Non-members on CLs

Threebarkingdogs replied on 16/10/2021 12:40

Threebarkingdogs

Posted on 16/10/2021 12:40

No names (just yet...).

On a CL (which has recently changed hands) the other week when a single guy in VW T5 home conversion turns up late at night and is away again 6am the next morning. When speaking to the CL owner the next morning I said I was surprised to see he'd let someone stay in a van with no toilet (given that the CL has no toilets). He seemed a little vague as to whether the person was a club member (I suspect he wasn't).

Is either issue acceptable? Certainly I think the no toilet issue is a complete no no and I'm not over the moon about letting non members in just out of greed (well what other reason is there?).

Andy

1 person likes this

126 replies

Fisherman replied on 17/10/2021 10:59

Fisherman

Posted on 17/10/2021 10:59

Cornersteady- So they make an appointment- Its post the event so the situation will have changed. Perhaps an empty site, the owner has no recollection of the event, one word against the other. etc. Who has any legal proof of a transgression. How long do you think anyone is going to get involved in such an event.

1 person likes this

replied on 17/10/2021 11:00

Posted on 17/10/2021 10:54 by Cornersteady

Really, all cash in hand you mean, tax avoidance sort of thing? I remember paying by cheque actually.

Are these CLs not businesses? I've no idea but I would assume there would be some record keeping?

Posted on 17/10/2021 11:00

No I don't mean tax avoidance. Yes the CL would hopefully record the sales of all pitches for tax records. Whether they are all accurate returns I have no idea

2 people like this

Tinwheeler replied on 17/10/2021 11:15

Tinwheeler

Campervanner

Posted on 17/10/2021 10:55 by

So if he has doubts he can advise the club that he has a suspicion but no proof. As he has no evidence why would he not give the CL the benefit of the doubt; guilty until proven innocent?

The OP seems to jump to readily to conclusions based on hunches. Such as the T5 having no toilet facility and, much like the OP, nothing to go on.

Posted on 17/10/2021 11:15

How many times to I need to say that the club wants to hear of suspicions of breaches so they can investigate?

That is why he should not give the CLowner the benefit of the doubt as it is not for the member to pass judgement but merely to forward his findings/suspicions in an effort to protect the system.

1 person likes this

replied on 17/10/2021 11:33

Posted on 17/10/2021 11:15 by Tinwheeler

How many times to I need to say that the club wants to hear of suspicions of breaches so they can investigate?

That is why he should not give the CLowner the benefit of the doubt as it is not for the member to pass judgement but merely to forward his findings/suspicions in an effort to protect the system.

Posted on 17/10/2021 11:33

How many times? Once was ample.

Just because you are repetitive does not mean that your views are more justified.

I said that if the OP had doubts that he should advise the Club; in the opening line of my post

So if he has doubts he can advise the club that he has a suspicion but no proof. As he has no evidence why would he not give the CL the benefit of the doubt; guilty until proven innocent?

And as I also said if there is no proof and merely a hunch (such as a T5 conversion having no Loo) why would he not continue to use the site? And why presume a CL owner guilty with no evidence of such?

2 people like this

replied on 17/10/2021 11:36

Posted on 17/10/2021 11:15 by Tinwheeler

How many times to I need to say that the club wants to hear of suspicions of breaches so they can investigate?

That is why he should not give the CLowner the benefit of the doubt as it is not for the member to pass judgement but merely to forward his findings/suspicions in an effort to protect the system.

Posted on 17/10/2021 11:36

The user and all related content has been Deleted User

2 people like this

Tinwheeler replied on 17/10/2021 11:38

Tinwheeler

Campervanner

Posted on 17/10/2021 11:33 by

Just because you are repetitive does not mean that your views are more justified.

I said that if the OP had doubts that he should advise the Club; in the opening line of my post

So if he has doubts he can advise the club that he has a suspicion but no proof. As he has no evidence why would he not give the CL the benefit of the doubt; guilty until proven innocent?

And as I also said if there is no proof and merely a hunch (such as a T5 conversion having no Loo) why would he not continue to use the site? And why presume a CL owner guilty with no evidence of such?

Posted on 17/10/2021 11:38

I have no idea why you keep saying the same things in different ways.

The OP should report and my views are justified by the club's stance which is why I repeat them with confidence.

I have not said anything about the toilet issue other than in my first post so your last paragraph has no relevance to me.

1 person likes this

replied on 17/10/2021 11:46

Posted on 17/10/2021 11:36 by

On a CL with a 6th vehicle parked in the yard the vehicle owner made a point of telling us he was a family member there for the funeral of another member. I wondered why he thought it any of our business but maybe it was to forestall reports to EG and further troubles at a time they didn't need it. Its clear I am in a minority in being a member of the "mind my own business" school but perhaps others should think hard before passing suspicions on, it might be just such a case.

Posted on 17/10/2021 11:46

When I stayed at Monarch Lakes CL a fellow member (I had no reason to suspect that he was not a member) commented on a 6th Outfit against the wall of a building on a large carpark used by those fishing and not on any of the actual CL pitches. He thought it wrong until I pointed out that the van was owner's family member who was looking after both the fisheries and CL whilst the Owner was in Benidorm or similar for a week.

2 people like this

replied on 17/10/2021 11:52

Posted on 17/10/2021 11:38 by Tinwheeler

I have no idea why you keep saying the same things in different ways.

The OP should report and my views are justified by the club's stance which is why I repeat them with confidence.

I have not said anything about the toilet issue other than in my first post so your last paragraph has no relevance to me.

Posted on 17/10/2021 11:52

In response to your repetitious post, either misrepresenting or not understanding my previous post that said the OP should report his, possibly unfounded, suspicions. But that I saw no reason to presume the CL to be guilty of anything and hence no reason not to return

2 people like this

Cornersteady replied on 17/10/2021 12:07

Member

Cornersteady

Caravanner

Posted on 17/10/2021 10:59 by Fisherman

Cornersteady- So they make an appointment- Its post the event so the situation will have changed. Perhaps an empty site, the owner has no recollection of the event, one word against the other. etc. Who has any legal proof of a transgression. How long do you think anyone is going to get involved in such an event.

Posted on 17/10/2021 12:07

It's called raising awareness, it's called letting the CL owner know that the club is aware that there has been a report, there might be a problem and that they want to hear their side of the story. Yes there may not be any evidence of any breach but it just might get the owner to be a bit more careful in the future? Of course the club will keep a record and there might be a pattern forming in which case matters will be taken further. But unless people let the club know in the first place none of this will happen and then as I said upthread, it might escalate (remember two threads in two weeks) and perception will outweigh reality and the system loved by many could be affected.

I really don't know why you're so against CLs and the system, that might not be your intention but it comes across that way in the numerous posts you make about them?

1 person likes this