Ray
I know nothing (especially caravan related it seems) is perfect. But things won't get better unless the buying public start to demand it and stamp on those who fail us so miserably.
Craig is right - unfortunately becasue of the system which is largely controlled by the insurance companies. it needs an organisation to pilot a challenge.
If you suffer a storage loss, the site tells you to claim through your own insurance. But to keep things simple your insurers don't want to upset their fellow companies and will are reluctant to pursue the site owner. After all we are easy targets becasue as you have suffered a loss they have the T&C that allows them to put up your premium, Why do more than enough to raise an easy buck? But why not pursue the person who is responsible for the failure initially the site owner for not securing it properly and then the culprits who actually do the damage.
The Police seem to be taking the stance that if its property theft or damage, then let the insurance companies sort it out.
Perhaps if more caravanners told their insurers to go after the site owner becasue they have failed to provide what you have paid for, rather than accepting what insurers telling you what to do.
Its our money they play fast and loose with.
I know nothing (especially caravan related it seems) is perfect. But things won't get better unless the buying public start to demand it and stamp on those who fail us so miserably.
Craig is right - unfortunately becasue of the system which is largely controlled by the insurance companies. it needs an organisation to pilot a challenge.
If you suffer a storage loss, the site tells you to claim through your own insurance. But to keep things simple your insurers don't want to upset their fellow companies and will are reluctant to pursue the site owner. After all we are easy targets becasue as you have suffered a loss they have the T&C that allows them to put up your premium, Why do more than enough to raise an easy buck? But why not pursue the person who is responsible for the failure initially the site owner for not securing it properly and then the culprits who actually do the damage.
The Police seem to be taking the stance that if its property theft or damage, then let the insurance companies sort it out.
Perhaps if more caravanners told their insurers to go after the site owner becasue they have failed to provide what you have paid for, rather than accepting what insurers telling you what to do.
Its our money they play fast and loose with.
I totally agree, but, and there is always a but.........................HOW?
Vote with your feet? Unfortunately each caravan related retailer seems as bad as the next. Storage sites the same?
The one place we can really air grievances we arent allowed to do it. Im not having a pop at the forums before anybody jumps on that comment, I fully understand why the various forums prevent us from naming and shaming, but what other recourse do we really have. We are unfortunately the proverbial captive market.
I can just imagine how popular you would be down your storage facility,after claiming against them,you win,they put everyone's yearly fees up to recover costs,you're not going to be flavour of the month.
I am sorry but the idea that the storage company is liable for any damage is unreasonable. The companies provide storage with a specific level of security and you accept that. There is no reason that I can see why they should be held responsible if someone breaks down or cuts through the fencing and causes damage or steals caravans there. The contract terms only repeat the legal position and any attempt to exclude liability for their own negligence would not be enforceable.
It would need a change in the law to change the position and I doubt it is high enough on any politicians agenda to ever get there.
Insurance companies will claim against another where they think they can recover outlays and indeed spend rather more than they should doing this. There is no possibility of them not rocking the boat.
It would need a change in the law to change the position and I doubt it is high enough on any politicians agenda to ever get there.
Insurance companies will claim against another where they think they can recover outlays and indeed spend rather more than they should doing this. There is no possibility of them not rocking the boat.
Well i can't say outside house is any safer but then I'm only going on our attack when we used to keep ours beside our house. At 2am one Sunday morning i heard a lot of crackling going on i looked outside our bedroom window to see our recently bought pre owned db axle Compass Rallye in flames it was a big beauty in great order and we'd only had it a few months. It was written off by insurance company.
We were recompensed same cost we paid so we looked for another pre owned and were able to find another in great order again and also is a Compass Rallye different model number. Slightly different layout.
We now store it in a lock up storage which has cameras and alarms.
Thought sure outside our home would've been fine but you just never know the badness of some who can't leave others items alone.
So I know how it feels o it too well to have your caravan destroyed cant describe it.
But my belief in God is so strong and if Its His will for us we shall surely reap His benefits.
We were recompensed same cost we paid so we looked for another pre owned and were able to find another in great order again and also is a Compass Rallye different model number. Slightly different layout.
We now store it in a lock up storage which has cameras and alarms.
Thought sure outside our home would've been fine but you just never know the badness of some who can't leave others items alone.
So I know how it feels o it too well to have your caravan destroyed cant describe it.
But my belief in God is so strong and if Its His will for us we shall surely reap His benefits.
Raywood said:
I am in agreement with Ray on this. There is a finite risk wherever you store your 'van, and this is a factor taken into account when determining the premium you pay for the cover you desire. Of course in the case of gross negligence by a storage company they should be held liable (and hopefully have appropriate liability cover). However Prof seems to be arguing that the entire theft/damage risk whilst at the storage location should transfer to the storage company. Even if this were to be the case, the cost of the necessary insurance to the company would simply be reflected in the storage charge.
Surely it's an insurance claim when damage is done.
It would hardly be the place to also claim from the storage place and the insurance comp.
I think it's so marvelous when I see caravans/motorhomes parked up in owners driveways. I know I said ours was burned from our home but it wasn't actually in our driveway i did say it was up the side there are railings between us and a set of garages next to us. Loads of ground space so we stored our caravan there.
Our driveway has tons of room to keep it on bit its slopped and our db gates aren't wide enough as hubby tried it. We have spent a small fortune on paving it all before we got a caravan so really cannot undo it now as much as we'd love it out front.
It would hardly be the place to also claim from the storage place and the insurance comp.
I think it's so marvelous when I see caravans/motorhomes parked up in owners driveways. I know I said ours was burned from our home but it wasn't actually in our driveway i did say it was up the side there are railings between us and a set of garages next to us. Loads of ground space so we stored our caravan there.
Our driveway has tons of room to keep it on bit its slopped and our db gates aren't wide enough as hubby tried it. We have spent a small fortune on paving it all before we got a caravan so really cannot undo it now as much as we'd love it out front.
VicMallows said:
Admittedly I am playing devils advocate on this one, and i do agree the stance i have expressed is vastly different to what we have currently experienced from storage companies, but the concept behind my posting should in my opinion be considered.
There can be no doubt that especially the CaSSOA sites are promoted as having high security systems, and even though it may not be expressly described as such in their contracts, it is very clearly implied in their advertising. It is most likely that caravanners will choose one of their sites on the perception that their security will provide better protection against theft or damage, so they cannot exclude the issue of security from the service they provide.and they should be liable if that security fails to prevent vandalism or loss.
The only dubious recognition of that perception by the caravan insurance industry is a modest discount , which fails to completely offset the extra cost of using a CaSSOA site.
If you search the internet for reports of caravan thefts from storage compounds, its difficult to get an accurate indication of how much better CaSSOA sites are. Its not a matter of public record, but the fact that insurers do offer a discount does suggest the statistics do favour such facilities. But whether its really worth the extra fees is i suspect questionable, and its certainly a matter where personal circumstances will bias each decision.
But what cannot be denied is the inequity that when you pay for security, if the service fails, the full loss still falls on the customer who has done nothing wrong compared to teh site that has failed to protect customer property.
If I buy a gas boiler service, and it fails, the cost of the failure falls on the service company.
If I buy a train ticket, and the train does not turn up, the train company is liable to refund the cost,
If I buy a hair cut (not much real chance these days
) if the barber makes a mistake they have to refund.If a Pizza does not arrive on time, there is a refund or its free.
If I post a parcel, and it gets lost or damaged, the carrier is liable.
If council fails to fill a notified pot hole, they are liable for damage to cars.
Or as an alternative perception but where the underlying principle of maintaining a secure screen, If a farmer or zoo or safari park fails to maintain its fences, and animals escape, they are liable for the damage or injury their animals cause.
Storage Site security seems to buck these underlying principles that are widely accepted elsewhere.
If they sell a service, but fail to provide that service, that is fraud. or obtaining monies by deception or false advertising.
VicMallows said:
afraid I could not disagree more. just look at the facts. storage companies sell or rent space. in order to get punters they make a big point of saying they provide secure spaces where the customers property will stay safe and sound. the more they portray the security aspect the more they charge for the space.
yet in the small print they all refuse to accept any liability for the property left with them.
and say all property [including any contents] are left at the owner risk [deferring the risk to the customers insurance] so where is the duty of care they should be accountable for.
you might as well store the van on pub carpark or farmers field for all the protection you get.
Colin, The owners risk bit only restates the legal; position. basically if you store anything on anothers property then at law you take the risk of loss or damage. If there is a contract as with storage sites then any attempt to wriggle out of liability for their own negligence will not be effective so the contract term is not actually changing anything legally but simply making the position clear.
Possibly the biggest problem could be if the perimiter fence is damaged and not repaired and a loss occurs following others getting in this way. The operator should certainly get the fence repaired as soon as reasonably possible, but what is as soon as reasonably possible, and you also have to ask if the second entry would still have happened with the fence damaged again.
Possibly the biggest problem could be if the perimiter fence is damaged and not repaired and a loss occurs following others getting in this way. The operator should certainly get the fence repaired as soon as reasonably possible, but what is as soon as reasonably possible, and you also have to ask if the second entry would still have happened with the fence damaged again.
Ray I took my car into the garage for a service and MOT. but some of the parts were unavailable on the day it went in so had to be left at the garage overnight. during the night someone tried to steal of the cars on the garage premises and in doing so damaged several cars in the attempt "including mine" I was informed the next day they would be a delay in getting the car back due to the damage.
they gave me a free car to use while the repairs were done and paid for damage to be put right at their expense all I paid for was the service and MOT they had contracted to do.
the service manager apologised for the mishap saying there had been a mix up because the work could not be finished in one day. when this happens the customers car is parked outside so other work can be done but then moved back into the service bay overnight so the work could be completed
this had not been done and the car left outside all night. so they accepted it was their fault the car had been left where it could get damaged.
so why should caravan storage be allowed to opt out of the same level of duty that any other business has to comply with.
they gave me a free car to use while the repairs were done and paid for damage to be put right at their expense all I paid for was the service and MOT they had contracted to do.
the service manager apologised for the mishap saying there had been a mix up because the work could not be finished in one day. when this happens the customers car is parked outside so other work can be done but then moved back into the service bay overnight so the work could be completed
this had not been done and the car left outside all night. so they accepted it was their fault the car had been left where it could get damaged.
so why should caravan storage be allowed to opt out of the same level of duty that any other business has to comply with.
A CASSOA Gold near to me had a caravan stolen by thieves cutting through two sets of perimeter fences then towing the caravan across a ploughed field onto nearby green lane which led onto main road. They were caught by Thames Valley police when they had a traffic accident. The green lane was a public right of way so its entry onto the main road could not be blocked off. I actually get a lower premium by storing the caravan at home on the drive. My main concern with a storage site was that other users could damage my van when parking theirs up, or doing work on it as the pitch spacing was tight. This is where it differs to a garage looking after your car, as the public have no access to the garage unless they bang into yours as they collect their car. Also I started to empty the caravan of everything and take it home after someone forced the front locker and broke it no doubt looking for "goodies".
I am under no illusions that someone may try and take the caravan, or its contents, so I still empty it but whilst on the driveway its much easier task. Across from us at 2030h (ish) a couple of weeks ago thieves jumped perimeter wall, broke into the house and stole car keys and jewellery The new Navara went but not the sports car. So all house locks were changed and the sports car was removed by the insurers pending a new locking/alarm system.
They are always around you so the best you can do is take sensible precautions such that they move elsewhere to an easier target.
I am under no illusions that someone may try and take the caravan, or its contents, so I still empty it but whilst on the driveway its much easier task. Across from us at 2030h (ish) a couple of weeks ago thieves jumped perimeter wall, broke into the house and stole car keys and jewellery The new Navara went but not the sports car. So all house locks were changed and the sports car was removed by the insurers pending a new locking/alarm system.
They are always around you so the best you can do is take sensible precautions such that they move elsewhere to an easier target.
Hello Ray,
I think we understand the conventional legal position that you have restated. The reasons for it may well go back many centuries, and it has become the traditional way of looking at the subject. However history is littered with traditions that have later been shown to be ineffective in dealing with present-day issues or sensibilities, and so they should be tested from time to time to see if they are still fit for purpose.
I trust we can agree, that as consumers, we have the absolute right to have products or services accurately described. However we also know advertiser's will push the boundaries of what is acceptable until the consumer or their watchdogs bites back and redraws the line of acceptance. A case in point is the communications industry's claims for broadband speed and accessibility. Their exaggerated claims are having to be reigned in in line with a new fairer code of practice.
Security is always going to be a slightly shadowy area, as if all practices are public knowledge, then the measures taken will be easier to circumvent by criminals. Its a vicious circle, but it's protocols can, and should be cleaned up without detracting from the protection they can offer.
It's an area where their has been little regulation in the past, and we know from related matters such as private parking firms, and the employment of security personnel , there has been a lot of questionable practices that have drawn recent government action to clean up some of the industry.
It is unfair for a facility to be allowed to advertise themselves as providing "secure" storage, without defining what level of protection that actually means. Its not good enough to simply say we have 3M high fences, that does not infer to an ordinary member of the public how much that will impede at attack on the facility, how did they determine that 3M is enough or the gauge and material of the fence?
I think we understand the conventional legal position that you have restated. The reasons for it may well go back many centuries, and it has become the traditional way of looking at the subject. However history is littered with traditions that have later been shown to be ineffective in dealing with present-day issues or sensibilities, and so they should be tested from time to time to see if they are still fit for purpose.
I trust we can agree, that as consumers, we have the absolute right to have products or services accurately described. However we also know advertiser's will push the boundaries of what is acceptable until the consumer or their watchdogs bites back and redraws the line of acceptance. A case in point is the communications industry's claims for broadband speed and accessibility. Their exaggerated claims are having to be reigned in in line with a new fairer code of practice.
Security is always going to be a slightly shadowy area, as if all practices are public knowledge, then the measures taken will be easier to circumvent by criminals. Its a vicious circle, but it's protocols can, and should be cleaned up without detracting from the protection they can offer.
It's an area where their has been little regulation in the past, and we know from related matters such as private parking firms, and the employment of security personnel , there has been a lot of questionable practices that have drawn recent government action to clean up some of the industry.
It is unfair for a facility to be allowed to advertise themselves as providing "secure" storage, without defining what level of protection that actually means. Its not good enough to simply say we have 3M high fences, that does not infer to an ordinary member of the public how much that will impede at attack on the facility, how did they determine that 3M is enough or the gauge and material of the fence?
Colin, I have to say your garage were very good although I think the point here is that they left the car outside overnight. I do not know the garage or what the area was like, but unless you consented to leaving the car outside they had put themselves in a difficult position. In storage terms it is like moving your caravan outside the fenced in area which would obviously not be acceptable.
Prof. I do see your point about using the word "secure". This is used by airport parking services and various others and is probably stretching the truth a bit. I do think however that we all go into this with our eyes open and know nothing is 100% secure. Before accepting the contract we should be looking at the site and establishing if the level of security meets our requirements and once we have accepted this we have to accept the security level or go elsewhere.
I think all CASSOA sites will give a decent level of security although I have only seen a couple plus the club sites. They are graded so you can see what level they provide before you even enquire. Provided the site operator sticks to what they provided at the time the contract was completed then I think you have to take the risk of damage or theft to that extent.
Prof. I do see your point about using the word "secure". This is used by airport parking services and various others and is probably stretching the truth a bit. I do think however that we all go into this with our eyes open and know nothing is 100% secure. Before accepting the contract we should be looking at the site and establishing if the level of security meets our requirements and once we have accepted this we have to accept the security level or go elsewhere.
I think all CASSOA sites will give a decent level of security although I have only seen a couple plus the club sites. They are graded so you can see what level they provide before you even enquire. Provided the site operator sticks to what they provided at the time the contract was completed then I think you have to take the risk of damage or theft to that extent.
hi Ray. I think the missing criteria here is "duty of care" everyone has it to some extent. the garage admitted it had failed in it's duty of care to keep my car protected from damage. so paid to have it rectified.
there are thousands of such claims weekly in the courts from slipping on wet floors to poor service from a provider.
unfortunately the caravan storage facilities continually fail to accept their duty of care for the goods left in their care.
while ever customers continually just put up with the at owners risk clause nothing will change.
yes we all have to accept some risk in everything we do. from crossing the road to driving to work. that is not the same as paying for a perceived service that may or may not be up to the advertising hype.
there are thousands of such claims weekly in the courts from slipping on wet floors to poor service from a provider.
unfortunately the caravan storage facilities continually fail to accept their duty of care for the goods left in their care.
while ever customers continually just put up with the at owners risk clause nothing will change.
yes we all have to accept some risk in everything we do. from crossing the road to driving to work. that is not the same as paying for a perceived service that may or may not be up to the advertising hype.
I have to hand to the storage guys. :S
They are so clever at modifying the Law of Bailment that in effect all good English Law in favour of the Bailee has been totally reversed. And it is the caravanner who signs up to such agreements letting them get away with ithmy:
They are so clever at modifying the Law of Bailment that in effect all good English Law in favour of the Bailee has been totally reversed. And it is the caravanner who signs up to such agreements letting them get away with it
hmy:
Raywood said:
Hello Ray,
There are couple of points that come out of your last comment.
Unlike an organisation that owns and operates its own commercial sites, CaSSOA does not own the sites, so site owners have to apply to CaSSOA to become accredited. That means whilst there are defined criteria that need to be compared to CaSSOA's requirements, there can still be considerable variation in what may be considered compliant.
A CaSSOA accreditation is like an MOT, it only confirms the site was compliant at the time of the inspection. And sadly I'm pretty certain that as soon as the accreditation has been achieved, some shady site operators will pear back on some aspects of the operation to save money and would no longer be CaSSOA compliant. How would the consumer know?
The current status quo where all the risk is with the customer and non with the site is grossly unfair. Storage sites are making money based on the perception that they will protect customers property from loss or damage.
Its time customers started to make sites face up to the probability that they will held responsible if they fail to protect property left in their care. It may be a different to current practice, but if sites wish to claim they are secure they must be prepared to put their money where their mouth is.
I think I may have said enough on this subject.
Hi Clive
We used to keep our caravan at the storage you mentioned , we moved it to home after a break in searching for 'goodies', involved extending perimeter wall which is 2m high brick and adding double gates and dropped kerb, at the time I calculated the cost would be recovered in not paying storage after 50 years, but while we accept there is still a risk we have the van effectively in our back garden, on permanent hook up with security lighting. As to the argument that when the van is out, the house is vulnerable, it is alarmed and neighbours and family members keep an eye on it, the advantages of having the van at home far outweigh the risk as far as we are concerned
We used to keep our caravan at the storage you mentioned , we moved it to home after a break in searching for 'goodies', involved extending perimeter wall which is 2m high brick and adding double gates and dropped kerb, at the time I calculated the cost would be recovered in not paying storage after 50 years, but while we accept there is still a risk we have the van effectively in our back garden, on permanent hook up with security lighting. As to the argument that when the van is out, the house is vulnerable, it is alarmed and neighbours and family members keep an eye on it, the advantages of having the van at home far outweigh the risk as far as we are concerned
Just to put some context to the store at home advertises when your house is susceptible to burglary, and I hope I’m not putting the kiss of death on this. Since I started caravanning 34 years ago I have always stored the van at home without problem. We did have our house broken into once and a very unpleasant experience it was too, but that was several years before we started caravanning so no link there. When away we do have family keeping an eye on the house and sometimes staying over.
.........I too store my caravan at home and have done for 23 years.
For the last 17 years since retirement we have spent around 90 days / year away in the caravan with a further 50 days / year when our house is also empty.
We accept the obvious risks involved and take precautions which so far has kept us out of trouble.
I personally would not expect my caravan or house to be any safer if my caravan was in a so called secure storage site.
I certainly would not expect such a storage site to compensate me for any damage to or theft of my caravan unless negligence could be proved on the sites part.
I would expect compensation to come from my caravan insurer.
For the last 17 years since retirement we have spent around 90 days / year away in the caravan with a further 50 days / year when our house is also empty.
We accept the obvious risks involved and take precautions which so far has kept us out of trouble.
I personally would not expect my caravan or house to be any safer if my caravan was in a so called secure storage site.
I certainly would not expect such a storage site to compensate me for any damage to or theft of my caravan unless negligence could be proved on the sites part.
I would expect compensation to come from my caravan insurer.
As I have said the simple answer here is that provided the operator is not negligent or in breach of contract then they have no liability for damage occurring and that is the legal and to me sensible point. If they do not maintain the security or cause damage in some other way then they can be liable and the terms of the contract do not change this. Except for minor damage most claims will be handled by the caravan insurers and they know the legal position and will not hold back if they find fault on the part of the operator.
From speaking to the operator of one site who was due a visit CASSOA visits are pretty stringent,and I am not aware of any operator reducing the standards between visits, although it is true that they do know when they are coming and can prepare.
From speaking to the operator of one site who was due a visit CASSOA visits are pretty stringent,and I am not aware of any operator reducing the standards between visits, although it is true that they do know when they are coming and can prepare.
Its such a shame we can't use our very big and wide drive at our house front but the footpath is in opposite tilt with it the door path slopes upward and our drive slopes down its hard to describe and I'm sure hard to imagine.
Hubby tried once to put it in but because it's db axle so therefore long it damaged one side entering the gates.
That was the end of that idea.
I see others with theirs in driveway and I look at ours and think what a shame.
It's so handy to have on your doorstep.
Congrats Gafferbill think yourself blessed.
Hubby tried once to put it in but because it's db axle so therefore long it damaged one side entering the gates.
That was the end of that idea.
I see others with theirs in driveway and I look at ours and think what a shame.
It's so handy to have on your doorstep.
Congrats Gafferbill think yourself blessed.
Sounds a bit like our drive but ours is narrow and has a lamp post opposite just where the car might mount the pavement. We did get the caravans in but the caravans got too wide for the drive causing me to hit the porch.
Facebook
Twitter