Message Forums

Quote: Originally posted by elanman on 12/6/2012

---

You have to admit that 7x4m is pretty huge!   

---

The sites that try to overcharge should ask themselves this question, the facility I am offering does it represent fair value for money? if they chose not to , the answer is simple, a client paying a fee = possible income, a potential client that walks = total loss, simple business. if the pricing is adrift say so and walk, do us all a favour.

When"s summer coming?

Well I think if a site wants to charge a double pitch fee for a large tent then thats fine if the large tent will then be properly pitched on the 2 pitches you are paying for.  Which would probably mean the fire safety recommendations etc would not be breached. 

The thing that annoys me is that they charge a double pitch fee then still squeeze the tent on the same pitch they would have if you had taken a smaller tent.  Its the feeling of being ripped off thats annoying.

Justifiably - if a 10 man tent has 10 people in it (unlikely as we all know the berths dont match real people size) then there should be a higher charge for the more showers and water useage - assuming this isnt charged on top.

There are twoelements to this in my opinion. One could be the size of the unit and the other is the number of occupants. I personally favour it being more towards the number of occupants without the unit size being massively over the top.

Obviously the more units they can fit on (while hopefully observing the firebreak rule) the more they can potentially make if they go for a unit price approach.

However the more occupants can cause a large increase in costs such as larger volumes of water to pay for and power to heat the extra showers\wash basins used, power for such as hairdryers in the shower blocks etc. and more cleaning up after larger numbers of people along with large increases in the costs of disposing of the waste/rubbish left behind by those people. Large units do not necessarily dictate large numbers of occupants. Large units with less people in can cost a site less in expenditure than smaller units with more people in them.

If I pay for a pitch and can get everything on it I will not stay at a site that charges extra for say our trailer. It goes onto the campsite once at the start of the holiday, is tucked round the back of the tent then does not move until it leaves the campsite at the end of the holiday. Why should I pay for that as an extra to someone who does not have a trailer, it costs the site owner nothing, does no damage and does not prevent other units using the site as it is within the confines of the patch of grass I am renting. If its four people one tent and two cars I can see an argument for the second car to be charged but if its an 8 man tent then why charge for the extra car as its needed?

So for example Elanman (apologies but I am not picking on you just using you as an example as you stated your unit size) the four of you in your 3m by 3.5m footprint on most sites will use one marked pitch but actually cost more for the site than someone with two people in a 4.2m by 6m tent with a trailer which would still fit on a standard pitch.

There is an argument therefore that perhaps pricing should be a mixture of both unit size and number of occupants. Its very difficultt to arrive at a standard pricing policy.

Also unless a site is full they are daft to risk campers not stopping by double pitch fee charging as any income is better than none, also they risk goodwill/reputations being destroyed.

A 5/6 berth caravan of 8.5m by 2.2m with full awning which nearly doubles its size is also a big unit but is not necessarily more expensive in price than a lot of smaller tents are priced at.

A good site about 25 miles from us prices as follows: Pitch fee per night with electric high season £10, Adult (17+) £4 per night, child (5-16) £2 per night, child under 5 free, vehicle £4 per night, dog £1 per night. So a family of two adults, two over fives with one car costs in high season £26 per night no matter the unit size, be it tent, caravan or motor home (some of which are also huge). This seems a fair system to me as the fee is skewed more to covering site costs.

Anyway just my opinion, sorry for the long post.

Cheers,

David

Quote: Originally posted by elanman on 12/6/2012

---

Why should the person who has a little two man tent or single bivvy pay the same as someone who basically brings everything in a tent big enough they could park their car inside?

---

From the other end of the scale, I've been trying to find a campsite in North Wales or Cheshire that we could walk to with our 3 man backpacking tent.  We found somewhere that would be OK, not perfect, but fine for a walking overnighter.  When I checked the prices, I found out that we would be charged the same as a caravan or huge family tent and car.  It wasn't cheap & we haven't booked it. 

It would have been a bargain for all the folk with huge tents, but why should we pay the same?  This 'only just OK' campsite cost more than we paid a couple of weekends ago for a site with our 'big' tent and car in a beautiful campsite. 

Quite a few sites do have a hikers tariff. which is fairer. Also occassionally there is a special rate for those without public transport.  As I would be a bit miffed having to pay the same rate as everyone eles.

For sizes of tents. I have come across tents which are four berth, which have a bigger footprint than my five berth.   This does flumix site owners. As I told some one that I have two, three birth tents, one has a much bigger footprint than the other.  After an owner of the site was conviced that a particular tent was bigger than the tent owner stated.

I did come across a site, which tents paid more than the caravans, and the caravans had the awnings included in their tariff.  Why should I pay more, for less.  Obviously, I gave that site a wide berth (no pun intended)

heath 63

I hate campsites with lots of large tents, they are not exactly pretty and fill up a field so there is hardly any grass left and no where for the kids to run around. See the difference in be before and after in liz's post. Those large tents ruined a lovely view.

I really dont mind if the charging structure discourages large tents because were will it end. 10x5m!  15x8m?  A 7x5m tent is twice the area of a caravan so really should pay more than a caravan pitch. It needs a more level area and also doesnt let the grass breathe like under a caravan so its fair to charge a premium for all that flat grass area. At least a caravan has to get down a road so is limited in size.

And no marked pitches please, like a temporary suburbia all in rows with windbreaks protecting 100% of your pitch, and scowls if someone steps on "their patch of grass" no thanks. Camping is somewhat communal and its nice when there is some freedom of how and where to pitch.

Well done for walking, OP and for getting such a good outcome.

I agree it's complex, but at least the wide range of charging methods means it's easy for everyone to get the deal that best suits them. We are 2 adults and 2 small dogs, but we camp in decent sized 4-man tents. I need to be able to stand without stooping and we like enough room to sit and eat inside if it's raining. We prefer sites where you pay per person (obviously!) and I don't feel it's unfair as we use less water etc and generate less rubbish (especially as we eat out practically every night).

Sites that charge per pitch obviously benefit families, so I'm glad that a lot of sites use that tariff as it means they're not priced out of the market. As long as the charging system is clear and easy to understand, I don't see that there's a problem.

If I think a particular site might charge extra because they think my tent is big, I ring and check. I agree it's a bit complicated, but it's not like tax regulations or the benefit system or anything.

I don't get the charging for dogs thing either. I wouldn't mind at sites with a designated dog exercise area that's fenced and well maintained, but we tend to avoid them. One site I looked at wanted £5 per dog, per night - that would have cost us an extra £120 over 12 nights, so we voted with our feet and went elsewhere. But as long as there are sites I can go to that don't charge for dogs, I'm happy.