How secure is your storage ?

[Parksy]

Judgements arrived at (in this instance) in a civil court are based on the judges interpretation of the law after hearing opposing views and arriving at a decision on who is right. Precendence helps a judge to form his judgement, a legal representative will advance an argument by quoting directly on what has happened previously in similar circumstances and if the judge is persuaded by this argument then the advocate will have succeeded, thus reinforcing the precedent.

Both sides of this debate have some merit but so far the precedent appears to favour the storage site owner rather than the agrieved caravan owner.
Until someone can succeed in perusading a judge that the site owner who implies enchanced security bears some responsibility for this security being proven to have failed, thereby setting a different precedent, then nothing will change very much.
Being able to prove conclusively that a lapse in security led to a caravan theft would present the most difficulty.

 

[PETERA]

Firstly let me thank all for their comments, opinions etc. All very interesting and informative.

Can I now please update.
I have written to the storage site owners to express my disapointment regarding the quality of service recieved and asked that they pay for the damage to my caravan. I have yet to receive a reply.
My reasoning for doing so in my mind is quite simple. I chose this storage facility based on what they were advertising / offering, i.e. Secure storage by a Storage facility that had been classified as a Gold Star standard establishment by CASSOA.
Now we can all argue what Secure really means in this context. But there can be no argument as to the criteria CASSOA use when assessing the sites and awarding what level they place them at be this Gold, Silver or Bronze.
So, Based on information supplied by CASSOA it appears that this site does not meeet the set critria required to meet this Gold Star award.
To cover just 2 requirements.

Regarding Perimeter fencing. Criteria states. Perimeter Fencing (BS1722) relative to Palisade and Welded Mesh Fencing.
Not the case at the facility I used. When they started to prune back the trees down the west side of the site it became aparrent that the only fencing visable was a 3 string barb wire fence. Does this meet the criteria ?

Regarding the CCTV. Criteria states. FULL SITE CCTV. Not the case at the facility I used. It now transpires that the CCTV they have covers the front gates only. Does this meet the criteria ?
On both of these issues I believe that the site falls into the Silver standard and not the Gold standard catagory as advertised. This being the case I believe I have been misled / misinformed as to the level of security the site were providing and as such they have failed to honour their part of the contract.
I believe If they had been assesed correctly they would have been placed into the Silver catagory then I would not have used them in the first place.
If they have a problem with Cassoa on this issue then that is their argument and not mine.

This is why I believe that the site owners should pay for the damage to my caravan.
All coments welcome

PETERA

 

[Surfer]

Judgements arrived at (in this instance) in a civil court are based on the judges interpretation of the law after hearing opposing views and arriving at a decision on who is right. Precendence helps a judge to form his judgement, a legal representative will advance an argument by quoting directly on what has happened previously in similar circumstances and if the judge is persuaded by this argument then the advocate will have succeeded, thus reinforcing the precedent.

Both sides of this debate have some merit but so far the precedent appears to favour the storage site owner rather than the agrieved caravan owner.
Until someone can succeed in perusading a judge that the site owner who implies enchanced security bears some responsibility for this security being proven to have failed, thereby setting a different precedent, then nothing will change very much.
Being able to prove conclusively that a lapse in security led to a caravan theft would present the most difficulty.

If the storage owner breaches the contract, they could be liable as you paid for secure storage. Remember that the insurer has probably given you a discount for using a CASSOA site. However the way to go about it is to claim off your insurance company who will in turn claim off the storage owner. This is one of the reasons that it never comes up in court so set a precedence, however as stated earlier I am fairly sure a precedence has been set regarding a vehicle and a parking garage.

 

[Raywood]

Judgements arrived at (in this instance) in a civil court are based on the judges interpretation of the law after hearing opposing views and arriving at a decision on who is right. Precendence helps a judge to form his judgement, a legal representative will advance an argument by quoting directly on what has happened previously in similar circumstances and if the judge is persuaded by this argument then the advocate will have succeeded, thus reinforcing the precedent.

Both sides of this debate have some merit but so far the precedent appears to favour the storage site owner rather than the agrieved caravan owner.
Until someone can succeed in perusading a judge that the site owner who implies enchanced security bears some responsibility for this security being proven to have failed, thereby setting a different precedent, then nothing will change very much.
Being able to prove conclusively that a lapse in security led to a caravan theft would present the most difficulty.

If the storage owner breaches the contract, they could be liable as you paid for secure storage. Remember that the insurer has probably given you a discount for using a CASSOA site. However the way to go about it is to claim off your insurance company who will in turn claim off the storage owner. This is one of the reasons that it never comes up in court so set a precedence, however as stated earlier I am fairly sure a precedence has been set regarding a vehicle and a parking garage.

I assume ths case you are thinking about involved NCP. If I am right the car park actually caused the damage which is a very different matter. If your car is damaged by someone other than the car park employees then you have no caes against the car park in most circumstances.