Message Forums

The little lady and I have been wondering recently why more CC sites are not members only. Loosehill is and that is very popular. Knaresbrough isn't and that is enormously popular. Now, if you are a member of the CC and you can't get into a CC site because it has some non members occupying pitches, would you be annoyed? Concerned?

Maybe the more popular sites up and down the country should be members only. We have visited some sites recently where the conduct of residents have been a bit iffy. Where their approach to the use of facilities has been suspect and our own view (which may be wrong) is that members wouldn't do that.

So the debate is...should the more popular CC sites be for members only.

Over to you

Phil

The Caravan Club have no choice but to accept non members on some of its sites as it is usually a condition of the lease that states they must accept non members. This often happens to sites in National Parks or where the Club have taken over an exisiting campsite. Where the Club own the site outright only members can use the site. Non members do pay somewhere in the region of £7/8 a night extra. As to oversea campers making use of facilities the Caravan Club does have reciprocal with some European Caravan Clubs.

David

That is one of the reasons why I left the C&CC after many years membership, popular sites such as Keswick were often fully booked with non-members.

This suits them, being realitically a commercial business rather than a 'club', as they are able to charge the non-members fee and increase their takings.

Something else to consider is that in general whilst non members may be admitted to the sites they can only do so by simply arriving, there are no facilities for them to make a booking unless they can persuade the site warden to take them on trust.

If the information posted in this thread is up-to-date and correct. then the bottom line is that a CC member will always have first refusal on a pitch if the member books.  If the pitch is not booked then it seems fair game to open up those pitches to non-members.  It is in the club's financial interest to fill empty pitches, and the extra income produced in this way is surely ploughed back into the club for the benefit of members.  Just my opinion.

Quote: Originally posted by tango55 on 07/7/2011

---

Well I suppose that's another way of looking at it David and if the extra funds are ploughed back into the club then it would be deemed as sensible management and cost effective for the members thus keeping the cost of membership down in the long term. I never thought of it that way but it's good to get others views on subjects such as this because it shows that your own thoughts are not always right and can be persuaded to think differently afterwards.

---

I would view non members on club sites as potential future members, there will be those who join having experienced a club site who may not have joined without trying first, so its a recruitment ploy which in the long term keeps the business more bouyant. Regarding non members behaviour and approach to the use of facilities, does the membership card in the wallet have such a dramatic effect on peoples behaviour ? I would guess not, in all walks of life there are those who are considerate and those who are not and a bit of plastic IMHO wont be the cause of a change.

The CC is a commercial organisation out for profit - not a "club" in the true sense. If they see an opportunity to make a profit through unoccupied pitches they will go for it.

As for members being better behaved campers - I think not. There is no entrance examination. You just pay money. Members will be a cross section of the public no different than non members.

No exclusivity involved.

I wonder how many people are prepared to pay the non member fee to stay on a CC (or C&CC) site? I certainly wouldn't, that would make it very expensive per night.

What we were thinking was that the more popular sites, (not all club sites) which we all know can be difficult to get on to "at the drop of a hat", could be members only.

How many times has the weather been promising and, at the spur of the moment, you fancy a wekend away, and the site you fancy is full? They can be full of members of course but there are times when they are full as some non members are in. Making just those members only may assist club members.

I can see that some sites may have restrictions on the Club through lease terms...but that's just a hurdle to overcome if the Club wished to make some sites members only.

I appreciate that we can have priority on bookings via the web site but non members can book in advance as well as just turn up on the off chance.

Non members using a site may encourage their move to membership. Equally, if some sites are members only that may also encourage their applications for membership.

However, priority booking, membership encouragement etc was not the issue. Just a simple issue really should the more popular sites be members only so that members get an edge when it comes to booking. It may just make them more accessable for those "Let's get away this weekend" moments.

Seen some popular sites that have added extra pitches slotted in on what were the landscaped areas to cater for the demand from both members and non members. Now the extra income is no doubt beneficial, but the character of the site is diminished (IMO) when landscaped areas get full of vans and they do look overcrowded. Maybe that's inevitable with the increase in caravanning.

Phil