Message Forums

One of my pet hates is sites that charge extra for awnings.  If we go to one that charges we will not use the awning, as we feel that there is no justification for the charge.  I understand the argument about damage to the grass but a lot of sites specify you must use a breathable groundsheet that won't cause damage.

But in researching sites for this years caravanning adventures it seems to me that more and more sites are charging extra for awnings, so I wondered if this is indeed becoming more prevalent or am I just noticing it more because it winds me up? 

I haven't researched this but I suspect the sites that charge for awnings would probably need/choose to increase the cost of their pitch/people rate if they didn't choose for awnings. 

e.g. if a site reckons it needs to get approximately £30 for a pitch, they have several options.  They could charge £30, irrespective of the number of people, cars and awning.  So one person in a ridge tent without a car would be charged £30, and a family of six with a double axle caravan, a large awning and two cars would also be charged £30.

In reality, most sites break down the cost so as to make it fairer, in relation to the number of people and the equipment you use.  Sites will do this in different ways.  The fairest way woul be to charge for every single thing.   This could mean that the man with the ridge tent might only pay £5, but the family of six might end up by paying £55.  I suspect sites steer the middle path to make their income more predictable.  If they have 100 pitches all taken by ridge tents with one person, their income for one night will be £500, but if each pitch was occupied by a family of six, there income would be £5,500.  They are looking for an income of about £3000, so in reality they charge the ridge tent more and the double axle less - they make a compromise.  This means that some will include the awning in the cost of the pitch, others will not.  In the end of the day, the site is happy if it gets approx. £30 a night.  As a consumer, we have the choice of going to a site that charges for seperate people/services etc and those that try and lump them together. 

It could be that more sites are breaking down costs into smaller units because they feel that it works better for them and is what the customer wants.

Whatever the case, if a site wants the equivalent of £30 a night for a pitch, it has to organize pricing in such a way to ensure this is what they get, whatever the detailed structure of their pricing policy.

All this, of course, is just my own thoughts and is not based on detailed 'inside' knowledge of any sort.  Just my way of saying... I don't think it makes a lot of difference... they are going to try and get their money one way or another.

Quote: Originally posted by Rune Caster on 24/3/2010

---

We booked a site for Easter that charges for a awning but it was cheaper than a site that didn't charge and everything was all in...

So would you go for the site that didn't charge?

---

It's not that I won't go to a site that charges for awnings, it is that I won't use the awning at those sites. 

it's quite annoying all the extra charges but the one that really bugs me is paying for the dog   4 years ago we were charged £3 per night

Quote: Originally posted by gemma1675 on 24/3/2010

---

If we go to one that charges we will not use the awning, as we feel that there is no justification for the charge.

---

Quote: Originally posted by navver on 24/3/2010

---

Quote: Originally posted by gemma1675 on 24/3/2010

---

If we go to one that charges we will not use the awning, as we feel that there is no justification for the charge.

---

Follow that train of thought and you be better off staying at home. At least, if they charge, you have the choice of using the awning or not. That's much fairer than a fixed charge all in. If you want cheaper, I've noticed that sites near the sea charge double to those further inland.

---

---

Quote: Originally posted by GAYNOR68 on 24/3/2010

---

hi yea thats my PET hate too paying for dogs as we have 3 very small well behaved dogs that we clean up after every time we take them out, well my arguement is why do they charge for dogs as they dont cause any upset or mess, well thats if everyone cleans up, we went to skeggness last yr to a wonderfull site and the dog walk was disgusting dog mess everywhere you walked on the dog path, i think me and 2 other dog owners were the only ones thats cleaned up after our dogs, so i understand in that way why they charge but if all owners were as resposible as us then the charge should be dropped, so dog owners bewhere, CLEAN UP OR PAY UP!! coz i think the sites should drop the dog charge and just keep eyes out for owners that dont clean up and make them pay a penalty charge, word would soon get round the site and all owners would then clean?? wouldnt they?

---

Quote: Originally posted by GAYNOR68 on 24/3/2010

---

well thats out of order people should not have dogs if they dont clean up after them it makes me so mad

---

Dog mess is a lot better than it used to be before they introduced fines. Back then I saw someone stood by his dog whilst it c****d in the childrens play area at the park. He made no effort to clear it up. When I asked him to clear it up, he just said he didn't need to and I couldn;'t make him.

Back to the original question, if there were no awnings, caravans could probably be sited closer together, subject to the fire regs of course. But the fire regs might allow them closer if no-one had an awning. Also they do damage the grass.