Message Forums

I think you will find that if your son is not the owner of a static he is there by invitation of the campsite owner who has the right to restrict access on what is private property(campsite)  If the owners of the static look at their lease details I am sure they will find the details in the T&C's.

David

get him to put it in writing that he isnt the least bit interested in her, that will

a) test his desires

b) put her off completely

c) satisfy the nephew!!

no phoning a friend or 50/50 though LOL

other than that - the previous poster just about hid the nail on the head !!1

Son's friends own the static you say, but I would guess that they lease the land that it stands on. If that is the case then they should have a written lease which ought to include details about lawful visitors and the rights of the land owner to prohibit folk from visiting. Check the terms of the lease to see just what, if anything it says.

If the lease says something as simple as "visitors to statics will be allowed at no charge" then it is clear that visitors are allowed and that the landlord could be in breach of the lease by prohibiting the lad. There may be terms about prohibiting people form the site and may even give a list of reasons. I doubt that one reason will be that my nephew thinks someone is after his girlfriend. Check it out

If there is nothing that covers the situation then challenge the site owners and claim breach of tenancy

Phil

Quote: Originally posted by cwdc56768 on 12/4/2012

---

Son's friends own the static you say, but I would guess that they lease the land that it stands on. If that is the case then they should have a written lease which ought to include details about lawful visitors and the rights of the land owner to prohibit folk from visiting. Check the terms of the lease to see just what, if anything it says.

If the lease says something as simple as "visitors to statics will be allowed at no charge" then it is clear that visitors are allowed and that the landlord could be in breach of the lease by prohibiting the lad. There may be terms about prohibiting people form the site and may even give a list of reasons. I doubt that one reason will be that my nephew thinks someone is after his girlfriend. Check it out

If there is nothing that covers the situation then challenge the site owners and claim breach of tenancy

Phil

---

the problem with that phil, is that there is likely to be a clause that states the tenancy can be discontinued by the site owner 'as and when' - dont think i would want to risk having to move my van by going down the legal route - i would still try to resolve it with the site owner and ask him what he requires to pacifiy his nephew, wrong as it might seem to have to do so - certainly unfair and seems unjust but probably legal?

Valid point....only the lease will specify so we are back to looking at the lease.  having said that you need grounds for terminating a static caravan tenancy. Even if they try they have to go to court and then try to come up with a valid cause of action. There may be a clause enabling the site owner to terminate but they still have to answer to the court and justify their grounds. On the basis of what has been posted by the OP "not a cat in hells chance".  I'm a bit of a bull by the horns approach...from what has been posted the site owner is so very in the wrong that its approach never works before the courts.  Who blinks first

Phil

not forgetting that the people their son visits are 'friends' and not family, unless they are very good friends i would be surprised if they would consider going to court, or at least even intimating they might?

ps, nothing worng with bulls in china shops, dont see what the problem or what the fuss is about, bulls have as much right to shop in there as the old cows do !!!

unless they are very good friends i would be surprised if they would consider going to court

I know, practice and theory may be worlds apart, but the OP asked "Does any one know where my sons friends stand in law if they allow him to visit in their caravan" so my response deals with that question. It's up to them what they do once they have perused their lease and clarified in their minds where they stand etc. As for going to court, they may not have the choice, as it would be the site owners who would take them to court if the "son" continued to visit and they wanted to put an end to that. Once you get the court papers you either defend your position or give up.

So check the lease and then challenge the site owners to indicate just what right they have to stop them having visitors. That is where they stand in law. It's up to them if they want to make that challenge.

In these threads we don't always get the whole case set out before us. Now if the OP adds to this sorry saga with some new information e.g son has assaulted the nephew the response would be different. (not suggesting that he has but you see how a different slant on a story can change where you stand in law.

Phil

and it wouldnt surprise me if there was some further 'detail' LOL

strange that the 'son' or his freinds arent the ones trying to get an answer ......

i very rarely get the full story from my kids, or the wife .........

Did they check their lease? Anything useful?

Phil

Quote: Originally posted by pod1 on 15/4/2012

---

You wont find many 20 year olds subscribing to the UK campsite will you? that is why I did it instead of him. Believe me there is no other "side" to this story, sorry you are so mistrustful of people Dave.

---

With any other industry the office of fair trading would have a field day.

They have. You may fine this a good read. The real issue however, from my own professional experience with the OFT, is that they will not enforce their view as to do so could very well affect the business interests of the site owners to an extent that they may just give up and close down. In this case, the law is one thing and practicalities are another. I think that caravan owners recognise this fine dividing line and just bob along with, perhaps, a fair compromise.

I acted for a caravan site owner many years ago and residents complained to the OFT about certain issues where they were in the right (legally). The client site owner accepted their views but could not live with them in terms of the sustainability of his business. In discussion with the OFT we had to make it clear that if the OFT wished to stick to the law then the business would close. They backed off. That was no artificial threat, the client really could not continue with the business with the OFT requirements.

Phil

Phil