How secure is your storage ?

[PETERA]

Just a word of warning to all who have their vans in storage. Please don't assume as I did that just because your van is stored in a CASSOA Gold rated site that it is safe from the gutter life that now seem to populate this once fine country that we live in.
I received a phone call a couple of weeks ago from the owners of the site I used to inform me that my van along with 6 to 8 others had been broken in to. As I was out of the country I was around 10 days later before I was able to go and inspect the damage. Nothing had been taken from the van as we strip it completley before overwintering it, but both the door frame and door suround are damaged. It looks like a large screwdriver was used to prise open the door.
The owner had of course contacted the police who have visited the site and taken fingerprints both inside and outside the vans. I have since contacted the police but no suprise here. They don't hold out much hope in finding the culprits.
I did ask the site owners how they thought the culprits had gained entry to the site but they were unsure. Although they are now cutting back some tall Leylandi trees that run the full length of the site and installing a taller fench along this line. Having looked at the site again myself I have now identified at least 3 areas were someone could gain entry if so inclined.

So what does that mean for me ?. Well it's either pay for the repairs myself or a £100 excess and a hike in the insurance premium. Also move my van to another site. This time I did what I should have done before. Walk the site with the owner and see for myself what type of security I am getting for my money. I have moved to another Gold rated site nearby and I can tell that the security on this one is far better than the last one. For example, both electric fencing and security cameras here that were not at the previous site with both sites costing around the same.
So, next time you visit your storage site please take ten minutes to walk around and ask yourself, could some get in here with ease ?. If the answer is yes then think about moving and hopefully avoid the dissapointment the I have suffered.
p.s.

I won't name the site but it is on the Fylde coast.

 

[Raywood]

Very unfortunate but no site or home storage can be 100% secure. If you strip the van of contents then you should leave the blinds up and the cupboard doors open so thieves can see it is empty. This certainly helps reduce the chance of a break in and stops the springs on the blinds failing.

 

[Parksy]

It's alwas maddening to read about caravans being stolen, broken in to or vandalised when the owner has stored their pride and joy on a CASSOA Gold site.
The storage site owners invariably claim that the CASSOA Gold standard means that their site is secure and it is used in advertising to attract business, but in reality it means very little in terms of increased security.

There have been many topics over the years which highlight similar situations to your own, and throughout most of them Prof. John L has stated that if a storage site owner claims that their site is secure and controls who is allowed to enter it then liability for repair costs should rest with the storage site insurers..
The site owners have accepted money from you for a service i.e. to store your caravan securely, and by not taking every possible step to deter and keep out intruders and thieves they have not honoured their part of the contract between themselves and you who have paid for this service.
Click Here to read a similar topic from 2008, there are many other such topics on this forum.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Plagiarism Parksy???

Well at least you did attribute the theory. And this is as clearer example as any that the storage site owners have been negligent and failed to manage the site by allowing the trees to grow too big, and the allegation there are other potential unchallenged entry points for thieves.

This just goes to prove Cassoa is not guarantee of a level of security, it is a trade organisation that has no teeth but is cahoots with the insurance companies who encourage punters to use Cassoa sites, in some cases offering incentives by way of discounted premiums. But the sites tend to charge more because they can use the Cassoa lable which is designed to give the impression you get better security - other wise why would you use them???

It is a licence to print money. and its about time the site owners were challenged to stand up to their responsibilities of protecting their customers property and being liable if they fail.

If a bank looses your money, they are liable, so why not caravan storage sites that play the 'security card' in their advertising.

 

[Parksy]

Plagiarism Parksy???Well at least you did attribute the theory...............

I prefer to think that I had merely paraphrased your earlier statement in order to reinforce it Prof, and my link cited the original source .....

 

[Raywood]

It's alwas maddening to read about caravans being stolen, broken in to or vandalised when the owner has stored their pride and joy on a CASSOA Gold site.
The storage site owners invariably claim that the CASSOA Gold standard means that their site is secure and it is used in advertising to attract business, but in reality it means very little in terms of increased security.

There have been many topics over the years which highlight similar situations to your own, and throughout most of them Prof. John L has stated that if a storage site owner claims that their site is secure and controls who is allowed to enter it then liability for repair costs should rest with the storage site insurers..
The site owners have accepted money from you for a service i.e. to store your caravan securely, and by not taking every possible step to deter and keep out intruders and thieves they have not honoured their part of the contract between themselves and you who have paid for this service.
Click Here to read a similar topic from 2008, there are many other such topics on this forum.

I doubt there is any claim against the site as the site contract terms will almost certainly exclude this unless you can show the terms were unfair. I doubt a court would regard high trees as neccessarily the reason for the theft or letting them grow so big was negligent. A fence enhances security but if people cannot get over it they can still cut their way through. The test of negligence is far higher than this.
I am afraid that in this instance this is one of the risks of life and you simply have to be glad that you have insurance.

 

[ProfJohnL]

I doubt there is any claim against the site as the site contract terms will almost certainly exclude this unless you can show the terms were unfair. I doubt a court would regard high trees as neccessarily the reason for the theft or letting them grow so big was negligent. A fence enhances security but if people cannot get over it they can still cut their way through. The test of negligence is far higher than this.
I am afraid that in this instance this is one of the risks of life and you simply have to be glad that you have insurance.

Hello Ray,
I'm afraid you seem to hold the traditional view about liability in these circumstances. It may be current thinking and practice, but these companies are likley to find themselves in the firing line, either for false advertising, or for finding they are actually liable for their customer property when they have failed to provide the service or product they are advertising or selling.
In particular caravan storage facilites operating under the Cassoa franchise and acreditation scheme only exsist becasue they offer or imply they can provide a degree of security. A point that is reinforced becasue the insurance industry consdier caravans stored at such facilties are at a lower risk of theft or damage and as such they offer reduced premiums.
So in essence Cassoa sites are selling security. This is their stock in trade, and as such they should carry the risk if they fail to provide what they are selling.
It won't be long before the ambulance chasing claims companies cotton on to the idea that organisations that don't protect their customers property and accept liability when they let their customers down are fair game. Don't forget that the signs so often seen on car parks where the site operator states 'Cars and contents left at owners risk' have been succesfully challeneged in court. It is exactly the same principle.

 

[Surfer]

I doubt there is any claim against the site as the site contract terms will almost certainly exclude this unless you can show the terms were unfair. I doubt a court would regard high trees as neccessarily the reason for the theft or letting them grow so big was negligent. A fence enhances security but if people cannot get over it they can still cut their way through. The test of negligence is far higher than this.
I am afraid that in this instance this is one of the risks of life and you simply have to be glad that you have insurance.

Hello Ray,
I'm afraid you seem to hold the traditional view about liability in these circumstances. It may be current thinking and practice, but these companies are likley to find themselves in the firing line, either for false advertising, or for finding they are actually liable for their customer property when they have failed to provide the service or product they are advertising or selling.
In particular caravan storage facilites operating under the Cassoa franchise and acreditation scheme only exsist becasue they offer or imply they can provide a degree of security. A point that is reinforced becasue the insurance industry consdier caravans stored at such facilties are at a lower risk of theft or damage and as such they offer reduced premiums.
So in essence Cassoa sites are selling security. This is their stock in trade, and as such they should carry the risk if they fail to provide what they are selling.
It won't be long before the ambulance chasing claims companies cotton on to the idea that organisations that don't protect their customers property and accept liability when they let their customers down are fair game. Don't forget that the signs so often seen on car parks where the site operator states 'Cars and contents left at owners risk' have been succesfully challeneged in court. It is exactly the same principle.

I have to agree with John as when I did law as one of my subjects for my degree, this area was covered and the storage owner cannot opt out because they have clauses in their T & Cs saying no responsibility. Basically an Unfair Term under Unfair Terms in Consumer contracts regulations as you paid for safe storage.

 

[JonnyG]

Grey area lads,indeed a very grey Area. "reasonable care" "reasonable responsibility" or can negligents be proven? thats the wonderful thing about any law system so i dont think caravan storage sites will be running too scared, each individual case will and can be different if indeed the ambulance chasers where to make these type of things something they target.
and bare in mind if some presidence were set to cover that industry then either storage sites would shut down or the rates would go through the roof.becareful what you wish for...

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Jonny
yes It is a grey area but it certainly isn't as black and white as it used to be. Increasingly businesses are having to consider their responsilities and duty of care towards customers and their property more seriously. Joe public is becoming more savy and is more likely to not simply roll over and accept these weasel get out clauses.

I must stress that I have never used a Cassoa site, so I am not in any personal conflict with any site cassoa or otherwise. My position on the subject is one of principle rather than personal experience.

So what is it aboust Cassoa sites that makes makes customers opt for them?
I have never heard or read of anyone who claimed they were cheaper than non accredited sites.
usually they are are less conveniently located for customers - so its not convenience.
Issues about access times can apply to both accredited and non accredited sites - so its not that.

Just take a look at the CaSSOA website opening page
http://www.cassoa.co.uk/Caravan_Storage_Home.aspx

Partial Quote

NEWS FLASH: CaSSOA celebrates ten years' combating caravan theft – click here to find out more

• CaSSOA approved storage sites are more secure.
• Security helps reduce crime.
• Therefore CaSSOA approved storage sites help to reduce crime.

The aims of CaSSOA are:

• To act as a nationally recognised body providing an official register of safe and secure storage sites.
• To help site owners improve their security and services, to prevent caravan crime.
• To provide a strong lobbying voice to influence the views of people who make a difference in caravanning.
• To reassure caravan owner's they can be confident that every CaSSOA site has taken reasonable measures to protect the stored caravans.

End quote
So it is about SECURITY! This is very clearly what they are promoting and claiming it is better at CaSSOA sites. So surely if they are so confident and propmoting this aspect of their sites then they should be prepared to carry the can if their security fails and customer property is lost or damaged whilst under their control. It is not 'reasonable' to imply they offer better security but don't take any responsibility if they fail.
If a case hinges on what is 'reasonable' then that test relies on what a reasonable person would expect, and Cassoa is intent as evidenced by their statements to change the balance of of a reasonable persons perception to belive that their sites are more secure.
Sale of Goods Act and Trading Standards both require that a product or service is accurately desribed, and in the context caravan site storage, if better security is a prominant feature in their advertising, so it is reasonable to assume it is also a key incentive to get customers to use their product. If the product fails, i.e the sites security fails to prevent loss or damage to customer property, then thier product is not fit for purpose, and that is breach of contract.

PPI is actually a similar example of misselling, where the implied benefits were rarely realised becasue of what are now proven illegal clauses, loans with PPI were actualy no more secure than those without. - sound familiar?

 

[Raywood]

Hi Prof,
I believe I am correct, I have spent over 45 years in insurance claims. To succeed in a claim you would have to show that there was a breach of contract and that breach actualy caused the loss and given the circumstances narrated in the post I doubt that this would be possible, even assuming the contract terms were regarded as unfair. I am well used to dealing with ambulance chasers but I doubt there would be sufficient money in this case for them to take the risk on this one.

 

[Surfer]

Hi Prof,
I believe I am correct, I have spent over 45 years in insurance claims. To succeed in a claim you would have to show that there was a breach of contract and that breach actualy caused the loss and given the circumstances narrated in the post I doubt that this would be possible, even assuming the contract terms were regarded as unfair. I am well used to dealing with ambulance chasers but I doubt there would be sufficient money in this case for them to take the risk on this one.

Insurance companies will always try and find a way to wiggle out of paying, but in this case as John suggest the law is on the side of the consumer as it si the landowner renting the storage facility that has breached the contract in the event a caravan is damaged whiel being stored!

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Ray,
You have just demonstrated the point I made about 'the traditional' view of these circumstances. And that is what I suspect is not far from being challenged and changed becaue it is grossely unfair to lay the risks of a business at the feet of its customers.
It is very clear that Cassoa in their advertising and web pages are most definately pushing the concept that their sites are more secure, so that is a major incentive to encourage more customers to apply for storage with them. If in fact they are not capable or are negligent in maintaining that security then they are guilty of false advertisng. As they are playing the security card, then they must provide it. If they don't protect their customers property then they must be held to account, in just the same way that a bank provides security and liability for money or valuables deposited with them, or that couriers such as post office and Securicor etc. have to indemnify their customers for the property they are carring in transit. Just like a shop who has some customer property in for modification or repairs, if it is lost or damaged, the shop owner who must compensate.

There is no difference in the legal liability between the above examples and storage site owners/operators. they all have a duty of care implied or written into contracts for their products or services. If they sell security then they must provide it and take the consequences when they allow customer preoperty to be damaged or stolen.- after all that's what thier business cover insurance is for. All the businesses I have worked for have had to provide for the storage of customers property which must prevent loss, damaged or decay have indemnity cover just in case.

Such sites are not just renting out a piece of land, they are also providing the controlls to limit who has access to the site and thus customers property. How else can that be describe but security? And if someone gains access without the site owners permission then that security has failed. Equally if the site owner allows someone onto the site who then goes on to cause damage to customers property, then the site has failed to maintain the care of their customers property - How can it be the customere liability when the site owners action has led to the damage or loss.

It should not be necessary for a customer to have to prove negligence which is a criminal test, not a civil test, the evidence of loss or damage to their preoperty whilst in the care of the storage facility should be ample to demonstrate that on the balance of probabilities the storage site has failed in its duty of care to protect its customers property.

I could go on, but I'm sure you get teh drift of my message.

 

[JonnyG]

"It should not be necessary for a customer to have to prove negligence which is a criminal test, not a civil test, the evidence of loss or damage to their preoperty whilst in the care of the storage facility should be ample to demonstrate that on the balance of probabilities the storage site has failed in its duty of care to protect its customers property."

Hi Prof that all sounds soo straight forward I for one would be overjoyed if that was how the world works. One question have you ever tackled such an issue? which looks so straightforward but involves large sums of money?
In an Earlier posting you also made mention of PPI and mis selling, it gives the appearence that everyone has succesfully claimed money because everyone was mis sold a policy? Now that actually appears not to be true a good example is MBNA customers who it appears are losing cases hand over hand, where as most banks seem to have excepted the ruling if you go by the headlines but MBNA have fought and it appears are winning a far chunk of cases with the osbusman...i have no idea if other banks are doing the same but as my wife had to prove on appeal that we had substantual savings to cover ourself incase of sickness or redundantcy at the time she had the card 1998 onwards, it goes to show the world and indeed the law does not revolve around a simplicity that i have noted reported with some of your advice.
Dont get me wrong Prof its nearly always sound advice that you give in so far as being written on a peice of paper,but you show only one side of the argument you automatically assume no matter what that, Negligence is proven against the site owner because of a caravan being stolen or damaged and therefore the site has failed in its "duty of care"! but has it? does the site claim in writting its security gurauntee's you caravan well not ever be damaged or stolen? No. so what about your own "duty of care" to simply assume without such a written gurantee that your property is 100% no questions asked fully protected from such events.Now a court could think it foolish of an owner to assume such things..
my caravan is now parked 6 miles south of lake garda, for my 370 Euro's A year i pay it incudes site insurance, whilst my caravan is there its insured as part of my payment to them....

 

[Dustydog]

It never ceases to amaze me why the caravan Insurers, well not all, give such a large support to CASSOA sites when from what I have seen and read are not that much more secure than many private storage facilities. A licence to print money perhaps.
I'd bet a penny to a pound not one Insurer has ever pursued a recovery for a theft claim from the CASSOA site owner. Why

?? Because they know they are never going to succeed.

Search the web now and nowhere can you easily access the T&Cs of CASSOA. I understand they only become available once you sign up!! IMO they have something to hide. That said Jonny is quite correct that no one site is absolutely thief proof. They may well do their best with various security devices but they do not and will not unconditionally guarantee to safeguard your caravan.

I like Surfer's legal reference to unfair T&Cs but sadly I suspect by signing up to such stringent CASSOA terms a Judge will have to assume the caravan Owner knew what he was doing.

 

[Surfer]

I like Surfer's legal reference to unfair T&Cs but sadly I suspect by signing up to such stringent CASSOA terms a Judge will have to assume the caravan Owner knew what he was doing.

Which ever way you want to view it, the contract is for the owner of the storage site to supply secure storage. If this does not happen then there has been a breach of contract. If the storage owner then says that it is the caravan owner's responsibility as they store there at their own risk, I doubt if that will wash in court and there is a already a precedence for this regarding a car damaged in a parking lot and the owner of the car sued the parking operator and won despite numerous signs stating Parking at own risk. Sadly I cannot find this case at this time as this was about 14 years ago.

 

[Raywood]

Negligence is a civil concept in so far as claims for damages are concerned and has to be proven before a case can suceed. The CASSOA sites do suggest that there is a higher standard of security on their sites but never say that it is perfect. To suceed in a claim against the operator you would have to show negligence on their part which directly caused the loss and frankly I cannot see this.

 

[JonnyG]

It never ceases to amaze me why the caravan Insurers, well not all, give such a large support to CASSOA sites when from what I have seen and read are not that much more secure than many private storage facilities. A licence to print money perhaps.
I'd bet a penny to a pound not one Insurer has ever pursued a recovery for a theft claim from the CASSOA site owner. Why

?? Because they know they are never going to succeed.

Search the web now and nowhere can you easily access the T&Cs of CASSOA. I understand they only become available once you sign up!! IMO they have something to hide. That said Jonny is quite correct that no one site is absolutely thief proof. They may well do their best with various security devices but they do not and will not unconditionally guarantee to safeguard your caravan.

I like Surfer's legal reference to unfair T&Cs but sadly I suspect by signing up to such stringent CASSOA terms a Judge will have to assume the caravan Owner knew what he was doing.

one has to assume that they the insurance groups have done their homework and have good foundations for their support of CASSOA sites, and maybe the odds of a caravan being stolen from there compaired to a driveway or non CASSOA site are low in comparrison. although that is an interesting piont has a insurance company ever held a CASSOA site accountable?

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Jonny,
you write
"..... you show only one side of the argument you automatically assume no matter what that, Negligence is proven against the site owner because of a caravan being stolen or damaged and therefore the site has failed in its "duty of care"! but has it? does the site claim in writting its security gurauntee's you caravan well not ever be damaged or stolen? No. so what about your own "duty of care" to simply assume without such a written gurantee that your property is 100% no questions asked fully protected from such events.Now a court could think it foolish of an owner to assume such things.. "
As I implied negligence does not have to be proven for a succesful breach of contract ruling where it has been established that other criteria are cited or implied in a contractural arrangment, and I firmly belive that Cassoa's 'enhanced' security falls into this area.
I gave a link and a quote from the Cassoa Web site, which I think very clearly points to the fact that Cassoa is deliberatly suggesting that caravsn stored at their franchised facilties are more secure. That is blatent advertising which is designed to coax customer on the pretext that their caravan will be safer with Cassoa. Regardless of what is written in the T&C's the key perceieved benefit customers see is better security. What ever way you look at it this implies a higher duty of care must apply than for other non cassoa sites.
It has been stated that there is no such thing as 100% security, and I am fully aware of that, but that is why businesses carry indemnity insurance, in case what they do provide fails at which point they become liable. And I am certain that storege site operators should have that same liability cover operating in respect of their customers property. It is a legitimate business risk which is pertinent to the prime function of the facilty.
In essence they provide a fenced enclosure, it is fenced to provide barrier between the customers property and the outside world, take away the fence and their security selling point is lost .The site operator may be negligent if they have allowed the fance to fall into disrepair or for easy means of ingress and escape by badly placed trees or other items, but that cannot detract from the fundamental fact that the sites security has been breached. So if the fence is present and some nafarious person does gain entry and either caused damage or takes property away, then the sites operators higher duty of care has not been applied.
A customer has applied a duty of care in selecting a Cassoa site essentially because of the claims of enhanced security over other sites. It does not require a copper bottomed guarantee of no break ins or storeage damage, only that when such things happen it is the sites liability rather than the caravan owners.

Whilst I have primarily cited Cassoa as the main culprit of this it could eaually apply to any storeagre facilty where Security is a feature of the product on offer.

 

[Raywood]

I have to dissagree with the Prof on this one. In no way doea the CASSOA website suggest that there will be no problems with the site security only that membership requires a certain level of security which may not be present on none members sites. This can in no way be interpreted as taking responsibilty for any damage caused by someone illegally entering the site. The C&CC insurance did quote their theft statistics some time back and this clearly showed a very low theft rate from CASSOA sites 3% of theft claims as against 27% from none members sites. The problem here that this is a break in rather than theft of the caravans, given that they are stored in what is essentially a large parking area it is almost impossible to fully guard against this.
Even if you prove that there is a breach of contract you would have to show that the breach caused the loss, with no actual evidence of how they got in you are in trouble even if the fence was defective. There is no way I would suggest anyone spends money on a legal action against the site in these circumstances and I doubt you will get a solicitor to take it on a no win no fee basis as they no well the prospects are minimal.

 

[JonnyG]

So, if raywood's figures are anywhere near the mark,then surely that would suggest CASSOA claims for their security would have a strong chance of being upheld in any court case against them?

 

[ProfJohnL]

..... In no way doea the CASSOA website suggest that there will be no problems with the site security .....

Hello Ray , I never wrote there will be no problems, we all know that is not humanly possible, But the principle that if security is breached the security provider is liable is not inconceivable, which is why they should carry indemnity insurance,

And Jonny, If the courts recognise the claims of improved security, then that surely means they should be more culpable if it fails.

I've stated my point of view, It cleary does not find favour with traditionalists, but traditions are not always the best way to do things, simply because traditions often do not adapt to changing or new perspectives.

 

[Raywood]

..... In no way doea the CASSOA website suggest that there will be no problems with the site security .....

Hello Ray , I never wrote there will be no problems, we all know that is not humanly possible, But the principle that if security is breached the security provider is liable is not inconceivable, which is why they should carry indemnity insurance,

And Jonny, If the courts recognise the claims of improved security, then that surely means they should be more culpable if it fails.

I've stated my point of view, It cleary does not find favour with traditionalists, but traditions are not always the best way to do things, simply because traditions often do not adapt to changing or new perspectives.

Hi Prof
I think we will just have to disagree on this one. Not sure I am a traditionalist, I do regard action in some cases as the way forward but not here.

 

[JonnyG]

hi prof.had to look up the terminology for traditionalist, Mmmm if that means not wearing a football top when i take the better half out or
only wearing a tracksuit sorry joggers on the rare occassion i still run,well i am sure you get my drift then indeed on some pionts i maywell be a traditionalist.but then arent we all on one piont or another?
On this topic ok we disagree i just cannot help thinking of the farces we have gotten out of things like data protection,health and safety anti terrorist law ect ect.to come to a view piont that we the customer would somehow end up far worse off in the long run for another
ill concieved law that would end up being twisted so we end up paying more for the same service effectively...traditionalist? well it has its roots in historic info,and history has taught me to be weary,so from that viewpiont, yes i am a traditionlist is there something wrong with that. if bankers and investors had stuck closer to tradition ie historic facts, we would all now be far better off.something to be said for holding certain traditionall values,dont you think

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Jonny,

This is going a little off topic, but you have suggested that sticking to traditional methods and beliefs may be sort of a good thing.

Well, there are many instances where traditional methods and beliefs have subsequently been proven to be unsafe, unfair, prejudicial. Flat earth, earth centred universe, Car parks posting non liability notices, Freelance clamping companies etc...,

If the use of a traditional method is used simply because it is the tradition, then its time to consider if it is truly relevant or safe. Often new information, or technology renders many long held old traditions ineffective or in some cases clearly wrong or unsafe.

If after scrutiny a traditional method is still shown to be relevant, fair and safe, then yes by all means use it.

I cant remember who to attribute this quote to but it seems relevant:
"If you do what you have always done, then you'l get what you always got"

So if what you get is not fair, then something needs to change

and
"A mind stretched by a new idea, can never return to its original size"

So now you have seen my thoughts, it will nag you for ever....sorry