When a Secure Storage Site is not a Secure Storage Site?

[mealsonwheels]

We've just insured our caravan with The Caravan Club and noticed in the confirmation particulars they sent that they had not allowed the discount for 'Secure Storage'.
We rang them, pointing out that our caravan is stored on a secure site, with a high electronic gate that has to be swiped to get in and out, plus video cameras recording who comes in and out and more cameras on pylons watching over the storage area, plus fencing all around the site. The owner also lives next to, and overlooks, the storage site.
We were then told The Caravan Club Insurance only give the Secure Storage Discount if the storage site is CASSOA and even though this storage facility meets CASSOA requirements, they wouldn't allow the Secure Storage Discount.

 

[Surfer]

We've just insured our caravan with The Caravan Club and noticed in the confirmation particulars they sent that they had not allowed the discount for 'Secure Storage'.
We rang them, pointing out that our caravan is stored on a secure site, with a high electronic gate that has to be swiped to get in and out, plus video cameras recording who comes in and out and more cameras on pylons watching over the storage area, plus fencing all around the site. The owner also lives next to, and overlooks, the storage site.
We were then told The Caravan Club Insurance only give the Secure Storage Discount if the storage site is CASSOA and even though this storage facility meets CASSOA requirements, they wouldn't allow the Secure Storage Discount.

Why doesn't the storage facility apply for a CASSOA rating? Many insurers will not offer the discount as it is not CASSOA rated.

 

[mealsonwheels]

I've no idea, but I guess CASSOA storage site owners have to pay for CASSOA registration each year and with a waiting list as long as your arm of caravanners wanting to store their caravans there, he possibly doesn't see the need to pay CASSOA to advertise his facility. It's only us that use his secure storage that miss out on the CC Secure Storage Discount. I'll ask him next time I see him.

 

[ProfJohnL]

I refere you to a similar topic also running inthis potic area see
http://www.practicalcaravan.com/forum/insurance-security-and-storage/cost-storage?page=1
Cassoa registration seems to be a licence for the site owner to charge extra for basically nothing. The sites offering so called scurity do not put their money where their mouths are.
I suspect that the discount insurers offer does not offset the extra cost of using a Cassoa site. So in most cases you will just aswell off not using a site with Cassoa inflated prices.

 

[colin-yorkshire1]

We've just insured our caravan with The Caravan Club and noticed in the confirmation particulars they sent that they had not allowed the discount for 'Secure Storage'.
We rang them, pointing out that our caravan is stored on a secure site, with a high electronic gate that has to be swiped to get in and out, plus video cameras recording who comes in and out and more cameras on pylons watching over the storage area, plus fencing all around the site. The owner also lives next to, and overlooks, the storage site.
We were then told The Caravan Club Insurance only give the Secure Storage Discount if the storage site is CASSOA and even though this storage facility meets CASSOA requirements, they wouldn't allow the Secure Storage Discount.

hi,
sounds about right that. they would not give us a discount either?? and ours is stored at home in a double locked alarmed garage
is attached to a hitch post with a Alko hitch lock plus chained to the post with a titanium chain and padlock, has a wheel clamp corner steady locks at the rear, front left one is also chained to the floor via the same chain and lock as the hitch, but according to them it is not a secure storage,
all I can say is if the thieving sods can steal it good luck they can have it.

 

[NickinFrance]

ours is stored at home in a double locked alarmed garage
is attached to a hitch post with a Alko hitch lock plus chained to the post with a titanium chain and padlock, has a wheel clamp corner steady locks at the rear, front left one is also chained to the floor via the same chain and lock as the hitch, but according to them it is not a secure storage,

Ours is stored in a parking area in our 'garden', behind an unlocked gate, 50 yards from our house, not visible behind a barn but has a wheel clamp that is more than the insurance company want.
Oh, I pay 190€ a year for fully comp insurance, including Europe wide breakdown cover.

 

[Raywood]

We use a CASSOA gold site and pay only £250 a year which is no more than many other sites in the area but has far better security. The problem with an unregistered site is the insurers cannot be sure of the security without visiting it or that the current standards will be maintained so they are unlikely to give a discount.
Thefts from your home ar the most common so it is unlikely you will get a discount there.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Ray,

I am very cynical about the Insurance industries involvement with Cassoa.

You last post has a number of consequences, and my thought process follows.

The inference of your last post is that insurance companies accept (or expect) that Cassoa registered sites offer better security.

So that means that part of Cassoa sites reason for being there is to offer security, and that is one of their service selling points, to give you peace of mind whilst they store your precious caravan. Security is part of the stock/service in trade

You put your money in a bank or building society for much the same reason.

If you use their service you expect your property will be protected from loss or damage. So if it suffers loss or damage who is to blame? - obviously the perpetrator, but also the company or business because their 'security' has failed.

Banks and building societies accept the loss if they are burgled, but Cassoa sites??????- No - they say its your fault and you have to claim against your insurance, for their failure.

Licence to print money comes to mind.

 

[Raywood]

HI Prof;
No storage site can be theftproof, you simply reduce the risk by taking precautions, it is the same as fitting wheel clamps or other devices. Membership of CASSOA means sites have to comply with certain standards which the companies can assess and give a discount according to their opinion of this. I do not think there is any financial tie up. If you use a site that is not a mamber the insurer simply cannot be sure of the standards or that they will be maintained without visiting it which for the cost involved is probably not economical.
We keep our van on a gold site which has electronic key entry through double gates and CCTV installed both at the gates and inside. If thieves wer really intent on stealing a van they would find a route in but that is a fact of life. Given there are some 400 vans on the site we use even if thieves do break in the chances of the lost one being yours is lessened.

 

[Dustydog]

Ray's observations are spot on.

An Insurer is in business to make money primarily and pay claims only if absolutely necessary.

Their Underwriters look at all aspects of the risk and do their very best to reduce the chances of a loss . This is of course good sense. However the Underwriter can only work the tools that are available to him/ her. Cassoa is an attempt by an outside body to create an environment that is hopefully more thief proof than anywhere else. Hence the prudent Underwriter will offer a discount if their services are used. I have looked at some of these sites and whilst not for me their security does seem pretty good. That's why the Insurer likes them.

John, You may say it's a licence to print money but the reality is the set up cost is not cheap and they seek to provide reasonable security.

Personally I don't use them. My storage is electronic key entry exit on my mates farm. I probably pay £10 more a year premium than a Cassoa. In my experience most repudiated theft claims by Insurers arise out of issues on the storage facility that post claim turns out not to be as good as stated at inception of the policy. Those who tell their Insurers the caravan is stored at home ironically stand to have less hassle at claim time than those on a secure site where the security turns out NOT to Be as good as originally thought.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Dusty

I don't dispute that setting up a 'Secure' storage site is expensive. And I also accept that no caravan storage site can be 100% secure But neither can a bank or building society, yet they do take responsibility for their customer's property

The sole reason for Cassoa is the insurers looking to reduce risk. Fundamentally that revolves around security, so these sites are selling the perception of better security. Insurers are enhancing that perception by offering premium reductions to policy holders who use the sites. BUT when you actually take advantage of a Cassoa site, they try to deny any responsibility for the provisions/service they provide.
What business risk is the site taking? Insurance companies are pointing caravanners in their direction, and judging by the comments we often see on the forum, they are not short of customers. If the site loses any part of it fencing, and they fail to replace it and during that time a customers property is lost or damaged, who claims on theri insurnance - the customer not the site.
This is fundamentally wrong and so loaded against the caravanner.
The insurance discounts do not offsett the extra costs of using Cassoa, so whilst my phrase ' alicence to print money' may be a little bit of over statement, the principal is that it is costing caravanners more for no practical advantage.
It needs a test case where a customer who suffers a loss or damage to their property whilst in the protetction of a storage site to challeneg their disclaimer.

 

[Martin24]

I have to say that I'm with the prof on this one on the whole but from possibly a slightly different angle, I agree that if you're selling your service with the addition of Cossoa registration and charging accordingly then there has to be a level of additional benefit to the consumer. However if a site is offering the same level of protection that a cassoa registered one does, and it is easy enough to to find out what equivalent level that is, then an insurance company should be willing to offer the same rate whether the site is registered or not. In my opinion the only difference would be that the owners of the facility have decided that they will save the additional cost and administration by not being part of the scheme, a saving that they have hopefully passed on to the caravan owners. There is no change in who is responsible if a van is stolen or damaged and therefore no additional risk to consumer or insurance company. Therefore the insurance company on receipt of written conformation of security arrangements should offer the same premium reduction. The caravan insurance is still valid though however many times we all pull up at the services and however many times we are out and about with the van which makes a mockery of where the van is in storage!

As an aside when moving last year from the 'wrong' side of town to the 'right' side of town my car insurance rose by some £50!! Why??? I was told that the same car with the same security was more likely to be stolen or broken into in a more affluent area. The thieves were less likely to target it on their own doorstep apparently!!!!

 

[ProfJohnL]

I think it is only fair to clarify my position here.
Some might get the impression that I have an issue with a Cassoa site.
That is definately not the case.
I have never used or intend to use a Cassoa storage site.

 

[Surfer]

If you store on any supposedly secure storage site and your caravan, no matter what the terms and conditions state, the owner of the storage company is liable. Obviously insurance companies will be involved etc but owner's insurance comnpany will be liable either way!

 

[neiltce]

our senator wyoming is in secure storage.. with a cassoa gold rating.. there are cameras everywhere double secure gates, the outer gates are locked at night... there is a couple that live on site..

2 trailer tents were stolen along with a caravan a few years ago..
my caravan insurance is £137.00 a year with minimum £10,000 payout for total loss..
and that is through the camping and caravan club.

 

[Raywood]

If the site security is breached and the owners take no action the caravan insurers are likely to claim against the sites insurers. The problem might be the site insurers would reject a claim from the site operators if they had not taken reasonable precautions to protect the site.

Hello Dusty

I don't dispute that setting up a 'Secure' storage site is expensive. And I also accept that no caravan storage site can be 100% secure But neither can a bank or building society, yet they do take responsibility for their customer's property

The sole reason for Cassoa is the insurers looking to reduce risk. Fundamentally that revolves around security, so these sites are selling the perception of better security. Insurers are enhancing that perception by offering premium reductions to policy holders who use the sites. BUT when you actually take advantage of a Cassoa site, they try to deny any responsibility for the provisions/service they provide.
What business risk is the site taking? Insurance companies are pointing caravanners in their direction, and judging by the comments we often see on the forum, they are not short of customers. If the site loses any part of it fencing, and they fail to replace it and during that time a customers property is lost or damaged, who claims on theri insurnance - the customer not the site.
This is fundamentally wrong and so loaded against the caravanner.
The insurance discounts do not offsett the extra costs of using Cassoa, so whilst my phrase ' alicence to print money' may be a little bit of over statement, the principal is that it is costing caravanners more for no practical advantage.
It needs a test case where a customer who suffers a loss or damage to their property whilst in the protetction of a storage site to challeneg their disclaimer.

[/quote]

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Raywood.

You write
"If the site security is breached and the owners take no action the caravan insurers are likely to claim against the sites insurers. The problem might be the site insurers would reject a claim from the site operators if they had not taken reasonable precautions to protect the site."

let me give you some analogies:-

You put your jewellery into a bank for safe keeping, The bank is burgled and your property is stolen, The bank pays out. Caravan site equivalent, you leave your caravan in their care, they loose it, they don't care because they expect you to claim on your insurance.

A parcel carrier looses a parcel. The carrier pays out. In the caravan world equivalent, the parcel is lost and the carrier doesn't care and you get nothing.

You put your car in for a service and an employee manages to scratch it - the garage pays to repair it. caravan site equivalent - caravan is damaged whilst in storage, caravan site doesn't care and you get nothing.

This last one needs a bit of explaining.:- A secure caravan storage site controls who has access to the site. Thus anyone on site is specifically authorised to be there by the site operator. This must be the case because the site operator prevents entry to none authorised persons.

In such an enclosed controlled site it is reasonable for the site operator to be deemed to have full control of the site and all activities that take place there in and to ensure that people who undertake activities are suitably trained or qualified to do so. again this must be the case otherwise the site operator would not have authorised them.

The site operator is therefore acting as the responsible manager to all persons on site whether employees or not.

Consequently any activity that results in any injury to any person or customers property, the site owner is responsible for allowing it to happen. Thus the person who suffers injury or loss has cause to sue the site operator for negligence.

 

[smiley]

only discounts we get is the no claims...... but I think cameras on any site won't stop anyone pinching anything, they can be a deterant or used to try and identify the said perpertrators.
but if your insured and have followed the insurance guidelines to protect your van, then that's all you can do... Even though our van is old loosing it would be aweful. No money can replace whats lost, it only helps you start again but never the same..

 

[Raywood]

Hi Prof. The position of the site operator is that they hold the property in trust as would a bank in your example. If the property is lost or damaged through their negligence then they are liable. You would have the right to claim against their insurance but this takes time and it is easier to use your own insurer. The insurers however reserve the right to act as though they were the insured party and can pursue a claim in his or her name so the claim against the site operator would still stand.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hi Raywood,
I agree that the most effective way to deal with such a loss in the current procedures is through your own insurance company, But in reality I do wonder how many claims are then passed onto the site, and as always in such cases even though the consumer is not to blame for the loss, they insurane company notch it up as a claim which increases permiums for the insured.

I honestly think that legislation should be introduced such that where there is no doubt about the non culpability of the insured, that the insurance company must in every case pursue the guilty party not only for the material loss but also any consequential losses such as rasied premiums.

 

[Dustydog]

Hi Ray

Out of idle curiosity I've just checked 6 Cassoa Gold rated sites..
Three have no website .
Not one of the six openly publish their terms and conditions of caravan storage.

Under The Financial Services Act, governed by the FSA, all Insurers have to openly publish, or make easily available a copy of their policy wordings..
I'm with the Prof.
Why are Cassoa members so reluctant to publish their T&Cs?

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Dusty,

To be fair the sites themselves are not offering insurance policies, thus the rules on availiability of policies does not apply. However I do agree with you that whre a consumer is trying to find out about the facilities and services a company offers access to details of standrad T&C's should be made easy and a web site is a great place to do it, as well as providing a paper copy if their services are purchased.

Ho hum! its another area of caravanning that hasn't really caught up with 20th yet alone the 21st century both in terms of quality and integrity of service, communications and fairness.
Call me cynical if you like.

 

[Raywood]

Hi Raywood,
I agree that the most effective way to deal with such a loss in the current procedures is through your own insurance company, But in reality I do wonder how many claims are then passed onto the site, and as always in such cases even though the consumer is not to blame for the loss, they insurane company notch it up as a claim which increases permiums for the insured.

I honestly think that legislation should be introduced such that where there is no doubt about the non culpability of the insured, that the insurance company must in every case pursue the guilty party not only for the material loss but also any consequential losses such as rasied premiums.

Hi Prof,
Having worked in insurance claims for over 45 years I can assure you we were always on the lookout for a potential recovery and I would be surprised if many opportunities were missed.
As far as Dustydog's point is concerned I must admit we were not supplied with a copy of the terms and conditions of storage at the CASSOA site we use until we got there. I am not sure if they are standard terms for the organisation but I have read ours and there was no problems that I could see. If you are interested in a site and are worried about the conditions I would assume if you ring them they will send you a copy.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Ray,
I have to say that I remain highly sceptical of your suggestion the industry does seek full compensation, I can imagine that not all cases are black and white, buteven so we see very little evidnce of it.

 

[Raywood]

Hello Ray,
I have to say that I remain highly sceptical of your suggestion the industry does seek full compensation, I can imagine that not all cases are black and white, buteven so we see very little evidnce of it.
Hi Prof, With modern computer programmes you canot even close a file until you have checked if a recovery is possible and many companies then have a recoveries section who then take it over and pursue it. At the end of the day you have to be realistic and if there is doubt then a compromise has to be accepted but if you pursued it yourself you would have the same problem. If you think some companies are pretty ruthless when dealing with their own customers then you will realise what they are like when the other party is not even a customer.