CAMC charge for extra person? (1 Viewer)

[MerlinUK]

We just went to book a CAMC site. For a single person it is quoting £29.40 but for a couple it is quoting £42.90!

Why? The space occupied is the same and the only extra "usage" might be the facilities block if we used them.

Does this sound right or is it likely to be an website issue?

 

[Janine]

They charge for the pitch and then per person.

 

[MerlinUK]

They charge for the pitch and then per person.

I understand that but why so much more per person? I can't believe the site encounters much more cost for an extra person.

 

[iandsm]

So a shower Sh,t and shave is £13.5 should you wish to use their facilities, and the same if you use those n your van

 

[Gaston aires]

They have always done this. And it’s more for 3 + people as well.
Phil

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[JRT]

Precisely why we rarely use their sites and stick to CL's if poss.

 

[Gellyneck]

We just went to book a CAMC site. For a single person it is quoting £29.40 but for a couple it is quoting £42.90!

Why? The space occupied is the same and the only extra "usage" might be the facilities block if we used them.

Does this sound right or is it likely to be an website issue?

Guess something similar could be said for hotels, etc charging more for a double (room only) vs for a single (room only)?

 

[MerlinUK]

Guess something similar could be said for hotels, etc charging more for a double (room only) vs for a single (room only)?

But with a hotel you are using extra space , extra towels etc.

 

[Janine]

If I use commercial sites instead of club sites, I have to pay for my imaginary friend.

 

[MerlinUK]

So a shower Sh,t and shave is £13.5 should you wish to use their facilities, and the same if you use those n your van

That seems to sum it up. In Edinburgh the charge was an extra £20.35 for the second person. For sites with swimming pools, clubs etc. I can see why there should be a significant difference but not on a basic touring site

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Gellyneck]

But with a hotel you are using extra space , extra towels etc.

But only one toilet requiring cleaning?

 

[JulianC]

Guess something similar could be said for hotels, etc charging more for a double (room only) vs for a single (room only)?

But here's the thing. Premier Inn, for example, charge the same price in a double room for 1 or for 2 persons. Why should CAMC charge so much extra for 2 persons? Pure madness. No logical reason.

 

[dunnah01]

They operate camping sites so the more people there are the more it costs them. Motorhomes aren't camping things so they don't know how to deal with them.

 

[JulianC]

I have a major problem in principle with the CAMC policy in this regard. It is totally ridiculous. A very very slight marginal extra for a second person is maybe, just maybe, acceptable. The answer is to vote with my feet, or my wheels. I will NOT pay for an extra person at a CAMC site. I don't use them. I will only use CL or CS sites, or independents, Search for Sites, etc or travel abroad which is FAR cheaper anyway. Stick it CAMC.

 

[VXman]

But here's the thing. Premier Inn, for example, charge the same price in a double room for 1 or for 2 persons. Why should CAMC charge so much extra for 2 persons? Pure madness. No logical reason.

By the same score someone staying on their own will be moaning 'why should I pay the same as the van in the next pitch that has 2 people in.?'

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Andy Norfolk]

It's a business. They will structure their pricing to maximise their revenue. They will alter that pricing structure as the market changes. All pricing structures produce winners and losers amongst customers. That's just something businesses accept. Remember it's not really a club. It's a free market, the customer makes their choice, the business succeeds or fails.

 

[pelican]

But with a hotel you are using extra space , extra towels etc.

And eating and drinking twice as much.

 

[Gellyneck]

But here's the thing. Premier Inn, for example, charge the same price in a double room for 1 or for 2 persons. Why should CAMC charge so much extra for 2 persons? Pure madness. No logical reason.

For me the logic is it gives a reduced cost for a sole traveller.
Whether you agree with the base rate being acceptable or not is a different question.
What would Premier Inn charge if they did have a rate for a single occupancy?
Are singles "subsidising" the base rate?

 

[JulianC]

So a shower Sh,t and shave is £13.5 should you wish to use their facilities, and the same if you use those n your van

Daylight robbery, IMHO. As Merlin says, it doesn't cost the club anything like that for one extra person.

 

[JulianC]

By the same score someone staying on their own will be moaning 'why should I pay the same as the van in the next pitch that has 2 people in.?'

Sure, I accept that totally 2 people using the pitch should pay slightly more. Some marginal extra cost is certainly warranted, no problem. But not the extra £13.50 Merlin was quoted. But, we're not forced to pay the extra. Just go somewhere else. Most hotels don't charge extra for an extra person for room only. Even though there may be slightly more linen, water, etc if there is 1 extra person.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[JulianC]

For me the logic is it gives a reduced cost for a sole traveller.
Whether you agree with the base rate being acceptable or not is a different question.
What would Premier Inn charge if they did have a rate for a single occupancy?
Are singles "subsidising" the base rate?

Yes, I understand the logic of a discount for only one person Gellyneck. But does a single person really warrant a 30% discount of £13.50?

 

[JulianC]

For me the logic is it gives a reduced cost for a sole traveller.
Whether you agree with the base rate being acceptable or not is a different question.
What would Premier Inn charge if they did have a rate for a single occupancy?
Are singles "subsidising" the base rate?

I'd say that no, single people aren't subsidising couples. What the excessive (imho) extra charge for an extra person means is that couples are in fact subsidising single people by paying way more than it costs to provide a pitch and services. But so be it. Many people seem to be happy to pay over the odds. We're all free to spend what we like. I feel it's a rip off and personally choose not to stay at CAMC sites that charge over the odds for an extra person.

 

[eddie]

I used to own a campsite

The argument is £40 for a couple, I’m on my own, so I should pay £20 drip drip moan moan. As it is in the op the campsite is getting more, while appearing “single friendly”

The same as dogs, “He’s got two dogs, it’s not fair I’m paying the same with no dogs” “it’s not fair, they have an awning I don't, I should be getting a discount”

I think with so many campsites available if you don’t like the pricing structure, don’t give the establishment your business

 

[JulianC]

It's a business. They will structure their pricing to maximise their revenue. They will alter that pricing structure as the market changes. All pricing structures produce winners and losers amongst customers. That's just something businesses accept. Remember it's not really a club. It's a free market, the customer makes their choice, the business succeeds or fails.

Absolutely right. No problem. I vote with my wheels and chose not to pay the rip off extra charge for a couple. I'm sure many feel the same. That's how any market works as you say. As a business would the club ever know how much business they lose by members booking somewhere else? With the continued discounts CAMC offer, my guess is they do know bookings are down, and they are trying to sell more bookings by offering discounts. They should try reducing the extra person charge and test the impact.

 

[BrochMike]

couples are in fact subsidising single people by paying way more than it costs to provide a pitch

I'd agree.
I have used CAMC when on my own as I think they are not a bad deal (relative to others in UK - and thanks to the couples paying so much!) but usually seek out alternatives when we are two (Freebie/CL/CS).

Perhaps I'm also more comfortable paying for the extra "security" offered by the site when on my own?

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[JulianC]

I used to own a campsite

The argument is £40 for a couple, I’m on my own, so I should pay £20 drip drip moan moan. As it is in the op the campsite is getting more, while appearing “single friendly”

The same as dogs, “He’s got two dogs, it’s not fair I’m paying the same with no dogs” “it’s not fair, they have an awning I don't, I should be getting a discount”

I think with so many campsites available if you don’t like the pricing structure, don’t give the establishment your business

Quite right Eddie. I chose not to pay the extra and rather go somewhere else. No moans. Purely an observation like the original OP who also couldn't see the business logic in why the extra charge was so much. Just to stir it up a wee bit, why would a single person expect to pay 50% of what a couple pays for the pitch? They "rent" the same space surely?

 

[JulianC]

And eating and drinking twice as much.

But using Premier Inn as a proxy for a large hotel business, food and drink are charged extra. That's totally understandable to expect to pay for. A couple on a campsite uses the same space as a single person by and large, and a very little extra water, electricity, loo paper, cleaning, etc. A marginal extra is certainly warranted. Not about 40% extra. We owned a hotel in Thailand for 9 years. We charged a room only rate, whether 1 or 2 people, and breakfast was extra based on what each person chose.

 

[chaser]

Of course,the other way of looking at it, if they have club houses and shops and stuff, like haven , the more people they get the more money they get from the facilities so it should be less the more there is in a van.

 

[Pausim]

Travelling solo is more expensive than travelling as a couple. I have done both and think it is good that some sites recognise this. As already said, if you don’t like the terms on offer go somewhere else.

 

[G-RMPS]

The OPs posting has morphed into two discussions.

The Clubs charge too much. That old chestnut. You don’t have to stay there.

The Clubs costs are predominantly fixed. Folk don’t like the way they structure their prices to cover their costs. There will always be winners and losers. You don’t have to stay there.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}