Stolen Caravan Honeymoon Heartbreak

[Parksy]

I was moved by the star letter from a Practical Caravan Magazine reader, Mrs Selina Higginbotham, in the May issue of Practical Caravan (Letters page 174)
She and her husband had married last June and rather than a honeymoon the newlyweds decided to buy a Bailey Pageant Series 7 Burgundy as a more permanent wedding present to each other.
Mrs Higginbotham who has other health issues had a breast cancer scare when they bought their caravan and with one thing and another they forgot to arrange insurance cover for their caravan.
Mrs Higginbotham has since received the all clear from the doctors but her husband like so many others is under threat of redundancy.
Their caravan was stored at a farm in Nortamptonshire from which it was stolen on 29th January this year, everything in the caravan is also missing including a cherished wedding photograph.
With no caravan insurance the unfortunate couple have lost everything, all that was left was the broken wheel clamp and hitchlock. Apparently the thieves broke down a fence and towed the caravan across a field in order to steal it.

Would the Higginbotham's have any chance of making a claim against the farmer or his insurance?
I have no idea if they paid him to store their caravan but presumably if the farmer was receiving money from the Higginbothams then he had entered some sort of an agreement to look after the caravan?
The lesson, as always, is if the thieving toe rags want your caravan they will take it so make sure that you are properly insured no matter what but I can't help feeling sorry for this couple.

 

[LMH]

They have my sympathies.

I wouldn't have thought the farmer could be held liable though.

A friend of mine kept hers in secure storgage at a well known storage place and there was a fire and numerous caravans (in storage owned by private individuals) were written off as a result. She had to claim on her own insurance. The storage yard admitted no liability.

Infact, thinking about it, we kept ours on a farm once along with a friend. The farmer made a bit thing about saying he walked round the yard twice a day making sure the vans were still there etc. My friend took his van out one day (there was no one around at the time) and never took it back. He didn't receive a phone call to say his van had vanished. He did, however receive an invoice the next time his rent was due.

Good luck to the couple though.

Lisa

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Parksy

This is a subjet I feel quite strongly about. Without knowing what specific arrangements the couple had with the farmer, it is not possible to know if the farmer has any liability for the loss of the property - its all down to the contractual arrangments and what enticements or specifications were agreed.

However in general, most of the farmers feilds I see used for caravan storage have no visible security features other than perhaps a locked gate. It certainly would not stop a fleet footed person getting into the field and having good look round or worse.

As for removing a van, again it generally would not take much effort to make vehicular access to be able to tow a caravan away - even through hedges.

So unless the farmer either advertises, implies or makes claims about the sites security, they are not likely to be breaking any contractual arrangements. Its usually just the hire of space.

However there are some sites where part of their advertising relies on the apparent security they offer. These sites are actually making claims about the service they offer and that is clearly an enticement to attract customers. Some insurer's are deliberately sending policy holders to these sites, yet when the service fails, they wriggle and squirm to avoid any liability!

If Security is not a service they are offering, then they should not be implying it is, and that is a trades descriptions offence. However unless very specific limits or criteria are set out describing the limits and vulnerabilities of the service they offer, any failing of their service means the product is not fit for purpose, and that is a sale of goods and services breach of contract.

It just needs a few people who have suffered a loss or damage
whilst a caravan is the care of one of these 'secure' sites to challenge the sites under SoGA, and the industry would find they do have liabilities when they do not deliver what they advertise imply or say they will.

 

[Parksy]

I used a so-called 'secure' site until last year, there was cctv etc but the owners had erected a sign disclaiming all responsibility for damage or theft.
At the time there was a workshop on the storage site and somebody was spraying cars outdoors!
As soonas I saw that it prompted me to find somewhere else which I did, my friends caravan was damaged whilst on this same storage site but the site owner accepted no responsibility and the incident wasn't recorded on their much vaunted cctv.
I accept that it's up to the caravan owner to ensure that the caravan has adequate insurance cover but some of these storage sites seem to escape any consequences when things go wrong.

 

[LMH]

I totally agree with you Parksy.

John - are you a solicitor?

Lisa

 

[Dustydog]

I feel the same as Prof John.
I've just checked six Gold rated CASSOA sites and not one of them publishes their terms and conditions of storage

.
Odds are they all deny any liability for fire theft etc.

Heads they win tails you lose

.
I keep our caravan at my friends farm which is alarmed, CCTV and uses an electronic key for entry and exit. His contract clearly states he will not be responsible for theft .
So it seems to me most land owners want your custom but without accepting any responsibility. Money for old rope .

Do you think Lord Hezza could be persuaded to make a generous donation from his Haymarket coffers towards the Higginbotham's bad luck?

 

[Surfer]

I can never understand why people do not insure something that has cost them a lot of money and then store it on unsecured premises. These people really need to get a reality check and should not be looking for sympathy from other people. Think about it, if there was an accident involving their caravan and yourself, against whom would you be able to claim? This could involve somethingas simple as their caravan rolling down an incline and smashing into your caravan. They do not have my sympathy I am sorry.
As for storage, although the farmer can deny liability, in a court fo law, the farmer would lose as the moment he took money from them there was an implied contract that in exchange for money he would be responsible for the safekeeping of their caravan. Similarly, although parking garages have "No responsibility/liability" signs up should your vehicle be damaged, they are liable and there are a number of case references to prove this.

 

[Parksy]

I can never understand why people do not insure something that has cost them a lot of money and then store it on unsecured premises. These people really need to get a reality check and should not be looking for sympathy from other people. Think about it, if there was an accident involving their caravan and yourself, against whom would you be able to claim? This could involve somethingas simple as their caravan rolling down an incline and smashing into your caravan. They do not have my sympathy I am sorry..................

It's certainly been an expensive lesson for the Higginbothams to learn and I hope that any new caravanners reading this will remember it, it could prevent someone else making a similar mistake.
I'm not sure if the Higginbothams were seeking sympathy when they wrote to Practical Caravan Magazine, the impression that I formed was that they hoped to warn others although of course if anyone is offered or sees a 'too good to be true' Bailey Pageant Burgundy 7 series bear this in mind.
Mrs Higginbotham was also keen to have her wedding photo back and the scummies may have discarded it in a hedgerow or layby.

 

[Dustydog]

An interesting point Surfer.
I wonder if any of the Insurers who advertise on here could tell us how many land owners they have successfully sued following a caravan theft?

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Lisa,

No I am not a solicitor or anything connected to legal profession see the bottom of my posting space.

Hello Surfer,

Unlike cars, caravans do not have to carry insurance, and the owners liability in the event of an un-hitched caravan being involved in an incident may be covered by the third party elements often found in buildings and contents policies,You would have to check your own policies to confirm that. I do agree though a policy is a good idea.

Your suggestion implying the farmer is liable is not necessarily true. It all depends on the content of the contract written, verbal or implied. If the farmer states he/she is only providing space and the contract is limited to that, then it is up to the caravan owner to secure and accept the consequences if their security fails.

I believe that one of the reasons why so many car parks change from barrier operation to pay and display, is to avoid the car parks operator liability in the event of parked vehicle being stolen. In essence if a car park is closed by a barrier, only the owner with the correct exit ticket should be allowed to exit, consequently the ticket price is both hire of space and the operation of the security system. If a car is stolen, then the security has been breeched.The Site operator should only have opened the barrier for the genuine user of the car.

By removing the barrier, they have negated the implication of security and the ticket price is space only, and the owner of the car is responsible for securing it.

 

[LMH]

Hello Lisa,

No I am not a solicitor or anything connected to legal profession see the bottom of my posting space.

oh.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Dusty,
It's only logical that you should want to know what you are purcahsing, other wise how do you know what you are paying for? and how can you judge if its good value or not?

The CaSOA system clearly is implying that thier sites are more secure than other non CaSOA sites. That is how they justify thier higher charges - to pay for the installation and maintenance of thier security systems. It is very clear that this is how they are marketing thier sites by differentiating them from their competitors. This gives a very unabiguous message to the public and implies c 'Your caravan is safer and more secure with us.'
If that dosn't mean security is part of the service they offer then what does!

 

[Dustydog]

Hello Dusty,
It's only logical that you should want to know what you are purcahsing, other wise how do you know what you are paying for? and how can you judge if its good value or not?

The CaSOA system clearly is implying that thier sites are more secure than other non CaSOA sites. That is how they justify thier higher charges - to pay for the installation and maintenance of thier security systems. It is very clear that this is how they are marketing thier sites by differentiating them from their competitors. This gives a very unabiguous message to the public and implies c 'Your caravan is safer and more secure with us.'
If that dosn't mean security is part of the service they offer then what does!

That's just it John.
How strange that none of the CASSOA member sites I looked at publish their T&Cs.
In my travels I have to say some of the worst security I have seen is in Cornwall where many people have seasonal pitches. No gates , guards etc . A thiefs paradise!

 

[Surfer]

Hello Lisa,

No I am not a solicitor or anything connected to legal profession see the bottom of my posting space.

Hello Surfer,

Unlike cars, caravans do not have to carry insurance, and the owners liability in the event of an un-hitched caravan being involved in an incident may be covered by the third party elements often found in buildings and contents policies,You would have to check your own policies to confirm that. I do agree though a policy is a good idea.

Your suggestion implying the farmer is liable is not necessarily true. It all depends on the content of the contract written, verbal or implied. If the farmer states he/she is only providing space and the contract is limited to that, then it is up to the caravan owner to secure and accept the consequences if their security fails.

I believe that one of the reasons why so many car parks change from barrier operation to pay and display, is to avoid the car parks operator liability in the event of parked vehicle being stolen. In essence if a car park is closed by a barrier, only the owner with the correct exit ticket should be allowed to exit, consequently the ticket price is both hire of space and the operation of the security system. If a car is stolen, then the security has been breeched.The Site operator should only have opened the barrier for the genuine user of the car.

By removing the barrier, they have negated the implication of security and the ticket price is space only, and the owner of the car is responsible for securing it.

A lot of waffle with no point to the post? Can I suggest in future before you post on something where your knowledge is limited that it may be best to read up on it and in this case, reading up on contract law may help. If I am unsure at least I have the guts to ask first instead of writing a mile long post which is confusing and not very helpful to most people. Thanks.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Surfer.

With respect you do not know what my experience or knowledge is in relation to these matters. And likewise I do not know yours.

 

[starlightdj]

Hi Surfer

I must admit I am with prof john on this issue, his post is informative constructive and uses relevant liability examples.

Contract law as with legallity or criminal liability issues cannout be discussed with any accuracy as the original post does not contain enough detailed content to allow such input.

However overall i find the Prof's quotes to be legally accurate, informative and constructive without being biased or overly negative towards any individual.

Long may he continue to post , long winded or not,

I would also like to add this is a very sad case, and in these current times when money is tight insurance always seems a luxury rather than necessity and is too easy to let it lapse or cancel as you hope beyond hope you will never need to call upon it and the funds saved can be used on other priorities. A lesson to be learnt in all matters in life.

Cheers
John

 

[Dustydog]

Surfer and Prof John
Past precedents in the English Law Courts support what John has said. I accept he has his views but no way can they be dismissed as " a lot of waffle"

Surely the point of a Forum is open discussion, personal views and an attempt to offer some lateral thinking to a given problem.
See this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thornton_v_Shoe_Lane_Parking_Ltd

To the best of my knowledge this case has not been superceded in the English Courts.
Caravan storage is still a bit different however because 99% of the time you enter into a contract of storage with the Landowner on his / her terms and usually sign to accept those conditions, even though they may seem arduous.
Thus you modify your Common Law Rights by freely entering into a Contract which is binding on both parties.

 

[JonnyG]

Ditto.. The Prof.
Actually quite glad the prof isnt a solicitor,As there always seems TWO involved in any legal dispute, so they Both cannot be right. Right!

We keep our van on a farm along with 30 odd other caravaners, never thought about the issue of if the farmer is liable, but then we have insurance so its never come up.nor so we have a contract written or verbal,either way one thing is for sure, for every solicitor that would say he is liable, you would find another that would say hes not.

 

[Surfer]

The reference supplied by Dusty seems to support the fact that the farmer can be held liable for the theft of the caravan. All I asked was for John to read up some contract law before posting. I am sure he would find it interesting and beneficial to himself. As for the waffle, why can't he make a point instead of flowering it up? His posts can be helpful and even more so, if more to the point. I guess i don't like being put down on every post I make!
Although very, very rusty I do have a qualification in Mercantile law which I gained in 2000 and this obviously included contract law. The reason why I remember the parking garage scenario is because this aspect was discussed in depth by the class as opposed to just reading about it. I cannot recall the case reference but I am fairly sure it was not the one Dusty quoted as in our scenario based on a real life case, a vehilce was involved.

 

[Parksy]

The reference supplied by Dusty seems to support the fact that the farmer can be held liable for the theft of the caravan. All I asked was for John to read up some contract law before posting. I am sure he would find it interesting and beneficial to himself. As for the waffle, why can't he make a point instead of flowering it up? His posts can be helpful and even more so, if more to the point. I guess i don't like being put down on every post I make!
Although very, very rusty I do have a qualification in Mercantile law which I gained in 2000 and this obviously included contract law. The reason why I remember the parking garage scenario is because this aspect was discussed in depth by the class as opposed to just reading about it. I cannot recall the case reference but I am fairly sure it was not the one Dusty quoted as in our scenario based on a real life case, a vehilce was involved.

My comments are not meant to be taken as a sharp rebuke aimed at anyone, they are offered for guidance.
It's all too easy for feathers to be ruffled when posting on an internet forum rather than when engaging in a face to face conversation.
This electronic medium doesn't really lend itself well to discussions where points of view may differ slightly.
Everybody has their own style of writing when adding content to forum message boards just as everybody is different when holding spoken conversations and direct criticisms of each other are unhelpful because they can lead to misunderstanding.
It's normal not to completely agree with each other and members are allowed and indeed expected to be prepared to defend their points of view which may differ but it would be better not to level personal criticisms when doing this.
I'm sure that the Prof wouldn't intentionally 'put anyone down' Surfer but he may not agree with a point that you made. It's understandable and natural to be stung by criticism but I don't think that the Prof is criticising you personally.
All that you have to do in reply is to reinforce your own point and tell the Prof and anyone else what is behind your thinking, try not to let direct criticism of the person creep in but you are allowed to criticise his point if it differs from your own.
If each of us addresses the opinion rather than the person who holds the opinion then we would have the basis for good interesting polite debate.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello All

I do not want to be the cause of any rift between correspondents It is an unnecessary diversion from the core of the thread.

I try very hard to focus on the points of the thread and to ignore the personalities of the posters. I know that can sometimes seem harsh when it differs from other peoples perspective on the subject.

When I see a topic where I believe the information being provided is wrong, and possibly dangerous then I try to explain why I believe its wrong, Many of my answers do come from a professional background in the subjects. At least then readers have to opportunity see the thinking behind the argument and have a better opportunity to make a better informed decision.

With regards to the 'waffle' I firmly believe that a post should sit within a relevant context, and perhaps provide some additional background where it may help the wider understanding. Often some of the one line answers favoured by some posters don't seem to make sense to me, and I find that frustrating!

If anyone believes any of my postings are wrong (and they can be) that's fine, but rather than just saying the're wrong - explain why the're wrong, then we can all learn or draw our own conclusions.

 

[ProfAlGoogle]

I can never understand why people do not insure something that has cost them a lot of money and then store it on unsecured premises. These people really need to get a reality check and should not be looking for sympathy from other people. Think about it, if there was an accident involving their caravan and yourself, against whom would you be able to claim? This could involve somethingas simple as their caravan rolling down an incline and smashing into your caravan. They do not have my sympathy I am sorry.
As for storage, although the farmer can deny liability, in a court fo law, the farmer would lose as the moment he took money from them there was an implied contract that in exchange for money he would be responsible for the safekeeping of their caravan. Similarly, although parking garages have "No responsibility/liability" signs up should your vehicle be damaged, they are liable and there are a number of case references to prove this.

Quite agree with surfer on this one, at least he has the b*lls to say what a lot of us are thinking.

What if there honeymoon gift to each other had been a car, and in all the excitement they forgot to insure it, first trip out and they run in to your car, both vehicles are a right off, or worst still a fatality, would you still be as sympathetic to wards them then? Sorry in the list of priorities insurance rests at the top of the list for your own peace of mind, and for others that your actions might involve.