I'm on the south coast and I pay £48 per month outside storage, gold site, twin wash bays with gantry for cleaning the roof, drop in compound don't have to park it, give 24 hrs notice when I want it out. And that's for a Twin axle.
Sorry Prof it does not mean the site owner has failed in their duty if a theft occurs. No site could be impregnable at a price we would be willing to pay and what you are being sold is an enhanced level of security which you can check and either accept or reject. The site owners duty as a bailee is to take reasonable care of your property not to guarantee this. Provided the site owner has not been negligent or in breach of contract then he is not legally liable for a loss.
If, say he failed to repair a security gate that was damaged and left the site unprotected that would almost certainly make him liable for a loss but if thieves broke down the gate or the fencing then he would not.
If the site owner accepted liability for loss or damage to caravans on his site he would need far more expensive insurance, assuming he could get this, which cost would almost certainly be passed on to customers in higher fees so its all swings and roundabouts anyway.
If, say he failed to repair a security gate that was damaged and left the site unprotected that would almost certainly make him liable for a loss but if thieves broke down the gate or the fencing then he would not.
If the site owner accepted liability for loss or damage to caravans on his site he would need far more expensive insurance, assuming he could get this, which cost would almost certainly be passed on to customers in higher fees so its all swings and roundabouts anyway.
We have been here before.
I don't think the scenario has not been tested in law, and our views cannot be taken as gospel.
You have expressed the position the insurance services and service providers would like us to accept, but if it is as yet unproven, its not a guaranteed outcome if a case were brought.
Site operators are setting themselves up as businesses which are offering services over and above that of the normal average man in the street can provide. They are deemed to be offering some expertise in the storage of caravans. They therefore have a duty of care to protect their customer property, which must reflect their assumed level of 'expertise'.
If site operators were to be proven liable for costs of losses occurring whilst customers property is in their care, then the sites insurances would almost certainly rise. but by the same token customers insurances would come down because the risk to the customers policy would be measurably less. So yes swings and roundabouts. But at the same time it would impress into site operators, they cannot be passive about maintaining their sites provisions and especially security.
Basically I sincerely believe that any storage site operator that implies in any way by advertising imagery, description or any other means to entice customers with the hint of improved security , must accept responsibility if what they have either implied fails and customer property to suffers losses. Otherwise running storage sites is a no risk business and a licence to print money.
As long as there is a shortage of storage sites, the operators have no impetus to improve.
I don't think the scenario has not been tested in law, and our views cannot be taken as gospel.
You have expressed the position the insurance services and service providers would like us to accept, but if it is as yet unproven, its not a guaranteed outcome if a case were brought.
Site operators are setting themselves up as businesses which are offering services over and above that of the normal average man in the street can provide. They are deemed to be offering some expertise in the storage of caravans. They therefore have a duty of care to protect their customer property, which must reflect their assumed level of 'expertise'.
If site operators were to be proven liable for costs of losses occurring whilst customers property is in their care, then the sites insurances would almost certainly rise. but by the same token customers insurances would come down because the risk to the customers policy would be measurably less. So yes swings and roundabouts. But at the same time it would impress into site operators, they cannot be passive about maintaining their sites provisions and especially security.
Basically I sincerely believe that any storage site operator that implies in any way by advertising imagery, description or any other means to entice customers with the hint of improved security , must accept responsibility if what they have either implied fails and customer property to suffers losses. Otherwise running storage sites is a no risk business and a licence to print money.
As long as there is a shortage of storage sites, the operators have no impetus to improve.
if I could afford to buy some land I'd set up a caravan storage site, around here it's a sellers market - hence why I consider £48 pcm a bargain! There are about 200 units on the site I'm on...do the maths yourself.
If the storage site has CCTV, the CCTV fails and that night Andy the Arsonist breaks in and torches my caravan, did the failure of the CCTV contribute to my loss? Well no, Andy the Arsonist would still have done what he did, but he might have been caught - my loss would be no different.
Caravan storage is what it is, and I'm under no illusions about the security of the one I'm on - it has CASSOA silver which makes it more secure than where I was before, but I don't expect it to be Fort Knox. Frankly the best protection against theft that my 'van has is that there are a lot of caravans nicer than mine, nearer the gate than mine.
Of course I expect the site owners to do their best to maintain the facilities that I'm paying for: But I know from my experience from work that CCTV can fail, and it can take up to two weeks to get someone out to fix it (even when I worked at the Home Office with a gold standard service contract on our CCTV the best we could get was a 24 hour response). I know from the evidence of my eyes that some of my fellow storage site users aren't as picky about locking the gates behind them as I am, if they're only coming in for a few minutes to pick something up from their 'van.
I'm not sure about that...if the storage site has big scary looking gates with a huge padlock, and Jimmy Badguy turns up with a battery powered angle grinder and chops the lock off, has the business owner's security failed? Because it's never going to be possible to build a storage site that is totally undefeatable.
If the storage site has CCTV, the CCTV fails and that night Andy the Arsonist breaks in and torches my caravan, did the failure of the CCTV contribute to my loss? Well no, Andy the Arsonist would still have done what he did, but he might have been caught - my loss would be no different.
Caravan storage is what it is, and I'm under no illusions about the security of the one I'm on - it has CASSOA silver which makes it more secure than where I was before, but I don't expect it to be Fort Knox. Frankly the best protection against theft that my 'van has is that there are a lot of caravans nicer than mine, nearer the gate than mine.
Of course I expect the site owners to do their best to maintain the facilities that I'm paying for: But I know from my experience from work that CCTV can fail, and it can take up to two weeks to get someone out to fix it (even when I worked at the Home Office with a gold standard service contract on our CCTV the best we could get was a 24 hour response). I know from the evidence of my eyes that some of my fellow storage site users aren't as picky about locking the gates behind them as I am, if they're only coming in for a few minutes to pick something up from their 'van.
Prof, I know what you say but the reason your theory has never been tested is, as any litigation solicitor will tell you, the legal situation is quite simply you have to show negligence or breach of contract. By referring to security the owner is not guaranteeing but pointing out the features of the site. You then visit the site and see for yourself and either accept or reject this. You will find similar descriptions for other forms of storage and the same point applies to these.
If there was a reasonable chance of anyone advertising secure storage being liable for a loss as you describe, then one of the caravan insurance companies would have tested it by now, there are one or two real chancers in the market who would have a go, even if it was to try and squeeze a compromise settlement, but as you will know you cannot name the companies concerned.
You will also find the contract terms do restate that the site owners are not responsible for loss or damage except due to their negligence. I admit this is not conclusive as The Unfair Contract Terms Act can override contract terms if they are thought by the courts to be unfair but in this instance this is a very long shot.
If there was a reasonable chance of anyone advertising secure storage being liable for a loss as you describe, then one of the caravan insurance companies would have tested it by now, there are one or two real chancers in the market who would have a go, even if it was to try and squeeze a compromise settlement, but as you will know you cannot name the companies concerned.
You will also find the contract terms do restate that the site owners are not responsible for loss or damage except due to their negligence. I admit this is not conclusive as The Unfair Contract Terms Act can override contract terms if they are thought by the courts to be unfair but in this instance this is a very long shot.
I had a call from the new storage site yesterday to say they had a vacancy so I went, looked and paid.
Just spent over an hour getting the van out of the mud at the old site and have taken the van to the new storage. It took 10 minutes to park and secure the van at the new site. Sheer bliss and they have washing facilities, card operated gates and CCT everywhere..
The new storage is twice the price of the old one but no more worrying at the end of a holiday about what state the storage site is in when we arrive back.
Happy days
Just spent over an hour getting the van out of the mud at the old site and have taken the van to the new storage. It took 10 minutes to park and secure the van at the new site. Sheer bliss and they have washing facilities, card operated gates and CCT everywhere..
The new storage is twice the price of the old one but no more worrying at the end of a holiday about what state the storage site is in when we arrive back.
Happy days
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
-
Awning rail on the house to help with drying air awning at home- Started by Steve1962
- Replies: 5
-
-
Facebook
Twitter