1 night booking
Comments
-
Why would the club want to increase the loading on their computer systems to "monitor "any cancellations before the already 72 hr periods, when on the majority of sites it seems ,pitches are snapped up already , with the increased popularity that sites are experiencing , with UK staycations, and increases it seems of those from over there wanting to come over here , as site staff have been noticing , with add staff being employed to cater for the extra visitors
0 -
I think you would make a good living from your theories, , it might help the failing retailers ( that you came out of?)in this country
,rather than the expanding leisure industry that seems to be quite with what the majority of consumers need
0 -
But then as you and some others, tend not to use the club's sites as often as some of us then your presumptions seem as usual , way off the mark
and the in your words "pot wash" tends to be mostly used by male members of this club, then as you tend not to have noted the "snipets" that you would wish to be incorrect
you may have noticed ,as not the cases come from better sources than you are likely to encounter0 -
You do make things sound so simple BB!!! Whilst it might not take time to extract the data,(although it's still computer time) that data does need some analysis otherwise its pointless. It needs sorting into categories that you have predefined. However my point was that if the Club are happy that the 72 hour rule is working (and what evidence do we have that it is not) why on earth would they create extra monitoring? It would be a different matter if they were unhappy with the impact of the 72 hour rule when I am sure it would be worth the time to investigate.
3 -
I know I could probably plough through pages and pages of Terms and Conditions to find out the answer, but does the 72 hour rule apply also to the various types of huts the Club is now renting out on some sites?
0 -
There always appear to be over the years those who suggest that the club is run on a shoestring, people in charge or control not knowing what the are doing, those in control do not look or even manage the data well, or does not even look at changing member's needs (although this usually means the club is not doing what I need).
Yes it is often portrayed as a lumbering organisational not really up to date or speed, or even on the ball, bumbling along from one day to the next.
Well who knows?
But the facts are that it runs 200 sites nationally, providing good value and very good sites and employs hundreds, and has a hand in things like insurance and various offers worked out with other organisations which people use to their advantage.
Now I know there are others who disagree and say there is better out (if only we poor clubs users would learn that but we are not savy enough to know that) but another fact is that many people want to stay at a club site, that many people want to pay their exorbitant inflation busting membership fee. How often do we hear that people can't get pitches? I would think that it has occupancy rates that other campsite providers can only dream about and envy.
Isn't that a sign that perhaps the club is rather good, and the people running it are good at their jobs?
4 -
BB, DK, I think you are both right. There has to be a point to gathering data, with defined reasons, be it to check a policy, create a policy, implement change. It will require staff hours at different levels, and it needs to be a meaningful exercise for everyone, including in this instance, the Membership. None of us on here know the full aims and objectives of different sections of the Club, Club Site usage being just one aspect.
Underlying the drive towards maximising take up, filling pitches, there might just be a vestige of the “Members Club” left, whereby some gesture takes into account genuine late cancellation, travelling in bad weather issues, etc.... and given the probably small percentage of such, including no shows, at this stage maybe the Club is loathe to impose more draconian penalties? Therefore, why data crunch what is essentially the mythical “booking to cancel later” belief that many think is gospel?
Lots of members book sites early. I do occasionally for events I want to attend. But when booking, I know that I cannot control certain things, such as weather, illness etc..... I have a reminder alarm set on my phone a week prior to a booking, then I review the situation. The Club allows me to do this. No deposit has to be payed, no cancellation fee imposed. If this were not the case, then I would have to take out insurance, like that for most holidays. It’s a good system that functions well for the vast majority of Members. At the moment, the Club appears happy, the Membership is mostly happy.👍
3 -
It's quite easy to find, Nav. Just click on booking terms.
2 -
Oh the image that conjures! Naughty persons........
I was once such a flashier example......🤣
0 -
To me a serial canceller outside the 72 hours is just a bad as one who cancels 3 times in a year within 72 hours. I might be in a minority but I do not hang around waiting for cancellations, I look elsewhere and 9 time out of ten I end up on a non Club site.
peedee
0 -
"To me a serial canceller outside the 72 hours is just a bad as one who cancels 3 times in a year within 72 hours."
I think I'd agree with that PD, but surely the point is that, as far as we know, the numbers in both categories are extremely small. Otherwise, whatever the doubters might argue, I think the club would have enough commercial nouse to take more drastic action.
2 -
That’s you as an individual PD, and I respect your choice of what you do. We seldom book anything in advance, but on the odd occasion we do, it’s a huge bonus knowing that the Club operates a cancellation policy that is very reasonable. We have been the beneficiaries as well, YRP has to be the busiest site on the network (possibly Baltic Wharf🤔), but we have twice picked up late cancellations and extended our stay there on a whim, merely be strolling down to reception.
For some people still in work, but who like to get away for short breaks, having the capacity to book well in advance is the only way they can tour. Gone are the days when people worked set hours, set patterns, employment is rather more fluid, 24 hour, seven days a week now, and employers can easily alter work hours and patterns. That’s another variable out of control like the weather and illness. The Club has to give something to younger members as well as the go when you like section.
There are only a tiny number of sites difficult to get into, slightly more if you include weekends in the Summer. But that’s an indication of a healthy membership and good pitch take up? But then you will get posts about how many pitches are empty in the holiday months, with all the theories around this? It’s all speculation from Member point of view really.
2 -
Nor do we m but a call to a site if a pitch is wanted ,even if showing full on the systems , I think I could count on one hand when we have had a negative response, of course unless its a "honey pot" site then a phone call could well be in the negative so we would not try
0 -
Your choice, PD.
The difference in the examples you quote is that the serial canceller outside of 72 hours (if such a person exists) is not breaching any T&C's, the serial canceller inside 72 hours is breaking the rules and will be monitored and dealt with accordingly.
Whilst I'm not advocating the former example is a good and moral way to do things, it certainly isn't reprehensible in terms of the T&Cs and, as you said, it's your opinion.
3 -
I don't think anyone does, but if I wanted to go away this weekend I'd look at what's available say Tuesday or Wednesday, and book. It might be what I've chosen is a 'late' cancellation in either sense of the word. It's worked many times with honeypot sites.
0 -
If we fancy a site, I phone. Talk to Wardens, explain what we want, bypass the booking system to check first. It’s no inconvenience as we use so few Club Sites, but it gives an accurate up to the minute check.
1 -
It seems to me that as a forum we are a bit too involved with trying to tell the Club how it should manage itself rather than concentrating on the real impact the way the Club does things has on its members, which incidentally in the main is pretty positive. Of what possible interest ( other than perhaps from an academic view point) is the knowledge that someone who booked a site in January for a period in July actually cancelled that booking on 1st June, even if they did that with every booking they made? It also seems that the people who are clamoring for this information are those that use the network the least! For all of us who have been around a while we know that late cancellations were a real issue. One way to have overcome this problem was to reintroduce deposits. I expect the Club realised that deposits wouldn't have been popular so came up with the idea of the 72 hour rule. Now some will think that is inspired thinking and some will view it as a cop out which just goes to prove whatever the Club does it can't win with some people!!!
David
7
