Has the club made the right move?

The one benefit of the introduction  of deposits is that pitch availability, especially for weekends, seems to have vastly improved.

Therefore last minute bookings are more likely to succeed and if they are last minute won't need to be changed.

I agree with the sentiments that other ways could have been found to improve availability and discourage no-shows but deposits is the way it is.

David, although I sympathise with your circumstances I’m reminded of those many discussions held on CT when the deposit system was first discussed. I recall that some suggested that to allow a conditional reimbursement would defeat the object and allow for those more creative amongst us to concoct their ‘defence’ once the precedent is set and generally known. Now I admire your transparency in this and willingness to share your experiences but I’m also aware that we have been reminded constantly of the need to take out insurance policies against such loss of deposits. I’m pretty sure that will be the club’s continued stance, if not those floodgates are opened for those willing to be creative in their efforts to be reimbursed. Good luck though in your attempt mind.

I recently received a total reimbursement of a lost holiday and travel costs. Insurance is out there! I’m not in the first flush of youth either! Worth investigating what suits you and your circumstances K but there is a small cost incurred for the likes. Worth it though if needed. We had to jump thorough hoops and provide copious documentation and receipts though, quite time consuming. Not worth it for a paltry deposit but if included in a whole lost holiday costs  it is!

I am covered by my international insurance for any holiday here but of course the excess is £100 so for club holidays where the deposit is most of the time going to be less than that it doesn't help, I suppose it would cover anyone who pays fully in advance rather than pay on arrival for say a two week holiday, and of course for anyone booking a commercial site where the full amount is required some weeks before and it is non refundable no matter what.

I recall I could have less excess but then the premiums go up. As will of course if one has pre-existing conditions. 

A whole holiday is a totally different proposition to a 10 or 20% deposit.  

Just  the deposit is what I would be looking for in relation to Club or other site bookings.  

As CS said, the excess, and the premium, especially when age and existing conditions affect the cost so much, make it a non-financially-sensible proposition, I have investigated the possibilities.

Some holiday parks do offer their own insurance, usually for something like £10 per booking, so I see no reason the Club could not do something similar.

I’ve no problems with paying a deposit. If paying upfront for something (in my case more likely to be concert tickets than holidays) I am aware that circumstances may arise that mean I may not be able to go, and work on the principle of only booking and paying for something if I can afford to lose the money. I will not have “lost the money” (already spent), but lost the holiday/concert. 

"Unfortunately the Club seems to have a bit of a history of misreading how members receive new things. The name change was a prime example. The logic was clear to see but the (un) acceptance, in some quarters, was off the scale." - DK

"The alternative would be, at best, that the thoughts and wishes of the membership had been misread or were not properly considered which is I guess at the heart of the OP." - mickysf

Might I suggest that this Club has been no different from a lot of organisations in attempting to bring about change. Changing the processes and technologies are generally easier to do - especially centrally - although I suspect some would question this Club's success with certain "technologies"!!

What a lot of big organisations forget is the third - and most important aspect - people - and here the Club has demonstrated that it is, sadly, no better then many other big organisations - which is a bit sad considering it reckons it's a member's organisation. There is no doubt in my mind that the new booking system has caused a lot of grief for members - and has probably played a part in reduced occupancy. This could have been avoided if more time had been spent communicating with (and listening to) the membership rather than simply concentrating on the mechanics of the process.

It doesn’t matter how people spend their time. But the point I think was being made is that it may affect how people see the sites. If it is a destination in its own right you perhaps want more from it than if it is merely a means to an end.

I agree with David about the change of name as some Members were vitriolic about it and blamed motorhomers for it, who, as far as I know, knew nothing about it unitl it actually happened and (in my case) didn't want the name change either.

As well as having my M/H for 10 years, I have also, for 20 years, had a share in a narrowboat and I cannot help but think that in many ways the Club seems to be on a par with the former British Waterways, now the Canal and Rivers Trust! 

Instead of asking the people who work for BW and later the CRT and/or the boaters, (the people who actually use the canals and rivers and pay a very hefty licence for the privilage), for their advice and input, they just make decisions which sometimes appear to have been thought up by Basil Fawlty!

I wonder how many Wardens, Assistant Wardens and/or Members the Club were actually asked for their views about speculative booking and what way would be best to try and help curtail it, if they ever were?