Price increases after booking confirmation

As said plenty of P&R available in York and it might work out cheaper. If you're climbing it appears you're fit enough to use the P&R?

Your choice but if I was unhappy in any way with the cost I just wouldn't pay.

Well they do give you the option to avoid it, just don't go to a club site. 

You posted recently that you thought CLs should stick to being basic? That's your view and people respect that. Why not give that same respect to club sites rather than keep wanting them to change?

How would I know who "they" are? "They" are the people you referred to.

Yes, I've used the P&R but if it doesn’t meet your needs and using the site saves taxi fares or car parking charges, and means you’ll be financially better off, why complain about it? Even if not financially better off, surely the sheer convenience is worth a few quid. Tbh, complaining about the price of something that saves you money and/or hassle doesn’t make sense.

However, we seem to have got into the realms of site fees in general rather than the specific subject of the OP.

We are climbing Mam Tor shortly so will stay at Castleton for the same reason

You could alternatively climb from Edale. New fold Farm site has hardstanding with electric for £30. Or grass without EHU for £25. Currently £10.60 less than a standard pitch at Castleton or £15.60 without electric. T&C’s are nowhere near as good though.

Cheers ill check it out 👍

They're blagging to you, Wedgy, but you don’t need to make excuses for them.👍🏻

If you don't know who they are how can you suggest such a thing and why would anyone have such a negative opinionof " them" they do not know ?? 🤔 

You were talking about "they" as in people who might or might not be on site when you get there. It was very woolly and lacked substance which left us to draw our own conclusions on many points.

Let us now do the OP the courtesy of not dragging the thread further off topic.

 ....  Or grass without EHU for £25.

Wow! Irrespective of who it's cheaper than .... that expensive. IMHO of course!

There was considerable debate about this at the time of the announcement back in spring 2020.   

The overall objective was, obviously, to help businesses in the hospitality industry and either way of working helps - by increasing demand through lower prices or allowing businesses to keep more of their takings.     

However, I do not think there is any doubt as to the reality. The main aim was to help businesses in the hospitality industry in a very direct way by allowing them to keep more of the money that they took. The language in the Government and HMRC pronouncements at the time make it pretty clear that this was the intention even if it did not spell it out in crystal clear terms. 

A lot of high profile, mostly cash rich, national or international businesses, understandably concerned about how it would look, announced that they would pass the saving on. Most small businesses, many on their knees, did not. They kept their prices the same and kept more of their meagre takings. I think this was understandable, and, on balance, right and fair and, also, what Mr Sunak intended.   

Those that did pass the saving on might expect some increase in demand. That is good too and, of course, helps; but this is indirect help which is slower to arrive and would have less impact on jobs and profitability; it is less significant than the more focused and simple help of allowing businesses to keep an extra £11.90 for every £100 that they took in revenue.

Undoubtedly, that was the main purpose.   

I thought the object was to reduce electricity consumption on sites. CAMC don't seem to be doing anything practical to encourage it. Offering a non EHU option would do so whilst still enabling others who want it all can do so. No impingement on members facilities that I can see.