RVIA - HUD Classifications vs Fulltiming

[sourdough]

I was reading up on some RVIA "stuff" and came across some rule changes made last year by the feds (HUD) regarding RVs. A portion of it kind of jingled my chain so thought I would throw it out.

In the attached link from the RVIA about the changes read the first bold section; 1. HUD does not regulate RVs etc. It basically states that RVs are not regulated by HUD and don't have to meet the requirements stipulated for Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards IF they meet the criteria stated in the bottom 2 blue bullets - read the 2nd bullet; "not as a primary residence or permanent occupancy"...…


I was unaware of the "struggle" between RVIA and RV manufacturers with HUD over the classification of these units. My bigger thought is what effect, if any, does/will fulltiming and using an RV for your permanent residence now have? Will it/Could it suddenly be subject to all the criteria of a manufactured home if the feds found you were using it to live in permanently?

This came to mind due to some things happening in another arena. An association in our mountains (water) had been off the radar screen of the government, and never under its authority. Definitions changed bringing them under the oversight of the government agency. Upon their inspection the association was all of a sudden hit with fines and mandated changes for various things that occurred, all legal and legit, prior to their oversight. I'm wondering if that is a possibility with this "new language". Maybe we might want to think about using some different terms other than "fulltime", "my residence" (just had a person tell me that a couple of weeks ago) and things like that. You never know who you might be talking to or who they may talk to......Just thinking out loud.

https://www.rvia.org/news-insights/t...t-new-hud-rule

[travelin texans]

Originally Posted by sourdough

I was reading up on some RVIA "stuff" and came across some rule changes made last year by the feds (HUD) regarding RVs. A portion of it kind of jingled my chain so thought I would throw it out.

In the attached link from the RVIA about the changes read the first bold section; 1. HUD does not regulate RVs etc. It basically states that RVs are not regulated by HUD and don't have to meet the requirements stipulated for Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards IF they meet the criteria stated in the bottom 2 blue bullets - read the 2nd bullet; "not as a primary residence or permanent occupancy"...…


I was unaware of the "struggle" between RVIA and RV manufacturers with HUD over the classification of these units. My bigger thought is what effect, if any, does/will fulltiming and using an RV for your permanent residence now have? Will it/Could it suddenly be subject to all the criteria of a manufactured home if the feds found you were using it to live in permanently?

This came to mind due to some things happening in another arena. An association in our mountains (water) had been off the radar screen of the government, and never under its authority. Definitions changed bringing them under the oversight of the government agency. Upon their inspection the association was all of a sudden hit with fines and mandated changes for various things that occurred, all legal and legit, prior to their oversight. I'm wondering if that is a possibility with this "new language". Maybe we might want to think about using some different terms other than "fulltime", "my residence" (just had a person tell me that a couple of weeks ago) and things like that. You never know who you might be talking to or who they may talk to......Just thinking out loud.

https://www.rvia.org/news-insights/t...t-new-hud-rule

Our insurance, after several years of fulltiming, said they did not cover a fulltime rv, our agent said if anyone ask we were on an extended vacation.
Basically don't ask, don't tell!
Had a couple claims, from dumd a## mistakes by me, both out of our home state & no one ever ask about our location or if we lived in it.

[JRTJH]

There's a "big fight brewing" between the manufacturers of "tiny homes" (those small houses on wheels) and the RV industry. RVIA does not recognize tiny homes as RV's and they don't permit the manufacturers to join RVIA so their products can't display the RVIA certification seal. That means that credit unions can't finance them under existing "RV financing plans" and that makes buying a tiny home more difficult. Insurance carriers link RVIA certification to most insurance policy issues, so without an RVIA sticker on the trailer, getting insurance is difficult.

HUD, the mobile home industry and the RV industry have been at odds for years. Mobile home builders want the "easier restrictions" that go with RV production but don't want to get into the RVIA certification process, so they're trying to "have their cake and eat it too" sort of mentality in how they want to regulate their business model. RV manufacturers don't want mobile home manufacturers to get into the RV business and they don't want HUD "interfering" with how they now regulate their part of the "home industry" so there has been a lot of "back and forth" between HUD and RVIA in classification of "full timing" versus "temporary housing"....

As an example, back in the late 70's, Champion Mobile Home Company started building motor homes and travel trailers. It didn't take long before the big RV manufacturers at the time, Holdiay Rambler, Winnebago, Travco and a few others to "run Champion out of town"..... That was the initial motivation for forming RVIA and keeping the RV industry exclusive from the mobile home industry.
Where it all ends up ????? Who knows !!!!!

[chuckster57]

Interesting for sure!! I’m going to watch this, being an RVIA registered tech, I get regular emails and such. Guess I might have to start reading them!

[Frank G]

After spending 2 winters in Florida, the wife and I decided we would like a more permanent structure than a 5th wheel. Something that had greater accessibility to the restroom and bed room and when the time come something we could live in year round. We found the community we want to live in and one of the allowable choices was a HUD park model with under 500 sq ft of living space. The specific model we choose was a Skyline Palm bay 2610B with a 8ft front porch and we will have a 12ft x 36ft Lanai installed on the side.

The point of the post is that in Florida, Pasco county requirements dictate Park Models be built to HUD specifications with roof, structure and tie downs be built to wind zone 2 requirements. If financing, HUD park models fall into Housing standards with a few exceptions, a far cry from the loose standards in the RV financing world.

A lot of people, including retirees, fulltime in RV's, I've never seen any enforcement against it.

We will keep the 5th wheel for a few years and do some summer traveling. A smaller TT is appealing.

[JRTJH]

Frank's post brings up an important point. Keystone builds two "destination trailers". They "allude" to them being "park models" but they also completely omit both the RVIA certification and the HUD compliance certification on both the Residence and the Retreat brands. I just checked both brochures and the Keystone website. Unless I missed it, there's no comment on either brand about compliance with either RVIA or HUD standards..... I wonder if they meet either standard?

[CaptnJohn]

I was a real estate broker for years. Prices for a tiny home were not much different than manufactured homes. Many came close to a doublewide. Manufactured housing was most often built better and came with appliances or larger appliances. If you figured price per square foot you would choke.

[LHaven]

Originally Posted by sourdough

I was unaware of the "struggle" between RVIA and RV manufacturers with HUD over the classification of these units. My bigger thought is what effect, if any, does/will fulltiming and using an RV for your permanent residence now have? Will it/Could it suddenly be subject to all the criteria of a manufactured home if the feds found you were using it to live in permanently?

If you want to see true grief on steroids, just add FEMA to the mix. As long as you don't have any personal skin in the game, it's fascinating to see DOT, HUD, and FEMA beat each other up about temporary housing standards every time there's a weather emergency.

[sourdough]

Originally Posted by LHaven

If you want to see true grief on steroids, just add FEMA to the mix. As long as you don't have any personal skin in the game, it's fascinating to see DOT, HUD, and FEMA beat each other up about temporary housing standards every time there's a weather emergency.

True grief is trying to watch ANY government agency function properly, or efficiently, or logically, or ....? Put them in tandem and I would just have to grab a beer and go to ignore....oh, wait! I DO that already! Not to digress into politics.....