Non-members on CLs
Comments
-
Then they are putting the system, and more importantly to them I assume, their earnings at risk?
0 -
I am amazed you know so much about how the system works, do you have real inside information. Even when other different posters have said they have seen inspections actually on a CL you still persist in your no inspection theme, why?
I'm sure if I was an inspector I would perhaps arrange an appointment by phone/email...rather than just turn up?
0 -
Then they are the fools.
1 -
I fail to see how showing your membership card to prove one is a member on a CL is going off topic, so it most certainly is not.
On the rare occasions I used a CL in the past I had to show my card.
0 -
You're privy to the records are you, ET?
However, none of this is helping the OP decide whether to report the suspected breach of exemption rules. I say, if he has doubts strong enough to warrant posting them here, he should do it and not return to the site.
1 -
Really, all cash in hand you mean, tax avoidance sort of thing? I remember paying by cheque actually.
Are these CLs not businesses? I've no idea but I would assume there would be some record keeping?
0 -
So if he has doubts he can advise the club that he has a suspicion but no proof. As he has no evidence why would he not give the CL the benefit of the doubt; guilty until proven innocent?
The OP seems to jump to readily to conclusions based on hunches. Such as the T5 having no toilet facility and, much like the OP, nothing to go on.
1 -
Cornersteady- So they make an appointment- Its post the event so the situation will have changed. Perhaps an empty site, the owner has no recollection of the event, one word against the other. etc. Who has any legal proof of a transgression. How long do you think anyone is going to get involved in such an event.
1 -
How many times to I need to say that the club wants to hear of suspicions of breaches so they can investigate?
That is why he should not give the CLowner the benefit of the doubt as it is not for the member to pass judgement but merely to forward his findings/suspicions in an effort to protect the system.
1 -
How many times? Once was ample.
Just because you are repetitive does not mean that your views are more justified.
I said that if the OP had doubts that he should advise the Club; in the opening line of my post
So if he has doubts he can advise the club that he has a suspicion but no proof. As he has no evidence why would he not give the CL the benefit of the doubt; guilty until proven innocent?
And as I also said if there is no proof and merely a hunch (such as a T5 conversion having no Loo) why would he not continue to use the site? And why presume a CL owner guilty with no evidence of such?
1 -
I have no idea why you keep saying the same things in different ways.
The OP should report and my views are justified by the club's stance which is why I repeat them with confidence.
I have not said anything about the toilet issue other than in my first post so your last paragraph has no relevance to me.
1 -
When I stayed at Monarch Lakes CL a fellow member (I had no reason to suspect that he was not a member) commented on a 6th Outfit against the wall of a building on a large carpark used by those fishing and not on any of the actual CL pitches. He thought it wrong until I pointed out that the van was owner's family member who was looking after both the fisheries and CL whilst the Owner was in Benidorm or similar for a week.
1 -
In response to your repetitious post, either misrepresenting or not understanding my previous post that said the OP should report his, possibly unfounded, suspicions. But that I saw no reason to presume the CL to be guilty of anything and hence no reason not to return
2 -
It's called raising awareness, it's called letting the CL owner know that the club is aware that there has been a report, there might be a problem and that they want to hear their side of the story. Yes there may not be any evidence of any breach but it just might get the owner to be a bit more careful in the future? Of course the club will keep a record and there might be a pattern forming in which case matters will be taken further. But unless people let the club know in the first place none of this will happen and then as I said upthread, it might escalate (remember two threads in two weeks) and perception will outweigh reality and the system loved by many could be affected.
I really don't know why you're so against CLs and the system, that might not be your intention but it comes across that way in the numerous posts you make about them?
1 -
In order to sate Corners earlier curiosity, the CL in question was Carefree Nurseries in Titchfield, IIRC. Used by AD en route to his travels "over there". Why it was pertinent to your discourse, however, escapes me.
2 -
I did say why in my post, have a reread CY? but thank you for replying for him, frowned upon by certain posters but I don't mind at all.
How some of Dave's similar posts to me being pertinent must also escape you? They certainly do to me.
0 -
I have stayed on the CL in question on a few occasions, if it is the one identified by CY, as my niece lived just up the road in Titchfield. However, it is very possible that the person(s) in the campervan were going for an early ferry at Portsmouth or Southampton and had stopped there after a long drive from further north. We will never know.
On a recent stay at a CL we were talking to the couple on the next pitch to us who had a fairly small campervan (not the Susan Calman type) who had not only a loo but a shower as well.
On the assumption that the owners of the campervan used it on more than this one occasion I would be surprised if they had no toilet facilities with them. Making do is not always convenient or possible.
As far as the CL owner is concerned. if someone asks if another user of the CL is a member I would have said " it's none of your business".
3 -
JohnM, the CL referred to by CY was for a different reason. As far as we know, it is not the CL referred to by the OP.
1 -
We campervaned for over 40 years (6 vans in total) and were avid CL users. Fortunately we were in the " live and and let live era". We did not care or question if the others were club members, or how stringent the site owners were. It made no difference to our holiday enjoyment. My main thrust is that the Cl system probably needs updating to the modern era, particularly regarding the viability of starting or improving a site with a 5 van limit impediment. My hope is that future generations can enjoy the freedom of the less regimented versions of sites. There I hope that explains simply my viewpoint.
1 -
This post is not as far "off-topic" as a lot of the noise posted in this thread.
We are regularly reminded about a possibility of The Caravan Club loosing the right to issue exemptions, or even the whole legislature situation being changed so that no organisation can do so any longer.
Yet if there is a percieved transgression we are asked to inform the Club. Perhaps the Club keeps a tally of such situations, and even discontinues a site's certification. But all of this is internal. What gets reported back to a central government body? I guess absolutely nothing!
So the Club is both poacher and gamekeeper.
4 -
I would say the OP has a personal grudge against small campers, VWT5s in particular, based upon what happens at his home. This is born out by his own later post. This is leading to speculation around a T5 visiting the CL he was staying on, so much so that he has decided to question the CL owner about the status of the visitor, and his toileting habits. Then it is the word of the OP that the CL owner was “vague”. More speculation.
But, despite his reservations, the OP isn’t going to report the CL until he has used it again. Make what you want of the morality and fairness around this decision, I have my own thoughts, and they are not charitable. If a transgression has occurred, then follow Club advice, and report it🤷♀️
CL owners used to be issued with official recording diaries/sheets by the Club. Not sure if this is still ongoing, might have been superseded now by technology, but I do know most CL owners recorded Membership numbers, and as regular CL users, we are far more likely to be asked for our number than not. We also use the App. CL owners can check Membership status with HQ very easily, I do know this. Just to repeat again for the benefit of Fisherman, yes Club Inspectors can and do call, we have seen some, met some. So I hope this fact can be retained for future threads.
What do I think in conclusion? I think the OP is basing his rather too interested views on not a great deal of fact. If he was serious in his concerns then report it. But to go back and then report it does seem a grossly unfair method of carrying on to be honest. Fine for me to use again because it suits, but after that I don’t care if it is closed down.
1 -
What do I think in conclusion? I think the OP is basing his rather too interested views on not a great deal of fact. If he was serious in his concerns then report it. But to go back and then report it does seem a grossly unfair method of carrying on to be honest. Fine for me to use again because it suits, but after that I don’t care if it is closed down.
Much a similar view except If I felt reasonable to do so I might well report it but would still have returned as long as it was still a CL, as it would be. .
0
