No Shows
On pitching up at a CL today and chatting to the owner I was extremely surprised to hear that this past weekend alone she had two No Shows. in fact club members who didn't even have the courtesy to let her know either in advance or on the day.
Surely this standard of behaviour is reprehensible and these members ought to have been reported to the club for their lack of consideration?
Does the club have a system whereby these ingrates can be censored and may be even publicly chastised for their lack of consideration?
Comments
-
We have heard exactly the same from two CL's recently. Quite a few CL's are now demanding deposits on booking, and full payment before arrival. I don't blame them one bit.
Another example of members having no sense of fairness. New members? Who knows.
2 -
Whilst I agree with the OP that it is poor behaviour not to keep the CL owner informed the remedy is surely in the hands of that CL owner? I don't know if its more of a weekend thing but perhaps taking full payment in advance? We recently stayed at Overwater Marina CL and they take full payment on booking with the proviso that if cancelled 30 days or more before arrival site a full refund is given and I think a 50% refund is given 14 days before arrival. I appreciate that Overwater is a large business and has the where with all to manage such systems. It really depends of how involved the CL owners wants to be. For any system involving the Club the membership number would have to be taken on booking and I wonder how often that happens? The Club seem to remind us at regular intervals that CL's are private businesses so the ability to intervene is probably limited without some sort of centralised booking system?
David
0 -
I have only stayed at a CL once and I had to pay in advance and give my membership number. That's the way to deal with it. It is not as if it is not now commonplace to have to do that, or at least pay a decent deposit.
I agree though that it is incredibly rude and irresponsible not to contact the site if the pitch is not going to be taken up - for whatever reason. This notwithstanding, public chastisement is not appropriate in any case or circumstance.
0 -
I've never been asked for a deposit on any CL I've stayed at. I have offered but always been told just let me know if you are not coming. Sometimes I get asked for my membership No not always though.
I think if you are booking for more than 3 days days then it would be wise to take a deposit for a 1 nighter then possibly not worth the effort.
I think if you are not meticulous in writing down your bookings at the time of making them it can be difficult to remember where and on what date you are supposed to be there. I now ask for a confirmation email even if the booking is made over the phone.
0 -
I’ve paid upfront for CL bookings many a time. Often it’s just one night's fee in advance. I’ve no issue with that at all as it makes good business sense and is perfectly acceptable to me.
The no-shows are ill mannered and reflect badly on us all.
3 -
David Klyne wrote - For any system involving the Club the membership number would have to be taken on booking and I wonder how often that happens? The Club seem to remind us at regular intervals that CL's are private businesses so the ability to intervene is probably limited without some sort of centralised booking system?
David we saw a similar situation regarding someone who skipped paying whilst the owners were out. I asked him what recourse he had. He said that he had written tot he club when this happened in the past but they didn't help him out at all and never even tried to reprimand the member. He said his only course was the small claims court but again the club wouldn't release address details due to the Data Protection.
He now takes deposits.
It affects every law abiding member because we end up losing part of the old ways that CLs operate. I understand deposits and up front payment close to arrival completely but it seems something dies in the relationship. Not wishing to start an "over there" comparison but it would be the same as paying for your pitch up front when you arrive on a site in France as opposed to when you leave. Something about trust and the owner being bitten once too often by unscrupulous people.
I wish the club would show that the CL operation does actually involve them as many members are only members because of them. They should help the CLs more in these sort of situations. Maybe serial abuses could have their membership suspended. Maybe CL owners could insist on seeing membership cards as well.
4 -
What about when the 'the shoes are on the other feet'.?
I emailed a cl on Wed . morning asking if they had a pitch available for 3/4 days during July- I got an almost immediate answer back telling me they had just had a cancellation for 8 nights starting 2nd. July. I immediately sent an email back booking a pitch for five nights starting 2nd July.
I received no confirmation on Wednesday, so late Wed. night sent another email. Again no confirmation Thursday morning so telephoned only to get messaging service so left a message asking the owner to ring me. No call - Just received an email 6p.m. Thurs telling me the were fully booked.
We have been members for 40 years and have used many cls , but this is the first time we have been treated like this. The moral of the story in my mind is don't email -phone.
0 -
If I am correct I understand that the Club make no money from the CL operation, in fact it probably costs money. I think CL's now have to be members but £50 odd a year from each CL does not amount to much. OK perhaps £100,000 might seem a lot but in reality that is probably what it costs to administer the site directory and website information and other requirements for over 2000 CL's?
I know many members have an attachment to CL's which they probably don't for main sites but I suspect even that is a bit misplaced. It seems that once the Club have approved the certification and inspected the CL and added the details to web and site directory that is probably the extent of their involvement. The Club probably don't have, or are unwilling to provide, the level of support needed to follow up on complaints because that increases costs. It seems that some have a romantic view of what CL's are or should be and probably that view extends to how people that use CL should conform to, sadly that is no longer the real world. CL owners have to recognise that we are in a web based world and there are relatively cheap and easy ways to introduce advanced payment. They also have to appreciate that when people phone or email they need a reply, at a maximum of within 24 hours. We all know there are people that will abuse a system but I somehow doubt any of us can change that. CL's owners either have to accept that some not bother following honourable ways of doing things or put in systems which minimise that abuse.
David
1 -
I hear what you all say from both sides of the argument - but that’s the problem with CLs.They are stuck with the figure five. They can’t squeeze one or two more outfits in however big their field is if they are double booked. And yet if they get a couple of no shows it hits their profitability into the far distance. Frankly I hardly ever used them as there are so many ex CL and ex CS sites which have grown up and expanded a little, and now operate more efficiently and with more flexibility.
0 -
2000 CL's paying membership of £50 is £100,000 plus the membership fee paid by many club members who are only members because of the CL's? How would the club get on without CL's? In my opinion, it would be incomplete, and worthless for many members.
9 -
It seems that some have a romantic view of what CL's are or should be and probably that view extends to how people that use CL should conform to, sadly that is no longer the real world.
You're quite lucky that I'm in a benevolent mood tonight David. I really find people who talk of me not being in the "real world" quite patronising. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have lived in the "real world" and it's many guises over the years since a very young age.
I'm going to stop now whilst that benevolent mood still exists.
4 -
Name and shame those members is what I say, and perhaps then other CL owners will know who to look out for and not accept those potential booking.
0 -
Snap!!
0 -
Post removed by me.
0 -
A serial defaulter would have to be a bit of an idiot to be a no-show at the same CL. If "all" CL owners took a membership number, it would be easy to submit the numbers to a CAMC database. It could then be programmed to cancel a membership upon, say, the third offence. Very little admin would be required by the club. As the CL network is the 'jewel in the crown', the club do need to nurture it otherwise they are merely another campsite chain.
3 -
CY
Whilst I agree that it would be very unlikely for someone to "no show" at the same CL, and hopefully the CL owner wouldn't entertain a second booking anyway? However I think you over simplify the system the Club would have to put in place. On paper it might seem possible but the Club would have to expend the same amount of resources on CL's as they have in the recent past on Club sites no shows/late cancellations which would entail contacting the offender to allow them to offer some explanation which might be used in mitigation. I suspect the reality of the Club site system was that only a handful of people had their membership removed if I recall when the Club have commented on such things in the past. As we are always being told by the Club, CL's are small independent businesses. As such they need to decide their own measures to counter such breaches. That could be deposits or taking full payment a month ahead. Some may just decide to accept that some people won't turn up and if the percentage is small it might not warrant putting things such as deposits in place?
David
0 -
I don't see anywhere in DK's post the suggestion that the club should stop having CLs. I have not seen that suggestion anywhere else either. I never use them (except once in 35 years) so it would not bother me one way or the other, but it would be foolhardy in the extreme to argue for them to go!
What is your point here?
0 -
It wasn't complicated. The point is that the club is receiving income from Cl's, both directly as CL owners are obliged to pay membership fees, and indirectly as many members are only members because of CL's. The club would not survive without CL's, but doesn't seem to value and support them.
9 -
I'm always surprised to read posts about CLs not making money for CAMC, they are a valuable part of the"club" don't forget some provide rally fields too. Main site users are sometimes blissfully unaware of the various branches on the tree.
No shows lose CL owners money, the same happens on main sites too (until deposits happen.) However individual CL owners have to make their own financial decisions and those that band together to help each other probably have a better success rate.
4 -
Spot on Brue. If your CL usage is very limited, then some of the reasons why they are so valued and loved by others may not be readily apparent. We wouldn’t be Members now if it wasn’t for the CL network, and I think that might explain obberknockle’s post. Their value to the Club is vast, regardless of the fee to join that some CL owners pay. Note I say some. Owners who who provided CLs for decades don’t appear to have to take out Membership as far as I know.
It wouldn’t hurt the Club to send an email to a Member who does a no show at a CL. But the CL would need to provide Membership number and proof of booking. Best to take a deposit from any new Member visiting.
We are just back from a lovely CL. As laid back as they come, but I would hate for them to have a no show, as it spoils things for anyone who couldn’t get in.
3 -
We wouldn’t be Members now if it wasn’t for the CL network,
Neither would we ttda; we do use main sites but only between about November and March, during the other months much prefer CLs, which are quieter and most have more space.
The owner of the CL we've just stayed on told us that 3 people have cancelled from this weekend onwards into next week, she should have been full. She suspects it's due to the weather changing (Wales - lots of rain forecast). Not quite as bad as no shows, but at such short notice there isn't much chance of those pitches being booked at this stage. She does charge a deposit, but only 1 night's worth, and is now thinking of increasing the deposit.
1 -
Very annoying for her InaD, and I don’t blame her at all for increasing deposits. We have a good relationship with the owners of CLs we use a lot. They are very fair with us, we don’t usually pay a deposit, but wouldn’t moan if we had to do so. We usually book very late anyway, night before the off, so we are always fully committed barring an emergency.
It’s still not easy getting a CL pitch, Sites are very busy in certain areas. We were going to try a new one this time out, but I couldn’t book it in advance as OH is waiting for a hospital date, so it was full. But we returned to an old favourite, much to our surprise pitches available, and it was a lovely stay.
1 -
We use CLs and ex CLs virtually all the time now.
We generally find that on our first visit to a CL they ask for a deposit. However after that when we book they generally don’t want a deposit as they feel they know us.
As for no shows well that happens in all walks of life. We do find that like the hospital, dentist doctors etc, we get a text on the day before arrival to confirm that we are coming. Thus the sites we use very rarely get no shows!The ex CLs we use are all large fields, have all increased capacity from 5 to 10 or 12 units. No overcrowding at all. Only left the network as the CMC would not let them increase in size or split the field into two CLs.
On one ex CL they were told they could split into two CLs, as long as an earth bank was built between the two proposed CLs so they could not see each other. Hence they are now ex.
1 -
I think you’ll find those stipulations are made by Govt regulation, PR1. It’s not within the scope of the club to vary them.
2 -
Why have two CLs PR1? We have stayed on lots of Sites that comprise a 5 pitch CL, and then planning permission has been granted for a small private Site adjacent. The Club can come along and inspect the little 5 pitch area, but has sweet sod all to do with the private area. I suspect we have probably stayed on a good couple of dozen sites like this down the years, so it’s not uncommon. We do know of a couple who have asked to have another 5 pitch area with the Club, separate, but the Club as you say have said no, and they have pulled off the network totally, gone it alone. And thriving I might add.
1 -
Now we no longer go abroad the only reason we stay members of the club is for the CL access and I imagine there are other members like us so the club do get some revenue from having Cls.
Incidentally we have just stayed on a site in the Lake District where a week before our arrival date we could only book for six days as she was full on the seventh. The day we left there were three empty pitches and no one expected in. She said that in May she had 30 no shows, not cancellations but just people who didn't turn up.
2 -
It might not have been complicated, but it was certainly opaque.
You stated: "How would the club get on without CL's?" But neither DK, to whom you were responding, nor anyone else that I have seen, were suggesting the abolition of CLs. That was your clear implication.
DK did not deny that the club had income from CLs. Indeed he stated clearly that they had. I agree that the income is more than he quoted because some members only subscribe in order to use CLs. If your point was only that then that is what you should have said. DK did not deny that there was some income.
I do not know whether the club loses money or makes money from CLs. However, I am perfectly certain that the notion that it would not survive without them is entirely without foundation and almost certainly wrong. Total membership income is around £16m and, in a normal year, about 13% of total income. You'd have to lose a heck of a lot of that to threaten the Club's ability to trade profitably and in a solvent state.
I realise that those who love CLs are clamouring to make points here in their support and falling over themselves to "like" positive CL posts. People have assumed that posts from DK, and my own, make us anti-CLs. Nothing David said showed him to be against CLs, least of all suggest they are done away with. Nor am I anti-CLs. They are an important part of the club. I am just realistic about them and what people should expect. The romantic notion that CLs would not be the same if they became more business like is a clear case of nostalgia getting in the way of common sense. I do not use CLs myself because I like to be certain about what I am going to get. But I have no argument at all with those that enjoy them or who confine their trips to CLs only.
1
