CAMC would not allow member in a predicament to have water!

[Coolcats]

Having read all the reasons on this thread as to why CAMC doesn't allow paid for filling and dumping on their sites, it seems to me strange that the CCC have successfully allowed this on many of their sites for a good few years (covid excepted).

Pre covid I had used it a few times without any problems. They even allow you to use their toilets and showers as well, not that we wanted to.

Why is it strange? two different clubs with different rules, one is run with fairly tight regs the other is more a free for all, this can be seen in how orderly the CAMC sites are. There are some private sites we have stayed on where its close to chaos and anachy as they say you pay your money and make your choice as some on this thread have done.

It has been highlighted that random travellers turning up to use the waste service facilities would impact those who stay on the site. How convenient would it be for those who prefer 'wild camping' to just buy membership and rock up where ever they wish to use the facilities but not stay? whether they pay a small fee or not is not the point.

For those with CAMC membership will know that white pegs mean the pitch can have an awning and blue means you cannot (Sun canopy is OK) we fell foul of this one when apparently three members on site complained to the warden that our canopy had and end rain shield installed and apparently under the rules this turns the sun canopy to an awning and we would have to remove it. I just did what I was asked it is petty but I guess rules are rules, as I did not make a fuss the warden pointed out a pitch that would become vacant if we would like to move to it that way we would be within the rules.

I would suggest the main reason people are caught out with no water or full waste tanks is poor planning or wild camping.....

 

[Nanniemate]

You can plan as much as you like but when this go wrong plans need to be changed, the last time my water seemed to evaporate very quickly I called into a garage fuelled up only £50 at the time asked could I use the water tap was shown where it was and filled the tanks. On asking how much I owed there was a look of surprise we always let vans fill up was the response. On the counter was local charity collection box to which I was more than happy to donate. It costs in the region of £10 to fill my empty tanks with 5Ltr of still water bought from Lidl/Tesco/ASDA (yes someone left the drain valve open)

My planning normally consists of eny meny miny mo I'm at a junction which way shall I go

 

[TDub49]

Dipping in and out of this thread, it occurs to me that there are more than a few people commenting who happily diss the clubs but then, confusingly, expect them to be there and provide random services on demand and limited cost. So if those of us that are members decided to follow the advice and bail out of the clubs as well, leading inevitably to the clubs failing and closing down, what would the naysayers do then? Just wondering . . . .

 

[Coolcats]

Dipping in and out of this thread, it occurs to me that there are more than a few people commenting who happily diss the clubs but then, confusingly, expect them to be there and provide random services on demand and limited cost. So if those of us that are members decided to follow the advice and bail out of the clubs as well, leading inevitably to the clubs failing and closing down, what would the naysayers do then? Just wondering . . . .

Like any business if a club is failing the business model would change........but they are not presently failing

 

[Spriddler]

I am shocked Martin, there was me thinking that Morelo/Concorde owners recieved regular food & Champaign deliveries from Fortnum & Mason or Harrods,

A mate at a bikers' 'Tents only' rally cracked it.

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

 

[Northernraider]

Dipping in and out of this thread, it occurs to me that there are more than a few people commenting who happily diss the clubs but then, confusingly, expect them to be there and provide random services on demand and limited cost. So if those of us that are members decided to follow the advice and bail out of the clubs as well, leading inevitably to the clubs failing and closing down, what would the naysayers do then? Just wondering . . . .

I Diss the clubs regularly. But I'd also not use their disposal services for a fee even if they had them. I've no interest in sites in any way whatsoever. I do however think those who are members and use them on occasion have a point when they say they've been refused help by them.

The OP is a member of the club , many of the others commenting are members of the club they present a different argument from those of us who aren't members.

My main objection to them is the same one I have with most big companies....they shouldn't be allowed to get so big and to monopolise or manipulate. Other than that I've little interest in them, no desire to join or ever use them.

 

[Gellyneck]

The point is that the French welcome Moho’s and camper vans as they know they bring business to an area. If someone turns up at a club site to use the facilities I presume they would have to pay a fee? Therefore no cost to the club and who knows some may choose to stay ( members)

But my question of who pays the upfront costs of the required infrastructure defined in your original post stands.
Would you expect the Club to pay or the local Council who gain the benefits outlined in your second post?

 

[Gellyneck]

In response to the C&CC offering a motorhome servicing facility they also permit tent campers on all their sites.
Would we expect C&MC to amend their business model to also include this?
To me each club has its own business model and stands or falls by this.

 

[poppycamper]

In response to the C&CC offering a motorhome servicing facility they also permit tent campers on all their sites.
Would we expect C&MC to amend their business model to also include this?
To me each club has its own business model and stands or falls by this.

Surely that is because the camping and caravanning club started out as a tenting club (actually The Association of Cycle Campers) which later, as caravans became popular changed their name to Camping and Caravanning Club to cater for growing needs.
Which is exactly what the Caravan Club (which was started for caravans) did when motorhomes became more popular and also to keep up with the times and changed name to Caravan and Motorhome Club.
Incidently there are a few CAMC sites that allow tents.!

 

[tonyidle]

If you use the search facility you will find quite a few posts about it. They have always been totally against it.

How can they change their name to include "Motorhome" in it when they haven't a clue what Motorhomes want and are totally against what Motorhomes need.

I think you might find that truly touring motorhomers are in the minority - even amongst motorhomers. My intermittent use of CMC and CCC sites has indeed seen a very substantial increase in the number of motorhomes using them and most park up for a week or more. I love the way you and others tour and avoid using sites and at times I do the same but you do not IMO represent the majority.

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

 

[Gellyneck]

Surely that is because the camping and caravanning club started out as a tenting club (actually The Association of Cycle Campers) which later, as caravans became popular changed their name to Camping and Caravanning Club to cater for growing needs.
Which is exactly what the Caravan Club (which was started for caravans) did when motorhomes became more popular and also to keep up with the times and changed name to Caravan and Motorhome Club.
Incidently there are a few CAMC sites that allow tents.!

But my point was just because one of the clubs does something it doesn't mean to say both should as part of their business model.

Agreed, some C&MC sites do offer tent pitches including Melrose where we spend a bit of the winter season.

 

[Gellyneck]

I think you might find that truly touring motorhomers are in the minority - even amongst motorhomers. My intermittent use of CMC and CCC sites has indeed seen a very substantial increase in the number of motorhomes using them and most park up for a week or more. I love the way you and others tour and avoid using sites and at times I do the same but you do not IMO represent the majority.

It's my distraction whilst walking the dug in the early morning counting the motorhomes \ campervans vs caravans on site.

During this year out of c70 nights on C&MC sites only 2\3 mornings had more caravans than motorhomes \ campervans! Average probably running at around 55-70% in favour of the latter. Having said that two out of the three independent sites we were on had a sight leaning towards caravans!

Sites were Cornwall to Central Belt Scotland.

 

[Lenny HB]

I think you might find that truly touring motorhomers are in the minority - even amongst motorhomers. My intermittent use of CMC and CCC sites has indeed seen a very substantial increase in the number of motorhomes using them and most park up for a week or more. I love the way you and others tour and avoid using sites and at times I do the same but you do not IMO represent the majority.

That would probably change if there was a network of Aires as at the moment trying to tour the UK is very restrictive and not worth the hassle.

 

[peterc10]

Why is it strange? two different clubs with different rules, one is run with fairly tight regs the other is more a free for all, this can be seen in how orderly the CAMC sites are. There are some private sites we have stayed on where its close to chaos and anachy as they say you pay your money and make your choice as some on this thread have done.

It has been highlighted that random travellers turning up to use the waste service facilities would impact those who stay on the site. How convenient would it be for those who prefer 'wild camping' to just buy membership and rock up where ever they wish to use the facilities but not stay? whether they pay a small fee or not is not the point.

For those with CAMC membership will know that white pegs mean the pitch can have an awning and blue means you cannot (Sun canopy is OK) we fell foul of this one when apparently three members on site complained to the warden that our canopy had and end rain shield installed and apparently under the rules this turns the sun canopy to an awning and we would have to remove it. I just did what I was asked it is petty but I guess rules are rules, as I did not make a fuss the warden pointed out a pitch that would become vacant if we would like to move to it that way we would be within the rules.

I would suggest the main reason people are caught out with no water or full waste tanks is poor planning or wild camping.....

And all that sums up why l will never join the CAMC. It is still the CARAVAN (and motorhome) club.

 

[Nanniemate]

Surely that is because the camping and caravanning club started out as a tenting club (actually The Association of Cycle Campers) which later, as caravans became popular changed their name to Camping and Caravanning Club to cater for growing needs.
Which is exactly what the Caravan Club (which was started for caravans) did when motorhomes became more popular and also to keep up with the times and changed name to Caravan and Motorhome Club.
Incidently there are a few CAMC sites that allow tents.!

Over the years many companies change their names for various reasons look at Hermies, poor reputation changed name , other change when being swallowed up . But sometimes chafing the name without addressing the issues don't work I am thinking of a particular organisation that is now on its 3rd or 4th reserection .as for using the facilities some people would become members for this service alone therefore contributing to the club with little demand on pitches or sites

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

 

[tonyidle]

That would probably change if there was a network of Aires as at the moment trying to tour the UK is very restrictive and not worth the hassle.

Totally agree.

 

[cyberyacht]

Surely that is because the camping and caravanning club started out as a tenting club (actually The Association of Cycle Campers) which later, as caravans became popular changed their name to Camping and Caravanning Club to cater for growing needs.
Which is exactly what the Caravan Club (which was started for caravans) did when motorhomes became more popular and also to keep up with the times and changed name to Caravan and Motorhome Club.
Incidently there are a few CAMC sites that allow tents.!

They may have changed the name but otherwise it's business as usual. Currently they are' encouraging' us to reduce our electricity consumption. I mentioned on their forum that the absence of a non EHU option did little to promote this. One 'dyed in the wool CAMC' caravanner basically said if you don't want EHU go elsewhere, why should it be changed to suit me. Whilst such attitudes pertain among the membership, there is little chance of any amendment from the original business model.

 

[Wildbill]

Lol, and when you run an ancient old Concorde like us you then finish up at Poundstretchers and next year I’ve heard it’s Home Bargains. Good grief we’re flogging it.

And you is lucky we have to go skip shopping
Bill

 

[poppycamper]

One 'dyed in the wool CAMC' caravanner basically said if you don't want EHU go elsewhere,

A lot of Funsters say exact same

 

[bigtwin]

But my question of who pays the upfront costs of the required infrastructure defined in your original post stands.
Would you expect the Club to pay or the local Council who gain the benefits outlined in your second post?

The club (through their membership fees) of course; who else?

Who do you think funds the new sites, the glamping pods, the lodges? Why would you conclude that accessible MH service points should not be funded similarly?

Previous posters have raised the point about staff checking membership credentials etc, it’s perfectly possible to automate these processes obviating the need for staff involvement. Good heavens, they manage to do so elsewhere.

Fees can be set such that the facility is revenue generating. The fundamental problem is a lack of will to provide the service.

Ian

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

 

[Lenny HB]

They may have changed the name but otherwise it's business as usual. Currently they are' encouraging' us to reduce our electricity consumption. I mentioned on their forum that the absence of a non EHU option did little to promote this. One 'dyed in the wool CAMC' caravanner basically said if you don't want EHU go elsewhere, why should it be changed to suit me. Whilst such attitudes pertain among the membership, there is little chance of any amendment from the original business model.

They have to cater for all the caravanners that have to run a fan heater in their awning all day.
Motorhomers are more sensible and go indoors when it's cold or put a coat on

A lot of Funsters say exact same

A Motorhome that needs EHU is not fit for purpose IMO.

 

[Gellyneck]

The club (through their membership fees) of course; who else?

So Club members pay significant additional upfront costs to install the additional facilities raised in #130 (short-term pitches\ additional dump and fill points \ etc) where the benefits derived are for the local economy?

Who do you think funds the new sites, the glamping pods, the lodges? Why would you conclude that accessible MH service points should not be funded similarly?

MH service points are accessible for members staying on site. Turning the question around, why do tourers who require to service their vehicles not stay on a site for one night to do so?

Previous posters have raised the point about staff checking membership credentials etc, it’s perfectly possible to automate these processes obviating the need for staff involvement. Good heavens, they manage to do so elsewhere.

And, again, who pays the additional costs involved in provision of the additional infrastructure?

Fees can be set such that the facility is revenue generating. The fundamental problem is a lack of will to provide the service.

What would the expected return be vs the cost outlay and the payback timeframe? Is it a lack of will or a non-cost \ revenue effective service?

Can't remember if the provision of this type of service has been raised at an AGM \ EGM and, if it has, what the rationale for non-acceptance of it was but if enough members have a burning desire for the Club to offer this type of service I would suggest they raise it at an AGM \ EGM.

 

[bigtwin]

So Club members pay significant additional upfront costs to install the additional facilities raised in #130 (short-term pitches\ additional dump and fill points \ etc) where the benefits derived are for the local economy?

Of course, where do you think the club obtains its revenue from?
The benefits to the club are:
- increase in membership numbers
- profits arising from members paying for the use of the service (in the same way that they derive profits from pitch fees)

MH service points are accessible for members staying on site. Turning the question around, why do tourers who require to service their vehicles not stay on a site for one night to do so?

Many already do (they have little choice). Many are unable to do so because no pitches are available.

And, again, who pays the additional costs involved in provision of the additional infrastructure?

My answer is unchanged from my previous post. I’ll ask again why you believe the basis of the provision of funding this service should be different from that used to improve site facilities, glamping pods, lodges, etc?

What would the expected return be vs the cost outlay and the payback timeframe? Is it a lack of will or a non-cost \ revenue effective service?

Have you asked this same question in relation to the provision of lodges and glamping pods?

Ian

 

[Gellyneck]

Of course, where do you think the club obtains its revenue from?
The benefits to the club are:
- increase in membership numbers
- profits arising from members paying for the use of the service (in the same way that they derive profits from pitch fees)

But what is the cost vs revenue vs profit on provision of the services.
How many £54 \ annum will be required to fund the installation of the new services?
How many, say, £10 \ visit will be required to maintain the facilities?

Many already do (they have little choice). Many are unable to do so because no pitches are available.

So the business model works as pitches are frequently full so why outlay substantial funds to provide new facilities that would take an inordinate amount of time to recover at the costs noted above?

My answer is unchanged from my previous post. I’ll ask again why you believe the basis of the provision of funding this service should be different from that used to improve site facilities, glamping pods, lodges, etc?

As above.

Have you asked this same question in relation to the provision of lodges and glamping pods?

I don't agree with the provision of glamping pods \ etc but the return on these (@ say £150-£200 \ night \ couple) will be significantly greater than the provision of the additional servicing facilities at, say £10 \ visit \ couple.

 

[bigtwin]

But what is the cost vs revenue vs profit on provision of the services.
How many £54 \ annum will be required to fund the installation of the new services?
How many, say, £10 \ visit will be required to maintain the facilities?

I’m not involved in the production of the business case (I doubt that there even is one) so you’re asking the wrong person. Your presumption seems to be that it’s unviable but it’s not clear on what evidence you base that presumption.

So the business model works as pitches are frequently full so why outlay substantial funds to provide new facilities that would take an inordinate amount of time to recover at the costs noted above?

The issue isn’t whether, or not, pitches are full. You might equally apply the investment argument to the lodges and glamping pods. Neither you, nor I, have the data to judge whether the payback time would be inordinate, or not.

don't agree with the provision of glamping pods \ etc but the return on these (@ say £150-£200 \ night \ couple) will be significantly greater than the provision of the additional servicing facilities at, say £10 \ visit \ couple.

You may, or may not, be correct but remember that only a single MH service point will be required whereas each lodge will require plumbing and waste services, not to mention an electrical supply. There will also be a massive difference associated with the asset costs (a few £1000s for the service point vs £50 k to a £100k for a lodge). Furthermore, the lodges can service only a single client whereas a service point could easily service a dozen or more users each day.

Ian

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

 

[Gellyneck]

I’m not involved in the production of the business case (I doubt that there even is one) so you’re asking the wrong person. Your presumption seems to be that it’s unviable but it’s not clear on what evidence you base that presumption.



The issue isn’t whether, or not, pitches are full. You might equally apply the investment argument to the lodges and glamping pods. Neither you, nor I, have the data to judge whether the payback time would be inordinate, or not.



You may, or may not, be correct but remember that only a single MH service point will be required whereas each lodge will require plumbing and waste services, not to mention an electrical supply. There will also be a massive difference associated with the asset costs (a few £1000s for the service point vs £50 k to a £100k for a lodge). Furthermore, the lodges can service only a single client whereas a service point could easily service a dozen or more users each day.

Ian

As you say it's all assumptions hence the reason my reponses were all questions and that the only way to correctly clarify was to raise at an AGM. However I tried to put some rationale behind my thoughts.
As an aside you don't seem to be considering the provision of "overnight" pitches, as raised in the post I was initially replying to, into your outline cost evaluation.

 

[cyberyacht]

One of the arguments against is that it only benefits a particular section of the membership. I don't holiday with either children or dogs yet it seems that that particular section of the membership is more equal than motorhomers.

 

[bigtwin]

One of the arguments against is that it only benefits a particular section of the membership. I don't holiday with either children or dogs yet it seems that that particular section of the membership is more equal than motorhomers.

Perhaps, but from what others have said, MHs now outnumber tuggers. It also seems that those whi have neither a MH or a caravan (those who use the glamping pods and lodges) are also more equal than motorhomers.

It’s irrational that a club that caters for motorhomers (perhaps still reluctantly) should have policies that exclude a particular section of potential members. Perhaps the old guard in decision making roles are suffering a bit from the ‘not invented here’ syndrome!

Ian

 

[Spriddler]

Perhaps the old guard in decision making roles are suffering a bit from the ‘not invented here’ syndrome!

It probably reduces admin and lightens the warden's job to have caravans that set up and don't move for a week or three rather than the couple of nights comings and goings of motorhomers.

 

[bigtwin]

It probably reduces admin and lightens the warden's job to have caravans that set up and don't move for a week or three rather than the couple of nights comings and goings of motorhomers.

Quite possibly. The more that I read about this issue the more I see an issue with the organisation/folks struggling to consider/deal with change.

There’s a great little book that takes, IIRC, about 30 minutes to read (it was a long time ago that I read it but its message stuck with me). It’s called “Who moved my Cheese).

Amazon product ASIN 0091816971
Ian

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