Club AGM 2022
Comments
-
But is the humour an indirect reference to some of the membership if so I remember a certain jewellery company director who thought it was fun to knock the customers.....
Worrying to read these references.
Something needs to change.
Good to hear that you were there and could report back thanks!
0 -
The new system was widely and extensively tested, in fact, the Club spent several years garnering the opinion of members and working closely with a working group of members and staff to design the most appropriate system.
The new booking system is fundamentally designed to perform as a 'late/future availability' search tool, and therefore the separate web page is no longer required.
Those two replies just about say it all. They really have no idea what members actually want and are making it up as they go along.
6 -
i have no doubt they used several sources to "garner" the opinion of members, certainlly of 2 to 3 years of surveys and social media posts but I have yet to be aware of anyone who contributed to a user requirement specification. User Specs are never perfect even if you discount designer misunderstandings. However, how was something so obvious as directions to sites left out?
I don't have a problem with the statement of being designed for late/future availability. The map is a pretty good indicator of the likelyhood of it whether this month or in 6 months in the future. I don't see it as essential to present availability in any other way on the web site.
peedee
0 -
I don't have a problem with the statement of being designed for late/future availability. The map is a pretty good indicator of the likelyhood of it whether this month or in 6 months in the future. I don't see it as essential to present availability in any other way on the web site.
I don’t either, but then the map scrolls and zooms very well on all my devices. From what I’ve read on this and the other thread that is not always the case, even with not very old equipment.
0 -
Thanks for pointing it out - though I came away thinking that CL owner is relying too much on theClub for his advertising, marketing and publicity. - and is complaining too much.about the Club. He could instead think how he would sell his site if he ran a “grown up” site outside the Club altogether. Lots of owners do that successfully.
0 -
Well, that was a read and a half!!! I can't quite make up my mind how the Club view member opinion. It seems they are determined to push their vision through whatever members think, no doubt with the hope we will get used to it. I appreciate that they were responding to individual questions but virtually every response was defensive. I did pick up that they are going to trial some form of metering on a couple of sites next year although as yet no detail.
Has anyone seen the results of the voting as so many seemed to be using that facility this year to register a protest?
David
4 -
I don’t think I missed the point at all. It was just another person complaining.Those who don’t like the Club’s booking system - whether owners or tourists - should leave it . It isn’t compulsory.
1 -
Of course, the answers are going to appear largely defensive. That's what happens when you're under attack! What did you expect? In fact, I thought they did a good bit of retaliation as well.
I have not read some of the latter questions and answers on issues that are of little interest to me - such as dogs, sponsorship, the magazine, etc., but I read the responses on the big, controversial issues. Quite frankly, I thought all the answers fair and reasonable with the possible exception of the response on the integrity and functionality of the new booking website.
I thought this especially so on the questions of deposits and pricing and on matters such as arrival times, Crystal Palace, cleaning times, electricity and opening sites for motorhomes to drop their grey waste - with the resulting encouragement of wild camping.
I realise that, at least in the eyes of many who post in this place, such treachery, as being seen to accept and agree with the Club's hierarchy, will leave me vulnerable to all the vociferous critics; but I genuinely feel that much of the criticism levelled at the Club in recent months has been misplaced and, in many cases, unfounded.
Members can vote with their feet if they want to; I am very happy where I am.
4 -
Your response to the.big question the booking system is how the club normally answer when they are on the back foot try to gloss over the problem with no real answer
As for those questions you thought were answered as a positive to the question could it be they were all old chestnuts that over the years that they have been asked before the answers have always been basically the same?
0 -
To your first paragraph: Yes, you're probably right. No real answer.
To your second paragraph: You mean that those other questions have been asked many times in the past, so their answers are well rehearsed and have not changed?
Yes, probably you're right there too. But, so what? What's your point?
3 -
+1
The club isn't some political party that aims to get your vote in some form of ballot, it's quite easy if members don't like what they hear/read or get on site then other providers are out there.
Just to point out that I'm not defending the new booking system which I've already described as long winded and easy to make errors on or how it was introduced but it's here and if anyone wants to use club sites (and I do) then the system has to used.
3 -
but I genuinely feel that much of the criticism levelled at the Club in recent months has been misplaced and, in many cases, unfounded.
I think that a lot of people have had genuine reasons for criticising CAMC as a result of the new system. Personally I still find it too awkward and difficult to use when I've tried to look for CLs. I don't consider myself computer illiterate at all, but compared to other websites surely this must be one of the worst?
I have also heard of people being charged twice when paying a deposit, not getting email confirmation of bookings and now having to supply DOBs when making a booking. I don't class that as misplaced or unfounded criticism.
I would like to vote with my feet, as I won't be booking CAMC sites; I booked 2 sites before the new system was launched and will honour those bookings. After that, I won't use them, as I also think they are getting too expensive, or at least, more than I'm prepared to pay.
We now predominantly use CLs and for that reason only we remain members.
7 -
I thought it was quite interesting, even though I can’t totally agree with GDJ's views. Hearing different opinions broaden one's perspective. It certainly wasn't deserving of a yawning emoji.
3 -
It's easy to say "leave the club" to those of us who think the new booking system is poor, however if we didn't point out errors and malfunctions or in my case and others a disturbing banking error these serious faults would go undetected and uncorrected. The situation for CL owners, who are also club members is a case in point, CL searches are still limited to 20 per search and the club is still arguing that prices don't need to be displayed because some will be incorrect as per club prices themselves!? However I Iook forward to hearing praise too.....
1 -
I need to clarify my earlier comment because in a couple of responses I am being misrepresented. I am not disagreeing with the obvious fact that the new booking system has had problems; moreover, I made it pretty clear that the Club's answer to the questions raised, on that specific subject, was not great.
I am certainly not saying, when I question some members' criticisms of the club, that glitches and problems with the system should not be pointed out.
My comment was addressing wider issues than merely the new booking system.
1 -
All we want and need is access to the CLs. At present, £56 per year, mainly recouped via days out and special offers represents reasonable value to us, enables us to tour very cheaply by including CLs. Club’s terms and conditions make life very awkward for us to consider Club Sites now, and few Club Sites give us VFM the way we tour anyway.
We shall give the Club as little of our spend as we can to be honest. We are part of the “expendables”, those whose membership isn’t a good return, as we don’t buy enough Club based products. I long for the day when someone other than the two Clubs are able to certificate small sites on the scale of the current CL network.
6 -
I certainly don't expect the Club to be defensive, I expect them to recognise members concerns and have a bit more humility. As we are frequently told the Club is a non profit organisation, but what should be added is that it exists for its members. To me the need to answer questions defensively indicates that they have got things wrong but are not willing to be contrite in their acceptance of that fact.
They also don't show any acceptance of how some things are changing particularly as far as motorhoming is concerned. The question of members being able to use site facilities for short periods was asked. Now I accept that is not an easy question to answer as its more involved than it looks on the surface. However what I object to was the way the question was answered. Which was that wild camping is illegal in the UK and we don't want to encourage it. You would expect someone senior in the club to understand that there are many off campsite places where motorhomers can park for the night perfectly legally be it in a paid for car par of a pub car park etc. To me a question deserves a proper answer, even if the answer points out the difficulties of accommodating what the questioner asked.
David
9 -
I can't quite make up my mind how the Club view member opinion. It seems they are determined to push their vision through whatever members think, no doubt with the hope we will get used to it. I appreciate that they were responding to individual questions but virtually every response was defensive.
David, I suspect the Club is struggling to understand the many complaints, many of which are not at all constructive and are probably viewed as just push back against change, hence their response. They have acknowledge the initial problems and the need to make corrections, I don't really see that as being defensive.
They also don't show any acceptance of how some things are changing particularly as far as motorhoming is concerned. The question of members being able to use site facilities for short periods was asked. Now I accept that is not an easy question to answer as its more involved than it looks on the surface. However what I object to was the way the question was answered. Which was that wild camping is illegal in the UK and we don't want to encourage it. You would expect someone senior in the club to understand that there are many off campsite places where motorhomers can park for the night perfectly legally be it in a paid for car par of a pub car park etc. To me a question deserves a proper answer, even if the answer points out the difficulties of accommodating what the questioner asked.
I agree 100 percent. The answer about encouraging wild camping has been their staple one for years which just shows how little attempt they have made to understand. The Club still remains very much caravan orientated.
peedee
0 -
The Club still remains very much caravan orientated.
Yet you have posted on your recent visits to club sites that MHs outnumbered caravans and that's certainly my experience too at times even on service pitches, and often it's more or less an even balance across a site every time I go, so I can't see how that statement holds up in reality?
The club offers the same to both MHs and caravans. Just because the club doesn't want to offer one item for MHs (that probably wouldn't use club sites anyway) doesn't mean it is still very much caravan orientated. Is the CCC much more MH ortenatated as it does offer this service?
The club offers a set menu, if you like that is totally inclusive for MHs and caravans. The only item not on that menu is to site facilities for short periods. So the answer is quite straight forward but as you have posted and I have seen MHs are in good supply on sites.
Another point of course is that as posted a while ago there are over 200,000 MHs on the club's books and still growing, so your much caravan orientated just doesn't look right to me for those numbers?
Personally, and this has been echoed even with MH posters, is that I don't want extra traffic on sites for such purposes for safety reasons at least, in fact I recall one MH who posted why should they be kept waiting at a MHSP for someone who has paid a fraction of their overnight stay?
1 -
PeeDee, I totally agree...the Club is still the Caravan Club with a name change.
the amount of MH or caravans on site doesn't determine how MH or caravan 'orientated' the club is, it mere reflects how the membership is split between the two types of touring vehicle.
to have a 'set menu' of services that are available to both sets of members might mean the club is 'inclusive' but if some of those services are not needed by one group and some services that are are not offered at all (as they would be unfair cost wise to the other) just highlights how one size fits all does not really apply.
the issue of MHSP is a case in point....caravaners seem to think that these mean the club has gone out of its way for MHs...yet the poor design and generally worse location of these make them difficult and sometimes embarrassing to use, obstructive at times and, often requiring more than one circuit of the 'dreaded' one way system to leave the pitch, empty/fill the van and then exit the site or return to the pitch.
unlike sites in other places, CAMC MHSPs are add ins to Caravan Sites...and as such, have be dumped into vacant spaces without any thought as to how they are fleeing to be used...it even took years to actually get one of these with a drain across the MHSP to line up with all waste outlet designs. Yet, further, these could/should have been designed with the drain at a low point meaning there was not a requirement for 'exact' placement of the van, therefore vastly speeding up the dumping process. Anyone visiting Europe and pretty much ANY aire or campsite would have understood how they work.
there are several other 'offerings' that the club could make (which could just as easily be taken up by caravaners) like non electric option on every pitch, smaller, cheaper pitches for those who carry little outside kit and stay just a day or two....
and, of course...as PeeDee mentions, use of services for those who are paid up members and will be staying overnight at other legal stopping points where, perhaps there won't be those services available.
im afraid the Club seems to have little understanding of how the market is splitting these days and certainly little understanding of how a MH works differently to a caravan and the different requirements of the respective users.
it seems it is just happy to continue to offer the same 'product' to all members without the ability to tailor items to suit demand.yet another reason for us to eschew the Club's sites.
2 -
I wasn't specifically singling out the Clubs unwillingness to allow motorhomes to use the service facilities without staying overnight when I said the Club is still very much caravan orientated. There is much more to it than that. Its a service I would not use anyway because there are now many such places elsewhere,
Anyhow to discuss further would be going way off topic so I intend leaving it there.
peedee
1 -
shame as you didn't answer the most important question, is the CCC with it's facilities to allow short use more MH orenatatied than the CAMC? because really apart from that I can't see any difference?
0 -
the amount of MH or caravans on site doesn't determine how MH or caravan 'orientated' the club is, it mere reflects how the membership is split between the two types of touring vehicle
The thing is Chris it does, if the club didn't offer what MHs wanted there wouldn't be as many MHs on site, there wouldn't be the even split you talk about. It is more MHs than caravan at present to me anyway and there wouldn't be that 200,000 and growing number of MHs. The club is about getting people, both caravans and MHs on site and they do very well. If MHs were not well catered for why do they come to club sites?
This sort of makes your two statements, little understanding of how a MH works differently to a caravan... and without the ability to tailor items to suit demand look rather incorrect doesn't it?
Otherwise if what your posting is correct how do you account for so many MHs on site and 200,000+ and growing MH owners belonging to the club. I know that not all those 200,000 will be using club sites but there must be something that makes them join in the first place, and keep rejoining.
2
