CC does it Again!!

[mom]

Thanks Michelle and Twooks for picking it up... I AM A BLOKE!  Well I was the last time I looked!

Frank, just a thought on your response to me way back in this thread... once again you are correct in pointing out that a carefully considered measured response is called for, but I think you missed my point.  Whatever the question, big, little, complex, stupid, whether or not the person answering is competent to answer, the guy made an independant statement that was factually 6 feet short of Pluto. 

Let me put it another way, what do you think his answer would have been to the question "what size motorhomes do most members own?" 

This has absolutely nothing to do with the pending changes in 2012.  It is all to do with a representative of the CC having no understanding of a major aspect of its business.

If he had answered "It will not affect the vast majority of our motorhome members." then this is an opinion.  To continue with "... as they have very small motorhomes" is a deduction, a conclusion of fact.  The fact that "this" fact was not a fact is deplorable!  If he said "as they all have pet grasshoppers", then I would forgive as the CC is not a Grasshopper Lovers club. 

I think I've lost it!

[Mel E]

Frank,

 

I've now read all the way through the almost endless list of assumtions my original post generated.

 

I'm all for open discussion but please, do not jump to a load of what were inaccurate assumptions and then base your reply on them. The correct form is surely to ask for more information from the poster so that you can make a reasoned reply?

 

The only unknown in this legislation, as far as the CC is concerned, is whether the UK Government will want (a) additional training or, (b) a test. This is up to each member state to decide. Having read the original legislation, neither is not an option - it must be one or the other.

 

In practice, this means that everyone will opt to take the B+E test since it's hardly likely to be much more onerous and it gives unlimited trailer tugging ability (subject only to the tow vehicle's limits).

[Mel B]

Mel E - 2007-01-16 6:20 PM

 

Frank,

 

I've now read all the way through the almost endless list of assumtions my original post generated.

 

I'm all for open discussion but please, do not jump to a load of what were inaccurate assumptions and then base your reply on them. The correct form is surely to ask for more information from the poster so that you can make a reasoned reply?

 

 

Totally agree Mel E, I wish people would read postings carefully before jumping to these endless assumptions and they trying to make out that people meant one thing when they meant another. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but what I really get annoyed about is when people make assumptions about what people mean and jump on them like a ton of bricks instead of asking for more clarification first. If you're not sure of the intention of the poster - ask!

 

What I also get even more fed up about is these constant knit-picking 'arguments' where a piece of a posting is constantly being regurgitated to try to back-up a, quite often, wrong assumption.

 

I think we ought to take Frank's bulldozer away and give him a bucket and shovel instead!!! (lol)

[Guest Frank Wilkinson]

Mel E - 2007-01-16 6:20 PM Frank, I've now read all the way through the almost endless list of assumtions my original post generated. I'm all for open discussion but please, do not jump to a load of what were inaccurate assumptions and then base your reply on them. The correct form is surely to ask for more information from the poster so that you can make a reasoned reply? The only unknown in this legislation, as far as the CC is concerned, is whether the UK Government will want (a) additional training or, (b) a test. This is up to each member state to decide. Having read the original legislation, neither is not an option - it must be one or the other. In practice, this means that everyone will opt to take the B+E test since it's hardly likely to be much more onerous and it gives unlimited trailer tugging ability (subject only to the tow vehicle's limits).

My first post was really directed at you in that I asked if it was fair to ask the CC in this way. I didn't actually mention your name but thought that you would reply to it.

I've no argument about the rights or wrongs of the CC's policy on this. I merely thought and still do, and it seems from other posts that I'm not alone, that it is a little unfair to simply phone up and put someone on the spot with questions regarding complex legislation. I'd have thought that was a reasonable point to make.

However, we then get the usual response from the same people who seem to delight in traducing the CC and that more than anything is what narks me.

I actually applaud your efforts to obtain information that may be of great use to many members. I'm just not sure that you went about it the right way, but I have no intention of falling out with you about that. That we can agree to differ on.

[Dave Newell]

Now there's a first!

 

D.

[empress]

I have all these posts and am totally worn out now. Good night one and all.

 

Empress

[Guest peter]

livewire - 2007-01-16 4:24 PM

Frank Wilkinson - 2007-01-16 3:48 PM

I also now understand that when you attack me it isn't an attack at all, but that you are allowed a point of view, 'your perogative' I think you said.

I'm really sorry that I hadn't understood your special position here in that you can attack the CC or anyone else that you wish to attack, you can even tell people to 'Sod off'. Oops, sorry again, you don't attack anyone do you? That's just little old me!

 

 

>:-) Thats ok then, so Sod off Frank and get off your high horse.

Agreed! Gets a bit tiresome after a while doesn't it.

[Rayjsj]

:D Wow ! what a Palaver ! now what was the ORIGINAL thread about?

Something about licences ? and a throw away remark by 'the Tea Boy'

at the CC head office ? where's the MEAT in this Thread ?

Meat = something that we can ALL get something out of, like the real information about these proposed licence changes ? If they are against our (Motohomers,and i don't mean Barts Dad) Intrests. ?

mind you, the old 'Tea Boy' doesn't 'alf ruffle some feathers doesnt he ? maybe they should keep him away from the phone ! :D

[Clive]

The bottom line although unsaid in this post is that the perception is that the CC are pro caravan and anti motorhome generally in their posture.

Nothing they have done recently has changed that perception. But then again they are the CARAVAN club, not the Motorhome club.

 

But Like Dave our style of motorhome leisure activities means all we use from the CC is the sites book for Europe which you can purchase over the counter.

(plus a couple of other books that were kindly given to us, Thanks Don..)

 

 

[Brian Kirby]

My imagination, or a startling resemblance to Handcock of, if I remember, 1 Railway Bank Cottages, East Sheen?

[Mel E]

Brian,

 

You remember incorrectly, I' afraid: it was East Cheam.

 

And, yes, Clive's pic is a still from the Hancock solo series that included the famous (Infamous?) 'Blood Donor'. The is the Radio Amateur episode which was actually even better: "A major radio station forced off the air for a one-and-sixpenny valve."

 

And so on.

 

Mel

[Brian Kirby]

Ah yes, Cheam it was!  Case of "sounds like" I'm afraid.  Thanks Mel.

[Guest starspirit]

So I AM right then after all - I will refrain from saying 'told you so'?

The CC IS (and always has been) blindly unaware of and unsympathetic towards the specific needs of us Motorhomers - unless of course we can all be neatly pigeon holed into one group of 'one size fits all' which coincidentally also just happens to suit the needs of caravanners.

No problem for me because, as I said, they are primarily a club for caravans and some things they do well.

However some things they don't do well and one of those is consider the different needs of nomadic motor homers to those of 'stay a week caravans'.

We all have the right to use or not use any service and we all have the right to express our views on any issue without rancour or attack.

I'm glad I left after the compulsory electric issue - and I won't be going back.

And as for Frank - well it may not seem to him that his style of writing is interpreted as 'attacking' but it sure comes across to most of us that every one else is 'wrong' and his view is 'right'.

I wish you a long and happy union with the CC Frank. Please keep us informed of any improvements in their attitude. Meanwhile I won't hold my breath!

 

PS - You ain't wrong - well not always anyway - just different.

[Rayjsj]

As I have said before,i used to be a 'Tugger' and still am a member of the CC, NOT all caravanners 'slot' into the same box.There has been a steady rise in the number of 'Seasonal pitches' which to me are nothing more than 'Static' vans, also some sites now are nothing more than storage areas, where the van is pulled out onto a pitch (for the week-end)

then put back again late on Sunday. All of this might save some carbon emissions of people towing.But it throws a GREAT BIG spanner in the works of 'Free and Easy' touring with either a Caravan or Motorhome.

I was really annoyed one day to see 'Touring People' being turned away

because 'the site was 'full' when the Caravans all around me were empty,

and STAYED empty the whole weekend. A bit like Empty Holiday homes Blighting an otherwise lovely village.

To all whom this post might be a 'Red rag to bull'. I still am a CC Member

and intend to stay, BUT,they Ain't Perfect ! come to that neither am i.

I feel that we ALL lose something when the 'Free Spirit' ethos goes out of any organization. (100 years ago the CC certainly had IT !!) :'(

[twooks]

you're right, we are in danger of falling into the same mindset as CC and pigeonholing people - it's just that after you've been surrounded a few times by large caravan + 4x4 + awning + wind breaks  it is lazy shorthand to think - doh tugger - whenever caravan is mentioned.

 

[Guest Frank Wilkinson]

I'd be very interested to know how the CC can be more responsive to the 'more nomadic' needs of motorhomers and would welcome views on this.

My view is that it is impossible without disadvantaging others but I'd be delighted to learn if it can be done as it would suit me down to the ground!

As far as I can see the only way that it can be responsive to 'nomadic' motorhomers is to set aside a number of pitches, which cannot be booked by anyone, thus allowing people to simply roll up. Should these pitches be reserved just for motorhomers, or should caravanners also be allowed to use them?

If this were to happen though, and let's say that 20 pitches on  a given site were reserved, if only ten of them were taken then this means that ten other people, who may have been refused a pitch, have lost their chance of using that site.

The other very important thing is that caravanners have to book. Naturally, it is obvious here by the way that I'm talking about busy sites in high season. At other times motorhomers can just roll up without a booking as the site may be half empty anyway.

Caravanners must be more certain of having a pitch. If they are turned away it's a bit of a nightmare with a 'van on the back and a couple of kids maybe, to find that you've nowhere to go. Remember, they don't have built-in water tanks etc.

I fail to see how a caravan site is any different from an hotel. Its aim is to maximise occupancy and if it does not operate a proper booking system, then in high season particularlry, it never will.

If I wished to try out a site that I've never used before, but wasn't sure how long I'll be staying I think that the fair thing to do would be to book it for a couple of nights. If I really like the site and wish to stay longer then I have to take my chance that pitches will be available. If they're not then that's my hard luck, but at least I am self -contained and can survive by camping wild for an odd night.

What I do not believe is the correct thing to do is to book the site for a week, knowing that you may only stay a couple of days. This ties up the pitches and may stop others from booking. If you do leave after a couple of days, the pitch is of course available, but my whole point is that caravanners, having been told that the site is booked up, will simply try somewhere else, which is second choice, or simply not go at all.

I have just visited the CC site at York and found absolutely no difference in attitude or in service or in facilities from when I was a caravanner.

I would welcome suggestions as to how you think the CC can give a better service to the more nomadic motorhomers, preferably without disadvantaging other members, both 'tuggers' and other motorhomers.

[Mel B]

Well, after having yet another fruitless ring around to try to book into CLs for Easter and sites for September we've finally given up on the Caravan Club and have today told them to cancel our renewal (due beginning of February). As we now do most of our holiday motorhoming abroad (4.5 weeks in total this year), this only leaves 1 week and the odd weekend when we may want to use them so we decided there's not much point in paying £35.00 for the priviledge of maybe staying with them, especially when we can't even get in where we want to. It's getting really rediculous when you start ringing round in January and still can't get booked in! How the heck people who don't have their holiday dates sorted yet (ie those that have to wait for their workplace to let them know) get places booked? Whether it's because they stopped taking deposits so people are booking more places just in case, or whether it's because they now have so many members that they cannot cope with the sheer number of bookings, or something else, I don't know, but I've finally thrown in the towel. For the time being we'll still continue to get use Caravan Club credit card and earn free night vouchers, and if we want we will still be able to use them and just pay the 'non-member' supplement (or dispose of them in other ways!).

 

The other thing I've noticed is the cost now for a night's stop - it's getting really expensive for a lot of them, even the CLs are getting quite costly. As we don't usually need much in the way of facilities we'll be quite happy to use some of the cheaper commercial sites which may not have the same standards as the CC but will still offer us what we want.

 

Whether we'll remain non-CC members I don't know, we'll just see how we get on, but I suspect that now we've made the break it will probably be for good. :-|

[Guest starspirit]

Hi Frank,

 

Well the CC could break the mould and offer us a cut price stay on the late arrivals car park with perhaps limited access to the services - or even no access at all?

 

That would be motorhome friendly and would generate income for the club at no cost to them whatsoever - unless it became too popular?

 

As we would only be parking I doubt if even a site license would be needed - just the land owners consent - and a change of philosophy? Perhaps one of the legal eagles in our midst can clarify that one?

 

The CCC have a scheme for a day time stop over but at such a silly cost for a tank of water and a shower that I would not even consider it. So why not for overnighting in the car park - so come on CCC - you too can give us a break.

 

No club should reserve pitches just because an unbooked member might show up and it is not realistic to ask them to. However the CC used to always keep a couple of pitches available in case a member turned up on sites that are also open to non members.

 

That apart, first come first served is always the fairest way - apart from when unused vans are pitch blocking.

 

I have towed and I do know the importance of having a site to go to, I am aware that the club is primarily for caravans, and I would not wish to see a genuine caravanner refused admission.

 

Nevertheless there must be an innovative way for us all to live together with our differing needs and all I ask is that both the CC and the CCC give some thought to catering for us non electric non washroom using one nighter nomads.

 

They could always start by asking us - watch out for pink piggy wiggies overhead.

 

Go on then - now tell me how unreasonable I am?

[peejay]

I had what I thought was a feasible option for the club to their unpopular decision of supplying electricity whether you want it or not and wrote a letter to them, along with a few other suggestions.

As the club have invested a considerable amount on hook ups, my suggestion was to produce cheap lockable 'blanking caps' for electricity posts to clamp over the electricity points to enable the availability of more or less economy pitches according to demand which wouldn't contravene the ofgem ruling as with the blanking cap fitted, you then can't use electricity on that pitch.

I thought it was a good idea. They did reply to some issues I raised but unfortunately not to the blanking cap idea. You can read the letter, and the reply which was published in the Oct 2005 cc mag titled 'Electrical resistance' here (hope the link works).....

 

http://www.caravanclub.co.uk/msib21/library/StreamDocument.aspx?GetFile=397&DocLib=Magazines&View=Magazines

 

Starspirits idea sounds another good proposal to me. Perhaps a letter to the club suggesting this is worth a punt.

 

pete

[Guest Frank Wilkinson]

Starspirit.

Actually, that's probably the most reasonable post that I've seen you write about the CC.

Letting motorhomers use the late arrivals' area is a very good idea, I'm just not sure how viable it is because of the size of the area available. But if they've a decent sized area I think that they should. I'm assuming that you mean this only if the site is full?

I wasn't even aware that the CC offered a daytime only service arrangement for motorhomes and I would think that the following would be very fair:

If there are pitches available I think that the motorhome really ought to use one. I don't think that it's fair to treat the CC or any similar organisation purely as a convenience for those who don't want to spend money on sites but want those sites to be there when they need to empty the loo or fill with water.

If however, the site is full and they cannot offer a place to members I think that the club should at least allow us to use the facilities for a modest fee. Using the facilities though has many connotations. Some may need the basics, water, empty the loo etc. but what if a family of four wanted to have a shower?

Perhaps £2.00 for basic facilities plus another £1.00 per head for showers etc?

What are they charging currently?

Finally, I'd be really interested to know what proportion of motorhomers do not use mains electricity? Not necessarily every day but at least every day or so to recharge their batteries.

I remember back in the late sixties when I first joined the CC and when they didn't even had showers or lavatories. They were just simple, beautifully maintained sites and we had Elsans, ugh!

Eventually, members demanded better facilities and gradually showers and toilet blocks were introduced. There were many who protested, saying that they didn't need them and why should they have to pay extra for something that they wouldn't use.

Now of course, members expect them and no one bats any eyelid that they are paying for them. I for instance always shower in my own 'van but I appreciate that it would be a nightmare for the club to have to split up site fees so that some can use the facilities and some can't.

I also believe that we are now in the age where electricity is as normal a part of caravanning as are toilet blocks.

I genuinely sympathise with the odd few who never use electricity or can't use it but it begs the question, how many are there out there?

Ultimately, if you find yourself in that position I suppose that you simply don't join, or stick to CLs. I have to say though that I personally don't think that the club's decision to include electricity is wrong in this age of modern 'vans with all their facilities.

[flicka]

Question everyone

I am not a CC member but still cconsidering whether to join or not and would like clarification if possible on this point before I decide.

Is the CC accepting bookings from non-members at their popular sites or do members take precedence ?

As a M/H I would not expect preferential status to other members, but I do feel that membership should give benefits not available to non-members.

If availability of long period advance booking is available to non-members, surely members benefits are is compromised ?

Or am I viewing things too simplistically through my Rose tinted Glasses again.

 

Flicka

[Guest Frank Wilkinson]

flicka - 2007-01-18 10:57 PM Question everyone I am not a CC member but still cconsidering whether to join or not and would like clarification if possible on this point before I decide. Is the CC accepting bookings from non-members at their popular sites or do members take precedence ? As a M/H I would not expect preferential status to other members, but I do feel that membership should give benefits not available to non-members. If availability of long period advance booking is available to non-members, surely members benefits are is compromised ? Or am I viewing things too simplistically through my Rose tinted Glasses again. Flicka

Many CC sites are available to non-members but there is a £6.00 supplement if you are not a member. That's £6.00 per pitch, not per person.

I've taken two sites at random, Park Coppice near Coniston in the Lake District has a peak season price for a motorhome and two adults of £17.90 for members. Dockray Meadow, which isn't as popular a spot is £13.20 in the peak season. Prices are much lower at other times of the year.

Even with the £6.00 added on this compares favourably with similar commercial sites. For your membership fee of £34.00 you get a monthly magazine, which I quite enjoy and you only have to to spend 6 nights on sites to pay for your membership.

Membership gets you a superb site guide listing all sites, CLs and some commercial sites and of course you can use every site as some are only open to members.

All prices quoted include electricity and all the usual services.

Some sites have to be booked well in advance, which is a certain indication of their popularity and the club now has 360,000 members of which I believe about 70,000 have motorhomes. The figure of 360,000 is actually for outfits, not husbands and wives and children etc. so the total number of people in the club is almost one million.

[Miami]

Another way of keeping your CC costs down is to have a CC credit card. We manage a considerable number of nights in peak season for nothing!

Depends how much you spend on it.

[Guest starspirit]

Morning Frank,

 

It would be nice to use the late arrivals area out of choice whether or not the site is full giving those if us who do or don't want the all singing pitch that option as well as those of us who just want a safe level parking spot overnight that option too.

 

It is the CCC not the CC who offer the daytime stopover for up to about 4 hours I think, and I think the cost is about a fiver - but as I've no interest in it I did not check. No doubt someone else will tell us.

 

Why should we use a pitch if we don't want one? I am talking here of extra income for the clubs by using an existing largely unused facility. If other motorhomers choose to switch to a cheaper option then that too will tell a tale.

 

I agree there would have to be some rules and access to fresh water, grey water, and elsan point will suffice for most with no electric and no access to washrooms and showers in exchange for a reduced fee and I for one would happily pay a fiver a night for this service whenever I need it.

 

I don't think it unreasonable to charge for electric for a caravan which does not have its own recharging facility and may well remain static for several days or more.

 

However for those of us whose nomadic lifestyle differs and whose unit does not have to have mains to function (every modern van methinks) a little flexibility from the clubs would not go amiss.

 

With the escalation in club site fees and ever more on site facilities many of the CL & CS owners now feel that they too have to provide hook ups in order to attract customers. They in turn are of course entitled to a return on their investment and are therefore no longer a cheap alternative for us especially when you consider the fuel and navigating prowess often needed to find them.

 

All in all I reckon that CCC and MCC temporary holiday sites and weekend meets, and not CL's CS's, offer the most flexible and cost effective way of minimal facility unbooked camping as there is nearly always a meet somewhere in most areas of the country most of the camping season. As a bonus people at these meets tend to be considerably more friendly than sites in my experience.

[Guest starspirit]

Mel,

 

Have you tried the CCC and MCC weekend meets and temporary holiday sites?

 

Unless you need to be at a specific place at a specific time I reckon that these are a great way to camp cost effectively, although they are not everyone's cup of tea.

 

Usually no booking and although facilities are often very basic the atmosphere and friendliness of most does compensate and of course no one is forced to participate in any social events.

 

You don't usually park in neatly regimented lines although sometimes sensible use of space does dictate some semblance of order from the normally very helpful and cheerful voluntary stewards.

 

These guys usually do a terrific job in dealing with tired and overwrought drivers - unless they too are tired and overwrought!!