would make it illegal to live in an RV on a full time basis. 

This is based on the fact that RV's are designed for "recreational use" only, and therefore do not meet HUD safety standards for a permanent dwelling.  DW went to the HUD site and located the information, which is of course filled with lots of legalese.  Apparently the Escapee's are already prepping for a fight. 

It's not clear yet how this would be enforced, or what the definition of full time is.  One avenue could be that they could make it so insurers couldn't sell insurance policies to anyone that is full time. 

I hope RVIA and every other RV related group gets involved in this issue.  I smell a fight coming on.......
 
Relax, Sarge...


http://rvdailyreport.com/industry/why-huds-proposed-rule-redefining-rvs-is-critical/

http://rvdailyreport.com/industry/fore-clarifies-reasons-behind-hud-rv-definition/

http://rvdailyreport.com/industry/escapees-supports-hud-rv-definition-with-exceptions/
 
Great info Boomer. Fast too! While the articles provide significant relief in what an RV can be used for, there is still a thread there if HUD ever wanted to extend their responsibility, but I do agree that it is doubtful they would want to do so.

The letter from the Escapees covers it nicely, suggesting that the language be changed to protect that from happening.  At this point it seems that the proposed rule would apply to modular built trailers, and not to motorized RV's at all. 

We will have to keep an eye on this to see if anything else develops.  Thanks for your input!
 
I too agree this is a bad law.. In fact many RV's are built better than many houses.

But there is a work around.. Spend one night a year in hotel or motel, that way you are not living "Full time" in the RV.
 
I don't think this has any impact on most consumers and I didn't take it as trying to prohibit full timers. I believe it has more to do with jurisdiction and in this case, keeping park models under the jurisdiction of NHTSA vs HUD. That's a good thing for the industry as a whole.

They seem to be focusing on 12' wide park models > 400 sq ft.
From RVIA Park Model RVs:
What a Park Model RV is Not:
Although the distinctive appearance of park model RVs may sometimes lead people to think they look like small
manufactured homes, appearances can be deceiving. PMRVs are actually titled and registered just like any other RV. Due
to their design, small size and use as recreation, vacation and seasonal units, PMRVs are explicitly excluded from being
considered or used as a manufactured home under the codes and regulations of the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) specifically because they are a type of recreation vehicle (Title 24 ? 3282.8(g)).

What I'm reading is really just that they will continue to be exempt, but the ones approaching "mobile home" designs need to state that they're for recreational use. I don't think that's a bad idea.

The only thing I can see this truly prohibiting is somebody trying to replace a house or mobile home with a park model trailer. In other words, you won't be able to set one up on property and sell it as a residency. That seems pretty logical to me.

 
The sky is not falling! The HUD proposed changes just clarify what is an RV and what is manufactured housing. There is not now, nor will there be in the new wording, anything that prevents an RV from being used for full time living. RV's have ALWAYS been intended for recreational use, as indicated by the very name. By specifying the construction code differences, there can be no mistake about which is which, and the ANSI standard mentioned in the rules for RV designation was written by the RVIA. Larger TT's and even park model manufacturers will know exactly what they need to do to maintain their "RV" designation instead of dealing with the current grey areas in the rules. The bottom line is that HUD does not want to regulate TT's, because enforcement would be a huge burden on their resources. If the Escapees suggestions are incorporated in the rules, the clarity will be even better.
 
I think a lot of this is being driven by those "Tiny Houses" that you see on HGTV and A&E, and all over the TV channels. They are clearly not RVs, but they're not truly manufactured houses either. Just where would they fall in code application? You've got some local contractor stick building a house on the back of a utility trailer, just what is that? What codes does he follow? Does he follow any codes? Who inspects it? I watch these programs and scream at my TV, just buy an RV!

One other point, I just bought a new motorhome, the owners manual I received with it applies to all Thor Motorcoaches, and couldn't be more clear. If you full time in 1 of their coaches, it will void the warranty.
 
sadixon49 said:
I think a lot of this is being driven by those "Tiny Houses" that you see on HGTV and A&E, and all over the TV channels. They are clearly not RVs, but they're not truly manufactured houses either. Just where would they fall in code application?
The title is still just on the trailer chassis. From there, it'll depend on the state with NHTSA/DOT having ultimate jurisdiction.

In my state, we have annual trailer safety inspections / stickers. In this case, the inspector will make sure that the new design conforms to all of the requirements for any vehicle which includes, lights, brakes, tires, structure, glass, etc. The concept of "safe" is at the discretion of the inspector, so if he/she feels that there's anything about the design that is not road worthy, then it fails.
 
  There's a bit of discussion of Tiny House people running into exactly that problem; municipal codes prohibit them because they're too small and don't meet HUD standards and they're prohibited in many RV parks because they're not certified the way RVs and manufactured Park Models are. People find there's no place to put their shiny new Tiny Houses.
 
NickB said:
The title is still just on the trailer chassis. From there, it'll depend on the state with NHTSA/DOT having ultimate jurisdiction.

In my state, we have annual trailer safety inspections / stickers. In this case, the inspector will make sure that the new design conforms to all of the requirements for any vehicle which includes, lights, brakes, tires, structure, glass, etc. The concept of "safe" is at the discretion of the inspector, so if he/she feels that there's anything about the design that is not road worthy, then it fails.

Road worthy is 1 thing, what about plumbing codes? electrical? structure? There are many code questions these units present. Are they RVs? Are they Houses? Are they Manufactured houses? Each of those units have specific and different code requirements. I wonder where these units fall. RVs get excepted from many building codes because, as this entire thread is about, they are not intended for full time living, despite many people using them for just that purpose. These tiny houses however, are being designed and built to be someone's full time home.
 
sadixon49 said:
Road worthy is 1 thing, what about plumbing codes? electrical? structure? There are many code questions these units present. Are they RVs? Are they Houses? Are they Manufactured houses? Each of those units have specific and different code requirements. I wonder where these units fall. RVs get excepted from many building codes because, as this entire thread is about, they are not intended for full time living, despite many people using them for just that purpose. These tiny houses however, are being designed and built to be someone's full time home.
RVs are bound by RVIAs codebook in order to get the sticker you see by the door. A custom built trailer isn't bound by any code beside the possible DOT safety inspection. What they do on the inside is not regulated in any way unless the DOT inspector sees something that he believes makes it unsafe for travel.

There's many conversions out there that are really the same in that sense. When somebody converts an old bus to an RV, for example, they're not bound by any code either. Even modifications to existing RVs & other vehicles aren't regulated. Anybody can pretty well do whatever they want after they've bought a vehicle as long as it still passes DOT. Ever see those trailer mounted rock climbing walls? They're just mounted to existing titled trailer chassis.
 
Note that it is already illegal to sell or advertise or rent an RV (i.e. anything built to the RVIA building standard) as a full time residence. It doesn't meet state or federal building codes for such things, so cannot be sold or described as such. What is NOT illegal (yet) is for you to decide to live in it anyway, 365 days/year. After all, you could choose to live in a cave or a tent, and those don't meet state & federal standards either. But the various governments can and do make it difficult to do that, doing things like denying permits to place one on a lot or hooking up to public utilities for power and sewer. Municipalities have been known to threaten to enforce building code laws if they find that a park model or mobile RV is occupied 365 days/year within their jurisdiction, and they already have the legal power to do that. I know of one membership campground that is 95% park models that now closes two months per year to avoid having all their seasonal site owners fined for building code violations and their operating permit for their sewage & water systems rescinded.

For now, fulltimers are probably safe if they move at least once a year and don't try to set up in a fixed location, but Big Brother seems bent on saving us from ourselves [again].
 
I also believe that the "Tiny House" phenomenon has been partly responsible for the HUD response.  I just watched a episode of "Tiny House" where the buyer was a young couple with two small kids.  They were looking to buy something to pull behind their 1/2 ton truck. They planned to tour the country for the next year pulling their new purchase. 

The thought of rolling up behind a Tiny House on some twisty two lane road with the MH makes my head spin. It's just nuts.  I do believe that the proposed language needs to be adjusted though.  The DW printed out the original proposed language from the HUD web site. It clearly says that RV's are not intended to be full time residences.  Of course that is buried in the middle of several pages of tiny type. 

I get the overall intent, but the specific language needs some adjusting.
 
That "not a fulltime residence" is already inherent in the building codes. I actually think it is explicitly stated, but I don't have the exact words handy right now. The entire justification for a separate and less-stringent RV code (versus "mobile home") is that it is for occasional recreational use rather than a permanent home.

The building codes come at this question from the opposite direction, i.e. the code states that anything designated as residential housing must conform to either the manufactured (aka mobile) home code or the national building code (which comes in state & regional varieties). That's why RVs always have a legalistic statement somewhere that says they are NOT intended for full time residence. They have to state that in order to qualify for the much less stringent RV code. If they didn't, the manufacturer would already be in violation of various state and federal laws regarding residential buildings.

I think what HUD is proposing to do is tightening up the distinction between recreational vs residential. They know that a lot of people are using park model RVs and mobile RVs as fulltime homes, many of them seldom if ever moving. Park models in particular are being used to abuse the building codes, and the "tiny home" craze is adding fuel to the fire.  There is no particular reason why a tiny home or park model can't meet the mobile home building code - neither of them is intended to be a traveling unit. Construction standards would make both more expensive, though, and a lot of related community codes would also kick in if they are designated as "houses' instead of RVs. In some ways that's better, since many areas explicitly prohibit RVs on a building lot but would have to allow a small home that met residential building codes.
 
I agree that the "Tiny Home" drive is likely a contributor.. There have been some "Tiny Home" villages that the city simply came in an bulldozed..  No reason for it.. Not a hazard,, Buildings may well have met code,, They were just small, and not that expensive, so the City bulldozed them cause it did not want to admit that people do not have a million dollars in the bank.   

I fail to understand that kind of thinking.....
 
There's a huge legal difference between a rule that says "RV's are not intended to be full time residences" and a rule that says it's "Illegal to live in an RV full time." We all use various items for something other than the manufacturers intended use throughout our lives, and RV's are no different. Ever pried open a paint can with a screwdriver?
 
At the risk of getting political, I'll opine that some regulation/standards are in everybody's best interests.  Nobody wants to get harmed (physically or financially) by unsafe or shoddy construction and most people don't have the skills or time to inspect for bad construction. But once some basic level of acceptability is established, how much more value is there in further law/rule making? By "value", I mean improved personal safety or reduced financial risk vs the inevitable impact on cost and individual preferences that ever-expanding building codes always brings. Not to mention an associated government bureaucracy that meddles in our lives. And that bureaucracy is why the regulatory burden continues to increase. People are employed to monitor compliance and "improve" standards, so they are always searching ways to justify their existence (keep their paycheck). So when they see a photo of what a tornado did to an RV park, they immediately want to apply more stringent standards that might have saved a life or reduced the damage. And many will applaud at that, saying "what's a few dollars more in cost vs one human life?" But the total cost is always more than those few dollars and there are always unintended but real consequences in legislation, forcing an "improvement" onto something that doesn't need it or may even be harmed by it.  Plus there in an inevitable further restriction on personal choice. The federal government is supposed to demonstrate the value of any additional regulation, but the arithmetic is always self-serving, placing a lot of value on a tiny increment in safety and none at all on alternate lifestyle choices.
 
I agree, Gary, but in this case, HUD is simply trying to make an existing rule clearer in defining the difference between RV's and manufactured housing, something that the RVIA and other RV groups have been wanting for years. The proposed changes in wording would simply make it clearer that RV's are NOT within the purview of HUD's regulations. I feel HUD is not the "bad guy" in this situation, just an agency trying to better define its mission. And that's a good thing for the RV industry...
 
I hear ya, Dutch, but I'm a cynic! We've managed to tell RVs from houses for a long time now, and I can't see HUD (an elephant in a ballroom, if I ever saw one!) improving on that much without tramping on something. We already have rather specific rules on what can qualify as an RV, and the lines between RV, manufactured housing, and site built housing seem clear enough.

Well, we can only wait and see...
 
Back
Top Bottom