Bollards and posts

[Jcloughie]

Ours is paid in advance with he annual fee payable. Although there are refunds given in the event you have to give up the pitch and give the required period of notice.

About 20 years ago we had ideal storage, we had it for about 5 years.

• About 5 mins from home.
• Under cover.
• Own key for the Nissen hut.
• Armed guard at site entrance 24 hours.
• Armed patrols.
• £25 per year, (£20 of which went to charity).
• Free use of a 9 hole golf course on site.
• Free use of the gym and squash courts.

Thefts were unheard of!

Bring back the RAF

John

 

[otherclive]

About 20 years ago we had ideal storage, we had it for about 5 years.

• About 5 mins from home.
• Under cover.
• Own key for the Nissen hut.
• Armed guard at site entrance 24 hours.
• Armed patrols.
• £25 per year, (£20 of which went to charity).
• Free use of a 9 hole golf course on site.
• Free use of the gym and squash courts.

Thefts were unheard of!

Bring back the RAF

John

I used to regularly fly out of and into RAF Lyneham, and on the eastern Lyneham to Calne edge of the base there were more vans and MH parked up than there were at Swindon Caravans, Highbridgeand Davan combined. 🤫

 

[smida040]

Sounds as if you’ve really got this one planned to defeat them or at least make them work hard for any rewards 👍

Hopefully so.

A theft can have many other consequences, I couldn’t find my spare car key and was concerned it was in the van (looking back we do not think it was) but in the heat of the moment I rang my car insurance just to see if I was covered in case it was.

I did not ask to make a claim, merely asked if I was covered.
I know have a notification claim on my car insurance policy. I just got the car lock changed at my own expense, just to be in the safe side. Maybe unnecessary, but it was one less thing to worry about with the rest of the stress.

Not sure what the implications of a notification claim are, but it does seem somewhat unfair. Tbh I only found out about it because they sent me a text asking for a review of how they handled my claim!

 

[otherclive]

I had a close miss with a WVM on my rear end. So close that I thought they had hit me a glancing shot. Couldn’t see any sign of damage on my car but driver convinced there had been contact as there were fine scrapes on his lower front bodywork nearside. Said he’d speak to his insurer even though I told him that if he had touched me I certainly wasn’t reversing.

To be safe I spoke to my insurer as I didn’t want to risk a retrospective claim. When I told them of the circumstances and that my photos showed no marks on my car they said better not to go any further as they would have to input details on record which could affect future rates. “ Nuff said”. I still have the photos of my car and the white van over 12 months old now.

 

[Buckman]

My wife had an incident on a roundabout where she was going straight and the car on the outside turning right. The road prior to the roudnabout was single carriage way with the turn right lane clearly marked and after round about is still single carriageway. The car on the offside hit her rear offside wheel causing damage to the other vehicle. Details were exchanged and just in case we notified our insurance company.
A few days later a solicitor's letter dropped through the letter box demanding costs for repairs etc. I checked up on various scenarios and determined that the car in the outside lane should not have been overtaking on a round about and should have exercised due care and attention. At worst a 50/50 claim.
I then wrote to the senior solicitor stating the facts and Highway Code. It then turned out that the other driver was a clerk employed at the firm of solicitors and had used their letterhead to send the demand letter. We never heard another word about the claim, but did wonder if the driver was still employed by the solicitors. LOL!

 

[Jcloughie]

My wife had an incident on a roundabout where she was going straight and the car on the outside turning right. The road prior to the roudnabout was single carriage way with the turn right lane clearly marked and after round about is still single carriageway. The car on the offside hit her rear offside wheel causing damage to the other vehicle. Details were exchanged and just in case we notified our insurance company.
A few days later a solicitor's letter dropped through the letter box demanding costs for repairs etc. I checked up on various scenarios and determined that the car in the outside lane should not have been overtaking on a round about and should have exercised due care and attention. At worst a 50/50 claim.
I then wrote to the senior solicitor stating the facts and Highway Code. It then turned out that the other driver was a clerk employed at the firm of solicitors and had used their letterhead to send the demand letter. We never heard another word about the claim, but did wonder if the driver was still employed by the solicitors. LOL!

KISS. (keep it simple stupid). I never really understood the stupid bit of that acronym.

Nearly 50 years ago I learnt a great lesson in this respect. Another car hit me. Nothing major. The woman drivers husband got involved and did all he could to shove the fault my way. Which is fair enough. He wrote loads of stuff in support which I spent a lot of time and effort answering. I then went to a solicitor. He briefly looked at the facts and asked me to check if the side road she drove out of had give way signs. Yes, I reported back. In that case, he said, nothing else counts. She came through a give way sign and hit you. End of story.

John

 

[Buckman]

KISS. (keep it simple stupid). I never really understood the stupid bit of that acronym.

Nearly 50 years ago I learnt a great lesson in this respect. Another car hit me. Nothing major. The woman drivers husband got involved and did all he could to shove the fault my way. Which is fair enough. He wrote loads of stuff in support which I spent a lot of time and effort answering. I then went to a solicitor. He briefly looked at the facts and asked me to check if the side road she drove out of had give way signs. Yes, I reported back. In that case, he said, nothing else counts. She came through a give way sign and hit you. End of story.

John

Many years ago while driving my company car, a doctor's wife driving a big fancy BMW came out of a side street and hit me side on sending my Corolla into a spin. Anyway police attended etc and thought end of matter.
Next our company got a letter from said doctor stating that due to my driving I had not stopped at the stop street which is why his wife hit my car as she had right of way as no Yield or stop sign on the road she was travelling on and he wanted the company insurance to pay.
It was then pointed out to him that the reason there was no Stop or Yield sign on the road she was travelling on was because she was travelling the wrong way down a One way street. Never never heard anything further. LOL!

 

[Beachball]

Some years ago just brought a lovely new car to me, me and my son was driving up our estate a lady was sat in her car bringing out of the garage and must have got mixed up with the brake pedal and accelerator pedal and the next minute gone into the side of me , My car was checked because it hit at a certain angle it was written off .

 

[Notmyvan]

I had a car parked for sale at by the fence at my garage.
A motorist who had just got petrol was still parked at the pumps near my car,
His car would not start so he lifted the bonnet and got a screwdriver and shorted out the contacts on the solenoid to start it, apparently he put something on the accelerator pedal to make sure that if it started it did not stall.
So when he used the screwdriver, it shot across the forecourt and straight into the side of my car. He had left it in gear.

 

[ProfJohnL]

I am frankly appalled at this situation, for the following reason. The OP has taken reasonable steps to secure his caravan by using a CaSSOA site. The whole basis of the CaSSOA scheme was to set up a a series of storage sites that were approved by the scheme for their provision and they were marketed as being insurance approved. Some insurers offered a reduction in policy charges if a CaSSOA site were used.

This give one of the strongest signals that CaSSOA sites are still approved by insurance companies. Yet here we have an insurer telling the caravanner that a CaSSOA site is no longer acceptable.

As others have said undertaking personal construction on other peoples land is a very dangerous prospect, even with the owners tacit permission, There's a whole mirriad of liability issues.

If CaSSOA sites are no longer acceptable to insurers, then it raises a major question about not only th storage of caravans but even using them. Are caravan's insurable?

 

[otherclive]

I am frankly appalled at this situation, for the following reason. The OP has taken reasonable steps to secure his caravan by using a CaSSOA site. The whole basis of the CaSSOA scheme was to set up a a series of storage sites that were approved by the scheme for their provision and they were marketed as being insurance approved. Some insurers offered a reduction in policy charges if a CaSSOA site were used.

This give one of the strongest signals that CaSSOA sites are still approved by insurance companies. Yet here we have an insurer telling the caravanner that a CaSSOA site is no longer acceptable.

As others have said undertaking personal construction on other peoples land is a very dangerous prospect, even with the owners tacit permission, There's a whole mirriad of liability issues.

If CaSSOA sites are no longer acceptable to insurers, then it raises a major question about not only th storage of caravans but even using them. Are caravan's insurable?

Fully agree, and if the insurer knows so little about caravans and the Cassoa I would not like to have to make a claim either. has their claims service might leave something to be desired. Hence the reason why I stuck to one or other of the Clubs insurers. No such silly conditions.

 

[Raywood]

I am frankly appalled at this situation, for the following reason. The OP has taken reasonable steps to secure his caravan by using a CaSSOA site. The whole basis of the CaSSOA scheme was to set up a a series of storage sites that were approved by the scheme for their provision and they were marketed as being insurance approved. Some insurers offered a reduction in policy charges if a CaSSOA site were used.

This give one of the strongest signals that CaSSOA sites are still approved by insurance companies. Yet here we have an insurer telling the caravanner that a CaSSOA site is no longer acceptable.

As others have said undertaking personal construction on other peoples land is a very dangerous prospect, even with the owners tacit permission, There's a whole mirriad of liability issues.

If CaSSOA sites are no longer acceptable to insurers, then it raises a major question about not only th storage of caravans but even using them. Are caravan's insurable?

The post you replied to has not come up on my screen so I am not sure of the exact content, but if an insurer will not accept a CASSOA site then I cannot see them insuring anything. It is some years since the C&CC published the statistics showing where thefts occurred, but these did show that CASSOA sites were the lowest risk for theft and I doubt anything has changed.
If an insurer will not insure your caravan that is their choice and there should be plenty of other firms who will, so use one of them. We use one of the sites and get a discount.
The only thing that strikes me is that insurers often use post codes when assessing the proposal and this might be in one where they have had problems and they simply decided anything in that one is not for them.

 

[Dustydog]

Has the post to which Prof replied been removed?

 

[Jcloughie]

The post you replied to has not come up on my screen so I am not sure of the exact content, but if an insurer will not accept a CASSOA site then I cannot see them insuring anything. It is some years since the C&CC published the statistics showing where thefts occurred, but these did show that CASSOA sites were the lowest risk for theft and I doubt anything has changed.
If an insurer will not insure your caravan that is their choice and there should be plenty of other firms who will, so use one of them. We use one of the sites and get a discount.
The only thing that strikes me is that insurers often use post codes when assessing the proposal and this might be in one where they have had problems and they simply decided anything in that one is not for them.

I thought the Prof was referring back to the OP’s point that his insurer wanted more than a CASSOA storage could offer.


John

 

[Parksy]

Has the post to which Prof replied been removed?

No forum posts have been removed from this thread which was opened in June 2021.

 

[ProfJohnL]

A slight Opps on my part. My comment refers back to post #1 which was june 21.

For some reason when I open some threads from the the RH latest posts panel, it inexplicitly goes back to #1 rather than to the actual latest post.

However it is my take on the OP's post .

 

[Parksy]

I always use the 'Latest Activity' breadcrumb to access the latest forum posts in each thread