crocs
-
Posts
494 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Articles
Downloads
Gallery
Posts posted by crocs
-
-
Probably a new Marketing Director.
-
If I had been the Warden, I would have given a choice to them. Pay for two pitches or vacate one of them. Mind you, would I really want them as neighbours?
-
An interesting topic which covers a number of issues. I am of the view that an organisation's executive must be allowed to manage it and, if they are not doing so to the approval of its stakeholders (I am being very careful not to use the 'business' or 'shareholder' words!), they should be removed. But they cannot be subjected to constant micromanagement so choices such as sponsorship etc must be delegated to them. They can be held to account by some form of non-executive oversight and, ultimately, by its stakeholders at an AGM.
I'm not so sure about whether a professional marketing person would view sponsorship of a TV Leisure Vehicle Show as more beneficial than something only indirectly related to caravans/motorhomes. They might argue that the majority of viewers of a TV Leisure Vehicle Show are already in the hobby so are not the target audience. However, viewers of a motorsport show might be a better target audience as they could be persuaded towards a leisure vehicle to use on visits to circuits (as I do for example). The choice of where to advertise or sponsor will be informed by multiple data including demographics, size of audience, propensity to purchase and much more.
Just an alternative view.
-
33 minutes ago, david lloyd said:
I simply can’t agree. The CAMC is not a business and is not there to make profits. In its own words it is a club for members run by members and they are not ‘shareholders’ in the true sense of the word. I do agree that it should be run in a business like way and that is to oversee the operation in a way that maximises the benefit to members. My belief is that those managing the Club in a day to day basis probably see themselves as running a business but do not see the distinction.
David
Each to their own view. But note that I did not say CAMC was there to make profits.
-
I have to say that I don't feel overexercised by this.
The CAMC is a business and it must do what it sees fit to be a successful business where profits are not distributed but used within the business. If members, as shareholders, have issues, they can raise them at AGMs and refuse to vote for the Directors. In the meantime, the Directors must be allowed to get on with managing it.
-
1
-
-
A question at the last AGM of CAMC (I know.... why was I spending valuable time reading them!) was on the subject of ACRs and the response was 'The Club has always operated under the ethos that all members are equal and the Club should work for the benefit of the membership as a whole not just the individual member. The Club doesn't provide an age-related price reduction as we believe the fairest approach is to provide the best price possible for all campsites, available to be booked by all members.'
Whether or not they do provide the 'best price possible' is debatable but I kinda respect their logic on ACRs.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, paulmold said:
I would argue that by saying the sites are not discounted for members but are surcharged for non-members. The so-called discounted rates make them comparable to independent sites, no- one in their right mind would pay the non-member price.
OK. They are surcharged for non-members. The prices are still the same whether by your terminology or mine.
-
The two things are for different purposes. S4S is simply a (very good) listing of sites whereas CAMC own and operate a large number of very good, clean, well laid out sites which are discounted for members.
-
I once asked my insurance company how much less it would be if my wife was not a named driver but I was told it would actually cost more. Their reasoning was that it would be a good 'backstop'. So, insurance companies do differ and, as usual, it pays to read the policy.
But the 'repatriation' issue trumps that and it might be time to drop her as she never drives.
-
Manufacturers' warranties are normally transferable to new owners but you would really need to see what the actual warranty stipulates. There is also normally a notification process that needs to be undertaken when you purchase the vehicle. Did your dealer/vendor do this?
-
To be fair, Brittany Ferries always make announcements warning people to switch roaming off.
-
I also adopt Brian's method but my Banksman/Wife has the opposite tendency to Derek's ie she puts her hand up tentatively before the end. By the time she has changed her mind, I have stopped too early!
-
The 'Packaged Account' cover from your bank is usually very good but, by the time you add on the Age and Pre-existing Medical extensions, they are very often not good value. Comparison sites will get you a number of quotes with the advantage that you can also quickly compare Single Trip versus Annual Policies.
-
You really just have to shop around for insurance. Underwriting is a black art rather than a science and it can sometimes seem counter intuitive. For example, it would be reasonable for me to assume that I am low risk with a 40 year claim free record but an underwriter might take a different view on risk as the law of averages suggests that I am overdue a claim and, therefore, high risk.
-
On 11/03/2023 at 08:14, Derek Uzzell said:
In my last posting I mentioned that, when a buyer of a new 2018 Elddis Accordo 120 motorhome realised it was not possible to fit two 6kg gas-bottles in the vehicle's gas-locker (as the handbook stated should be the case) Elddis 'explained' that the locker was designed for two 3.9kg canisters.
This recent Calor announcement
states
From 1st February 2023, the Cube, 3.9kg Propane, 4.5kg Butane, 6Lite Propane and 12kg Butane will be discontinued. This means that customers won’t be able to buy new cylinders or exchange existing cylinders of these sizes for a refill.
so - if any Elddis motorhome owners are using Calor's smallest bottle as two 6kg canisters will not fit in the gas-locker (or because they find it difficult to install/remove 6kg bottles) - there's going to be a potential problem in future.
Regarding playing about with a motorhome's gas system, this YouTube video is educational.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUap1IQmfPg
Remind me never to get this YouTube guy to inspect my motorhome. A competent fitter would have shown how to fix the issue rather than disrespecting his customer, disrespecting YouTube users (despite using YouTube himself!), coming across as arrogant and leaving his customer with the problem.
-
20 hours ago, mtravel said:
I do not care.
I've been to Scotland three times and I don't think there will be a fourth.
Smile, Max
Second time because you couldn't believe it first time and third time to clean up the mess? 😀
-
2 hours ago, Nick the wanderer said:
Unless of course you hit a big fat bug that squished right over the radar
Fortunately, the manufacturers have thought of this one. In a heavy snowstorm, I had a dashboard message that ACC was unavailable for precisely this reason. So, it defaults to ‘off’.
-
Must have been quite a scary moment and could easily have been worse.
I have to admit that my cars have had this feature for many years without ever coming across this issue. In fact, my new Range Rover bought last year has an Adaptive Cruise Control (mentioned in the thread) and I find it mind-boggling in its efficiency. But you still need to be 'present' to avoid situations like the road junction mentioned.
And I will not, repeat NOT, dredge up any of the old Skoda jokes especially, as Brian said, it is not unique to Skoda.
-
On 28/09/2023 at 18:41, Brian Kirby said:
I was amazed to read in Nick's post above that these under-developed AEB systems are also being fitted to HGVs!
They have seemingly been accepted as "safe", and therefore "good", for installation in all vehicles on that basis alone.
It Seems Euro NCAP and Australian NCAP carried out a joint evaluation (based on I know not what), and concluded that they would prevent up to 30% or so of frontal impact accidents, and so would be a high-yielding safety feature to incorporate into vehicles, saving numerous deaths and injuries. In an ideal world, with AEB systems that reliably work, and neither register false negatives nor positives, yes, excellent.
What doesn't seem to have been taken into account is that one person's frontal impact is frequently another person's rear impact so, if the false positive I experienced is typical, which it seems it was, there are now a growing number of vehicles on roads that are at significantly higher risk of rear impact than hitherto! Verily, the Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away! 🙂
Were all cars so equipped, I assume the false negative effect would be cancelled out by the AEB on any following vehicle coping adequately when the vehicle in front suddenly and inexplicably stops, and so on back down the traffic stream. Except that present systems cannot deal with the effect on braking distances of loose, wet, or slippery, road surfaces.
It seems to be a balance of harms argument. More people are killed and injured during frontal impacts than are killed and injured during rear impacts, so the overall effect is beneficial - but 30%? Really?
I'd favour a moratorium, during which present systems are de-activated until they are adequately de-bugged and reliable, at which point they can be reactivated. Apparently, the cost of the systems is presently about £40, so hardly significant at today's prices.
I agree about "lane assist". I'd decided that was going to be turned off by the time I'd driven the car from the dealer to home!
Ideal situation? Instead of including these gizmos with "active" as the default setting, include them with "inactive" as the default, and leave the decision to activate to the driver. If you want it and like it, turn it on, if you don't, go in peace! 🙂 If some refuse to activate them, and they're as good as is claimed, the refuseniks will gradually join the Darwin club by removing their faulty genes from human gene pool! How long can that take? 😄
In the meantime, if buying any vehicle manufactured since around 2018, just make sure you check carefully what passive safety systems are installed, and whether you can turn off the ones you don't want/like.
What model car was this?
-
21 hours ago, stevec176 said:
My brother in law recently purchased a new electric car, all singing, all dancing, and it's supposedly ready to go fully autonomous . The only slight niggle he has is that when he's got cruise control on the system will adjust his speed to keep a safe distance between him and the car in front, even down to stop. This is fine except that as the car in front moves away so his car moves forward too which at a junction or roundabout isn't the best option as its not checking for traffic coming from the side and will take you into the traffic, ouch.
That's where the Mk1 brain needs to kick in.
-
I would be tempted to hire a trailer or low loader and go and collect it. It's only 100 miles or so from Nantes to St Malo and a ferry to Portsmouth. Shipley is another good shout.
-
There is no proposal to levy such a tax.
Currently, there is a Government consultation on a Visitor Levy Bill which would allow Local Councils to levy a tax on visitors using accommodation such as hotels and campsites. Such a tax is levied in 21 of the current 27 EU member states and countless other countries so will be familiar to UK citizens travelling abroad.
One council, Highland Council, has suggested as part of the consultation that Motorhomes should also be charged even if not using a campsite and that Cruise passengers should also be charged. I'm sure that, if the principle was accepted, a collection method would quickly follow. After all, Mayors Khan and Burnham have managed it.
-
On 24/09/2023 at 18:50, Brian Kirby said:
Yes, but the key is in the statement "as soon as possible". It is possible that, despite the year that has elapsed since the incident, it was not reasonably possible (the normal legal test) for the parties to proceed at greater speed.
They would almost certainly defend themselves by claiming that they had all proceeded as fast as was possible under the circumstances and, if that defence were accepted, Colin would almost certainly be left liable for those hire costs, and in addition his prosecution, the court, and the defence, costs for his failed case.
That is why I was asking all those tedious questions. It is a vey brave and rich man (by which I do not seek to imply Colin is lacking in either courage or wealth! 🙂) who goes to court believing he has a "cast iron" case! It may be that the delay is due to indolence or incompetence on the part of the repairer or the insurer, or both, but that has to be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt".
Unless Colin can identify who failed, and prove it, I think he'd be far better advised to avoid legal confrontation and proceed by appealing to all those involved for the maximum of cooperation in now bringing the repairs to the speediest possible conclusion.
Time lost is time lost, one cannot get it back. All one can realistically do is seek to eliminate any possible future delays by getting the participants on one's side. Issuing empty threats will merely antagonise, and thereby lose any remaining goodwill and cooperation.
Appeals for support, and even offers of help in bringing the matter to a speedy conclusion are, IMO, more likely to bear fruit - whether or not that is personally palatable. They've got to start feeling sorry for him and that they have failed him, rather than angry with him!
All very laudable but I stand by my advice. Too often, people are left out of pocket or inconvenienced for too long whilst bureaucratic arguments take place amongst too many parties. Be sure of your facts, take appropriate action and don't be a hostage to bureaucracy.
-
I have always taken the view that, if something is not my fault, I should, as soon as possible, be returned to the position I was in before the incident. So, if I were sure of my facts, I would hire a Motorhome (for reasonable periods of time) and claim from the other party's insurer, if necessary using the Small Claims procedures. By all means inform both insurers but do not seek permission.
Formal complaints leading to Ombudsman submissions take too long and should be viewed as a means of gaining recompense if all else fails.
Selling a Motorhome
in Motorhome Matters
Posted
Did something similar two years ago and then (wait or it) .... bought a new one last year!
I've twice in the past sold to a dealer and what I did was type out a full and clear description with a full list of details and photos. I then emailed it to nine of the advertisers and received a response from three of them. The difference from the lowest to the best offer was about 20% and I sold it to Viscount Leisure of Southampton who collected it from Ayrshire.
I reckon I may have got another £5k (10%) by selling privately but with all the hassle entailed. It sold for about a 15% markup.