CASSOA - what does it mean?

[Oldfogey]

I have just been looking at the CASSOA website, and I was not impressed!

I expected to see conditions of membership, procedures for complaints against members, model terms of storage.

In particular, I expected to see very specific requirements for security provision at each "level" - standard of fences, BS locks, video monitoring, BS standard alarms, etc. etc.

Nothing, just a lot of vague waffle.

Fortunately I do not need storage at present, but on the basis of what I have seen, I would not be inclined to take the security of a CASSOA site on trust.

Does anybody have any hard information to contradict the impression they give me of basically being a marketing ploy?

 

[WilliamTups]

25% discount on my caravan insurance for using a CASSOA Gold site

 

[ProfJohnL]

Call me cynical,

But Cassoa compliance is licence to print money.

William, I suspect that your 25% reduction in your insurance premium is more than eaten up by the cost of using the Cassoa facility.

Does the site actually offer better protection for your caravan and its belongings? Are you covered by the sites own insurance if your caravan is stolen or damaged whilst in their hands? Check you policies because in most cases the customer ends up paying

In my view, if the sites are making any claims about improved security they should put their money where their mouths are, and cough up when their security is breached and you suffer a loss. After all you are forced to pay extra to use these sites because the insurance companies tell you to.

 

[WilliamTups]

Hi,

The reduction in insurance does not cover the storages costs, but helps towards it. However living in a town with no drive and only on street parking (which is at a premium), therefore for me storage is the only option available. When we brought our caravan in 2006 this was the only site (out of 15 visited) where we felt the caravan would be secure.

To get to my caravan I have to past through two barriers with CCTV and using a swipe card. The first barrier (access 24 hours per day) allows to you into the main compound and out of hours emergency storage, wash bays, toilets, chemical waste points etc. The second barrier (access at set open & close times) allows me into the area where my caravan is stored. However my card will not allow me to open any other storage gates, the whole complex has 24 CCTV, 24 hour patrolling warden with dogs and 8ft (poss taller) fencing. Their last break in was 5 years ago (so they claim) and this year the security has had a major overhaul with more camera's fitted and the site facilities have been improved i.e. mains power available free of charge for cleaning purposes.

But items stored here are at the owner's risk!

So for someone who needs to use a storage site, YES I would say that the particular site that I use which is a CASSOA Gold site is worth the money

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello William

Thank you for your further clarification. Please do not misunderstand me, I am not against you or your decision to use a particular site, you have made your choice based on what is available to you. I am pleased that you find the added security reassuring and you are happy with its access arrangements.

However, for some, their insurance company, makes the choice for them, and this restriction of personal choice is arbitrary and in my view unfair, as you have confirmed even with the reduction in your own insurance premium and the cost of the Cassoa site is actually greater than the insurance alone.

From an industrial/commercial point of view, the site is offering a service of which the security aspect is a key if not the primary selling point. The business has invested specifically to try and improve its security, and then offer that to its customers, so it is actually selling the added security.

However if that security fails, and the sites customers suffer loss or damage, who's fault is that? Well apart from the villains who perpetrate the offence, the site has also failed to provide the service which they are selling. I.e. security. In most other business situations, the failure of the business to maintain a key part of their product leads to claim on the businesses own insurance. So why should a customer who has bought into this security have pay out when that security fails?

The direct comparison is with the Armoured Security transport people such as Securicor and others. They offer the heightened security, and undertake to cover any loss that occurs whilst their customer's property is in their care.

These sites want their cake and to eat it!

 

[SteveW77]

The site where I store my caravan has recently been awarde Silver status, not good enough to get a reduction on my insurance, but good enough to put the price of storage up 25%.

The difference in facilites or increased security, you guessed, none what so ever.

I did e:mail Coassa to ask them why they had awarded a silver status when the security was so poor, but I never got a reply.

Steve W

 

[WilliamTups]

Hello William

Thank you for your further clarification. Please do not misunderstand me, I am not against you or your decision to use a particular site, you have made your choice based on what is available to you. I am pleased that you find the added security reassuring and you are happy with its access arrangements.

However, for some, their insurance company, makes the choice for them, and this restriction of personal choice is arbitrary and in my view unfair, as you have confirmed even with the reduction in your own insurance premium and the cost of the Cassoa site is actually greater than the insurance alone.

From an industrial/commercial point of view, the site is offering a service of which the security aspect is a key if not the primary selling point. The business has invested specifically to try and improve its security, and then offer that to its customers, so it is actually selling the added security.

However if that security fails, and the sites customers suffer loss or damage, who's fault is that? Well apart from the villains who perpetrate the offence, the site has also failed to provide the service which they are selling. I.e. security. In most other business situations, the failure of the business to maintain a key part of their product leads to claim on the businesses own insurance. So why should a customer who has bought into this security have pay out when that security fails?

The direct comparison is with the Armoured Security transport people such as Securicor and others. They offer the heightened security, and undertake to cover any loss that occurs whilst their customer's property is in their care.

These sites want their cake and to eat it!

John,

I do think that these sites are a licence to print money and must admit that I have looked into the possibiltiy of starting and running one as an off shoot of my current business, despite the high inital oulay the long term returns seem very good.

However I also personally believe that due to their "At your own risk" policy it is unfair to the end user, especially given the price they charge. It would be nice to think that if in the unfortunate event that a caravan got broken into whilst in their care the very least they would do is put their money where their mouth is and pay the caravan owners excess.

 

[Guest]

My van is also on a Gold CASSOA site and yes, there was a discount in the insurance, 10% I think, but not so much as to make me jump for joy. However, like others I cannot keep the van at home so there was little choice.

However, in retrospect I am more than happy as the site is well guarded and the van is probably much safer than at home. The owner also keeps horses and he did advise me that it was more likely someone would steal the horses than my van. The downside is I do not access to mains electric, but do have access to a good washbay.

Basically all CASSOA does is give minimum standards for its members, it does not own or operate the individual sites.