Another Flood

The deluge during the night of 11th and 12th of December has caused the River Avon to flood once more. The bridge has only just managed to accept the huge flow of fast moving water but the level rose over the caravan site car park again and nearly reached the Four Alls garden area.

Another Wet Week

The heavy rain last weekend (9/11/08) has caused flooding of the river and the caravan site car park has been under water once more.We have not yet seen any floating caravans and ,of course,the site is closed until 1st March 2009.Previous devastation by flood has been at Easter and July but it appears that flood risk is becoming more frequent at other times of the year.

Corrections

There has been a change to the facts detailed on the home page of this site and for the sake of accuracy the following corrections should be noted.
The Four Alls pub and restaurant is still opposite the caravan site but appears to have closed down.It was last open on 18th October but the next morning there was no sign of life and all the curtains are permanently closed.No announcement or notices are evident but it appears abandoned.Perhaps this is an early casualty of the recession ?
Whilst noting corrections it should also be mentioned that the Post Office within walking distance closed down about 5 years ago.
The cycle route along the Greenway avoiding traffic is unfortunately situated several miles away and has to be reached by public road.
The estimated journey time by boat to Stratford is optimistic and in the 6 years I have been travelling it I have never achieved it in less than 2 hours and I normally allow 2 1/2 hours.There is a 4 mph speed limit, 3 locks and often a fair amount of other boats to impede progress.
Another situation be be aware of is the controversy raging currently about a proposal to build an "eco town" at Long Marston which threatens to cause an extra 10,000 daily car journeys.The fear is that,because the inhabitants of the new town will need to commute to jobs,the road through Welford will be used as a rat run to reach Stratford and the motorway network.There has been a foretaste of this during the last 2 weeks because the bridge at Bidford has been closed for repair and all the traffic has been diverted through Welford.The villagers have found it difficult to access or leave their homes due to the nose to tail vehicles queuing past their drives.The problem is increased by a single track section outside The Bell pub,the restricted width of the river bridge, and the tee junction with the B439 just past the entrance to the caravan park.
This is the up to date situation to further reflect the facts.

Happy Owner ?

This entry is in reply to the person signing himself as a happy owner. His comments are welcomed and I am pleased to reply to his vitriolic statements.Anyone reading his opinions might be forgiven for thinking he is not really a "happy" owner at all.
Firstly his doubts about the truth of my information cannot really be answered without knowing which part he disputes.I am not aware of any point that is incorrect and if anyone can prove differently I will change the offending piece and apologise.
As for my sanity I am not perhaps the best judge but I seem to be functioning quite normally in every other respect.
I am asked if the site owners actions have anything to do with me and my reply is nothing at all.However I do not apologise for expressing an opinion in the same way as Happy Owner does about me. We live in a country of free speech I believe.
I am accused of being vindictive and publishing a mindless blog to discredit the park owner. I only reported on the abortive attempt to get me prosecuted for something I had not done.He did me a favour as it turned out because the policeman told me that,according to the Office of Public Prosecutions,I am perfectly entitled to express my opinion providing it is the truth.Otherwise I do not think I have criticised him.
Actually my last blog gave information about the chance to win a £300K house at "Winourhome.com." Where is the harm in that ? It could do him and other readers a big favour.
Finally the accusation about my boat.I have paid the same dues as everybody else for using a boat on the upper Avon.When I leave the mooring I have to make a choice of upstream or downstream like everyone else.It is a random decision and probably works out 50/50.Upstream I have to go past the caravan site.I do not "parade up and down" but of course I do return to the mooring.I think,with the poor summer we have had and the fact that the boat was not launched until 1st July,you could not have seen me go past more than about 5 times.I have never stopped to inform anyone about the website.If I am asked I obviously explain that the web site is available but this has only occured twice and I do not force anyone to access it.
Please let me know if there is anything else you wish to take issue with but if it is going to upset you then I suggest you stop reading my blog.

Alternative Accomodation

Now that we are into October and it is starting to get cold,especially at night,it will soon be time to leave the park until 1st March 2009.Whilst most of us will be nice and warm there are some hardy souls that may have to suffer in a caravan a bit longer.For instance the park owner has made his caravan his main (or only ?) home for him and his partner and 2 children.If it gets too bleak he might like to enter a competition on the web that I have seen recently.It offers the chance of winning, at much better odds than the National Lottery,a home worth £300K for an investment of only £20.It can be found at "Winourhome.com". Why not check it out ? You can only lose £20 and some of that is going to worthy charities anyway.It will change some ones life in a major way.
For instance this could be a big compensation to the Park owner for the money he has wasted on buying a site and adjacent field with no potential in my opinion.

True Colours

The current owner of the caravan park,Mr Alan Burston,has complained to the police that I have subjected him to harassment.This obviously is intended to stifle publication of the facts as presented in this website.Harassment is a criminal offence and would be applicable in the case of more than one instance of causing distress or alarm to the victim. It is intended to protect people against nuisance neighbours,stalking,threatening behaviour or discrimination.
In this case Mr Burston has only spoken to me twice and both occasions were when he arrived unexpectedly on my doorstep.I did write to him once to document what was said during his first visit.The letter contained no threats of any kind.I am not a neighbour of his,have not stalked him or anyone else and have not made any threats.
On the basis of this lack of evidence I am surprised that the police took the trouble to send 2 policemen to interview me on 28th August and again to give me the all clear from the Crown Prosecution Service on 12 September.It took me about 10 minutes looking up the details of the offence in the local library to establish that there was no case to answer.If Mr Burston was serious in his intentions perhaps he could have done the same rather than waste police time in this way.
Anyway,the benefit of all this is to illustrate that this seemingly nice man can resort to underhand methods to try to get his own way.This is just what I have been warning the public about.If you had a caravan on his site and he was displeased with you for any reason it would not be surprising if he reverted to this type of behaviour.Thank goodness he has no jurisdiction over me or he might carry on trying to get me a criminal record for speaking the truth in the public interest !

Unbelievable

Kevin has now given his account of what happened to me. How can he be so sure of his facts when the events that took place were before he had even heard of Binton Bridges ? It is most likely that he has become a disciple of "B" and has accepted his course of brainwashing. In fact the person who evicted me never heard any rows because I had already vacated the van before he took over. He never met me or spoke to me on the telephone.As for my wife using the caravan for a permanent home,this is impossible when the site was closed for four months of the year.The major factor in the matter was that "B"was jealous and set out to undermine us with the park owner.Even her own partner has described her as having the character"of a spiteful 8 year old".As you have just proved,she is so plausible that she fools everyone.He was obviously completely taken in by her and never bothered to check before he totally over reacted and started sending solicitor's letters that made no sense.As I have pointed out before there is no way you can resist,no matter how unfair it is.
As for the allegation that the photos are not genuine,anyone who knows the location will be able to confirm that they are all factual and relevant.

Debate

Kevin has placed a comment asking why I am using Binton Bridges to warn all UK caravan owners.The simple answer is that the previous owners allowed me to buy the website by his neglect in failing to renew it.Since this is the web site I have it is the obvious one to use.I am open to suggestions if a more effective method is thought possible.
"gyml" has also joined the debate and wants to know why I am doing irreparable damage to the new owners business if I have no complaint against him.I do not have that purpose but he is the unfortunate person who has stepped into the situation.He did comment to me that he considered prospective customers were responsible adults and did not need to be warned about the pitfalls by me.I presume he would class himself as responsible but maybe if he had been warned in advance would not now have the problem.Additionally this web site has a different title to the caravan park since he changed it so there is no direct link.Finally I presume the park owner does not think irreparable damage is being incurred because he had the chance to buy it and offered such a paltry sum that I was insulted by it.

Why Worry ?

Kevin has asked me why the previous owner is featured on my blog when there is a new owner of the park and why should I worry about what happens in the future.
The reason the past treachery is related is to warn prospective customers of the pitfalls of signing agreements which are unfair.When a caravan owner is faced with being robbed of large sums of money it is hard to come to terms with the fact that it is not illegal.When this robbery happens to a vulnerable pensioner on a fixed income it is impossible to ever recover from the attack financially.It is not likely to be forgotten in those circumstances.If you are younger and earning money you will be less likely to worry.How would you feel if it happened to you or your wife's parents or grandparents ?These disputes are being repeated all over the UK and there are always many in progress at any one time.Each individual victim feels isolated but there are numerous reports of victimisation but nothing changes.Parliament was persuaded that the caravan industry was responsible enough to police itself and that legislation was not needed.How wrong has that turned out ?
Perhaps you saw the TV programme a few months ago about the pensioner who was trying to sell her park home.Every time she had an offer the park owner told the buyer that it was in a bad condition.She had a surveyors report proving that it was perfect.Of course the park owner wanted to make more money by selling a new unit on the pitch.
Another fine example of a responsible park owner who could police himself !
Anyway,Kevin, please do not worry as long as you are OK thats all that matters.

Social

Thanks to Kevin for his latest comment and news. I was interested to see the event going on and the large gazebo arrangement.I had to give a wry smile because one of the restrictions imposed by the imfamous Charles family during the early part of their park "management" was to ban the use of "temporary structures". They also banned social gatherings on the park.It just reinforces the view that everyone who submits to signing the agreement is totally at the mercy of the park owner and it could go very badly indeed.We were not only restricted in what we were allowed to do but also in who we spoke to,as dictated by B,but also in what we should think according to a letter informing all that the son of Charles would be using caravan No 18.
I am pleased that you are having a pleasant time but do not be surprised if things change. I have knowledge of people buying caravans and a few weeks later finding that the park has changed hands and the new owners, deciding that they will be having only park homes in future,issue eviction notices. This resulted in a "lynch mob" turning up at Binton Bridges one day because they had been tipped off that the guilty park seller was on site.He was but he hid inside a caravan and refused to come out until they left. Why don't you ask B about it.She was there at the time.
If the current owner decided to leave he would sell to the highest bidder without considering your interests. Where would that leave you ?

The Real Truth

This entry is in response to comments recently received for which I am grateful.Firstly I must withdraw the comment I published about the simulation I mentioned.Following the comment made by Martin I have looked again at the illustration and have to admit that I did not spot the empty pitch in the foreground.This was a genuine error on my part for which I apologise.I am trying to ensure that only truth is broadcast on this blog and this was an isolated case.
The other point raised by Martin was that the agreement now in force is pretty standard throughout the industry.I am pleased that the 37 clause version previously used has been dropped but the fact remains that customers have to sign away so many rights to become a customer.Can you think of any other circumstance where you would agree to someone having claim to 15% of the value of something you own ? Again would you invest so much money in an item if you thought it could be taken away by someone else on a whim with no need for any justification ? Do you realise the trauma that could be inflicted on you for no good reason or any reason at all ? In a nutshell, I have experienced how badly the agreement is weighted against you.If you do not want to take my advice you could ask your local MP,a local councillor,Citizens Advice,a solicitor,the National Association of Caravan Owners or even the park owners industry association, the BHHPA.I have consulted all of them and they all give the same answer.Basically you have a tin box on someone else's land and if they want to change that there is absolutely nothing you can do about it.
Alan also commented that this website is without foundation but did not specify any particular aspect.I can only re iterate that I have tried to publish the truth unpleasant as it may seem.I acknowledge his statement that new owners are doing well and I am pleased if they are correcting the previous owners mistakes and only wish they had been around when I was on the site.As to me living in the past I agree but there are some things that need to be brought to wider attention to try and prevent them occuring again.I know the scale is without comparison but some people think that the Nazi's actions should be forgotten.
Finally, Kevin,tells us that he has recently bought a caravan on this park.Having read this web site he has at least made the decision with full awareness of the pit falls and I can respect that.As long as he knows that the lovely new owners have the power to evict him if he says or does anything to upset them.As for his opinion of the previous owners I would say that by the time he met them they had probably already agreed the sale of the park after they approached the new owners at Christmas 2007.As for them being normal and pleasant I should say that his opinion is probably unique.If you wish to have some evidence of this please ask any of the caravan owners still left from that time.Certainly the ones that gave up would not agree with him.I have letters from him which you could read.He evicted me without ever meeting me or speaking on the phone.He resisted efforts by NACO,BHHPA,my solicitor to obtain a valid reason for eviction.He cost me money for solicitors and I lost out to the tune of £20,000 when the insurance paid out after the flood.Other people who would not agree are the local Millenium Committee Chairman,the local boatyard owner,the legal dept of Warks District Council and anyone else that met him and his wife and son.
I apologise for the length of this blog and hope you are persevering with my "rant" but I could not finish without correcting you about the busybody,who in future I will refer to as B.You have not known her for long and in common with everyone else,including me,have fallen for it hook line and sinker.I have known her for 8 years and was her neighbour on the park for 6 of those.Yes I am carrying a grudge because her meddling was the main reason for the loss of my caravan.Is she kind ?
When a husband left his wife B was round there the next morning.Did she want to console or offer a shoulder to cry on ? No she was there to ask for first refusal on the caravan which was newer,bigger,more luxurious and on the best pitch.
Thoughtful ? Yes she is always out there being nice to people until they confide in her and give her some personal information which she can then use against them in a whispering campaign.
Integrity ? She had the gas supply concession for many years and consistently earned a lot of money extracting large profits from her captive audience whilst telling everyone that she was doing it on a voluntary basis for their benefit.When confronted she said any profits were taken up by the cost of telephone calls.She was operating on a 50% mark up.
Honest ? For many years she and her partner have worked "voluntarily" on behalf of the park owners and accepted cash in hand payments.I bet none of this appeared on any tax returns.
Ref the floatation fitted to all the caravans we will see if this works during the next flood.At this time last year 2 caravans had floatation fitted and 50% of them survived.

Have You Made a Will ?

Returning to one of the points mentioned in my last blog,specifically the problem of bequeathing a static caravan in your will,an interesting thought has occured to me.The camp busybody has been sharing her life for at least 10 years with her common law husband.The caravan, and the house, are both in her name.Her partner was persuaded long ago to sell his property and the proceeds have been used to fund their joint lifestyle.She has told several neighbours at the park that if she dies first the house and caravan will pass to her only son.She has gratiously specified in her will that her partner has 4 weeks to vacate both.Heaven only knows what will happen to him but she obviously is not concerned about that.
The ironic thing is that she cannot determine the ownership of the caravan because the park owner will not miss the opportunity for a pay day.He will no doubt insist on the caravan being sold so he can take 15% of whatever value he selects.He also can veto the buyer without giving a reason.Depending on the age of the unit he may just insist on its removal and he would be within his rights to charge for desiting the van.Whatever the park owner decides he is completely within his rights to carry out.The unit owner's estate, or her partner, or heir will have no rights at all.
Whichever way it turns out her partner is destined to be left out in the cold,unless of course he manages to leave before she does.

Change of Name

The owner of the park,having failed to offer a sensible price for the website, has launched one of his own and changed the name of the park to fit with the website address.Under the new name the website has to be admired for its marketing expertise but of course fails to mention any adverse factors.For instance the beautiful view of the caravan overlooking the water has an empty patch of concrete beside it.The unit that was there was destroyed by the flood of 20 July 2007.The pitch is still empty because the occupants refused to return,although the insurance payment was received.This is because they had been threatened with eviction by the camp busybody for the terrible crime of speaking to someone who was not a friend of hers.The occupants were so enraged by this that they phoned the park owner to ask "how dare that woman speak to us like that ?".The busybody is still there but she does not have as many victims left to bully since people started voting with their feet.The ones that are left are still scared of her evil influence and will not tell her what they really feel.Even though she has been relieved of all responsibilities,by the new park owner,people cannot forget that she has managed to force numerous other occupants to leave just because they would not bow to her imagined authority.
There are apparently two used caravans for sale on the park.This is very unusual because they have been empty since last year.They are of course empty because the owners do not want to return.Additionally there are seven empty pitches as well awaiting caravans but nothing will appear unless some unsuspecting prospect commits to signing away his rights to the park owner.
The adoption of a new name is not going to change the main problems of the park which are;1) certainty of further flooding
2)lack of rights of caravan purchasers (you could buy this week and be evicted next week)
3) bullying by the camp busybody.
4) rapid depreciation in value
5) short life of caravans (no sales after 10 years old and removal at your cost after 15 years)
6) ban on bequeathing your van in your will
7) dificulty of reselling to another gullible person in the face of the above obstacles.
You are strongly advised to look very carefully before you decide to buy anywhere but here in particular.

No Longer Registered

Binton Bridges Caravan Park was a member of the British Holiday & Home Parks Association (BHHPA) which promotes caravan parks nationally. It is no longer registered as a member.
This organisation did offer some assistance to holidaymakers because it specified certain minimum standards to be adhered to by it's member parks.Having said that it had no effect on the previous site owners who just ignored them and did whatever they wanted. As far as I can ascertain there was no censure applied as a consequence.
However the BHHPA did operate a postal concilliation scheme which could be used by holidaymakers and park owners in dispute and the loss of this facility could have a bearing on future events at this park.
Practically it will probably have no effect,because the organisation was primarily looking after the interests of park owners,and if you are unfortunate in having a contract with an unscrupulous person then you are basically up a creek without a paddle.

New Ownership

The new owner turned up without warning at my home on 27th April. He told me that he had taken control on 17th April and is living in a caravan on the site with his partner and two children. The purpose of his visit was to ask me to close the website down. I told him that if he wanted to buy it he could do whatever he wished with it but until then it will continue to warn prospective buyers of the pitfalls of caravan ownership. He agreed that he wanted to buy and I agreed to withold any further entries whilst he consulted his partner.After a week of silence I decided to return his visit but found his caravan unattended. Before I could return to my car I was accosted by the common law husband of the camp busybody who subjected me to threats of violence in a foul mouthed verbal attack.Obviously she objects to me relating the truth about her behaviour in previous blogs.
The following day,7th May, the site owner turned up at my home again and offered me the princely sum of £50 for each of my websites as he had been advised that this is all a vacant site is worth.I consider that these websites have been most influential in persuading people to reconsider their intention to buy caravans at this location and were at least partly responsible for the previous owners failure. For the new owner to spend probably £750,000 on the site and then claim to have no money to secure the single most important channel for publicity seems naive to say the least.His opinion is that people should not need to be warned because they are all responsible adults and consequently cannot complain later.I think that the same would apply to someone buying a site and then complaining that the website is not available to them later.
I obviously rejected his insulting offer and have told him that I will not consider any further offers until he removes the busybody from the site. She has forced many people to leave over the years and I think it only fair that she should find out first hand what it feels like.
Meanwhile the heavy rain of the last few days has once again caused flooding and compelled everyone to abandon their caravans.

End of the Tyrants

It is reported that Terry and Chris Charles have given up the struggle to make a go of running this caravan site and sold out to new owners who appeared last week.As reported in previous blog entries the last owners arrived in August 2006 and set about upsetting everyone they met resulting in extreme unpopularity. This, coupled with the flood of July 20th 2007, meant that around a third of the customers on site were lost. This, and the failure to achieve planning permission to expand to the next field,has obviously created conditions ripe for making a big loss.It is hoped that the new owners have not bought at a price that is going to lead them into the same downward spiral. However,whatever money they have agreed to is not going to make a difference to the poor expectation for this land. It will still be subject to flooding and there is no way to prevent it or the consequences that inevitably follow. The benefit of quiet enjoyment will be lost for long periods without any compensation. Insurance costs will continue to escalate.The misery of seeing possesions ruined and clearing up will re-occur and resale prospects for individual caravan owners will deteriorate with successive floods which close the site.
All of this is on top of the ordinary risks taken by caravan owners as detailed on the website ie; lack of rights caused by signing them all away on the onesided agreement forced on prospective customers.
Approx 37 clauses of things that are forbidden.Transgression on any of these points will qualify you for summary eviction.In my case eviction was achieved,after 7 months of legal argument,without a valid reason even being specified.
Bullying by the self appointed camp busybody aimed at undermining innocent members.
The advice from The National Association of Caravan Owners (NACO)is never to regard a static caravan as an investment.You are definitely expected to lose out.
Please take note and read the website at bintonbridges.com and look at the pictures. I strongly advise you not to go on this site unless you are prepared for a lot of hassle and do not mind losing a lot of money

Closed Again

Here we are 17 days after the park was opened for the 2008 season and it has closed again. The river has risen after the rain over the weekend and all the river frontage has disappeared from view.The water level is up on the grass and a part of the car park by the gate is under water.However the worst thing is the situation of the sewage pump. Because it is at the lowest point of the site to facilitate flow from each caravan, it is also the first thing to be inundated by increased water levels. Unless it is switched off it will pump continuously trying to get the flood level down. This system is only designed to pump intermittently when the sewage level builds up and switch itself off when the level falls. If it is not switched off the park owner will get a large electricity bill for trying to pump the river Avon up the hill to Binton. Just to make him more unhappy the park owner still has 7 pitches unoccupied. That represents a loss of rent of around £10,000 and of course the lack of commision from selling new caravans (approx 30%) which would represent a further loss of say another £70,000. Who'd be a park owner of a site overlooking the river ? If he was a decent person you could almost feel sorry for him. But he has been so unpleasant to everyone on the site that the reaction is more likely to be "serves him right".The big danger for existing caravan owners is that faced with these big losses he will have to increase his rents and maybe evict some more people to raise his revenues. Or he could go bankrupt and please a lot of people in the village.

Park Owners Attitude

It has just come to my notice that the current owner of this Caravan Park revealed his true character shortly after taking over. Apparently when he first showed up on site, soon after buying the park, he met one of the tenants who greeted him in a friendly manner. Nothing strange about that I am sure you would agree. However the response he got was rather unexpected. The park owner retorted that he did not want tenants speaking to him as they should know their place. He did not wish to become friendly with them because he was the owner and they were only temporary tenants !
What sort of unpleasant, arrogant and rude person would you have to be to act like that on a first meeting with a customer ?
Just to illustrate that the other joint owner, Mr Nasty's wife, showed a similar attitude when my daughter met her for the first time. My daughter, who is a mobile hairdresser, had gone on the site to attend to a tenants hair. She innocently asked which caravan was owned by Mrs Nasty, not having seen her on the site previously and wishing to be friendly and make the newcomer welcome. The response was "oh ! They are all mine !" This from a woman who had, with her husband, bought a patch of land that happened to have a number of caravans on that had all been bought by individuals. All these individual caravan owners were obviously now to be considered as "inferior" by Mr & Mrs Nasty in spite of the large sums they had paid to buy their caravans and were doomed to paying rent to this arrogant pair or take the hint and leave. Of course if they decided to leave they faced paying the evil ones 15% of the sale price of their unit or accepting a financial loss by accepting an unfairly low price from the park owners.
Anyone reading this will obviously not want to do business with unethical grasping characters that cannot be trusted. Be warned !

Poor Start to the Season

The season for use of caravans started on the 1st March and this year is remarkable for one thing. The site is not fully occupied. You might think that this is a small matter but not when you know the background. I was a caravan owner on the site for 6 years. My van was on pitch no.9 which was the best position for views and also the most elevated part of the site which kept us out of the high water problems experienced by most customers. Those at the rear of the site were most at risk because there was a ditch running around that area which filled up first before inundating the sewage pump system.
In spite of this the site looked so pretty when the sun was shining ,with well kept grass and an abundance of shrubs and flowers, when viewed from the road, and there was a constant stream of potential customers asking for membership. In the 6 years I was involved, and under two park owners there were never any vacancies. If somebody decided to leave their caravan was snapped up very quickly.
So what has made the difference ? There are ,in my opinion, several factors operating which are;
1) The flood. There was a flood at Easter 1998 which wiped out nearly all the caravans. Everyone thought that it was an isolated incident which would not happen again for another 30 years. However July 2007 disproved that idea and every caravan was lost again. Only a few weeks ago the car park was under water again and the current park owner has had to bring a dinghy on site so he can access the park next time it happens.
2) The new owners who took over on 1st August 2006 have introduced a lot of unpopular rules, some of which have seriously detracted from the site's appearance and most of which have served to make the owners themselves very resented. This has made it much less appealing to spend your leisure time there.
3) The cost of insurance which is obviously going to continue to rise due to the floods.
4) The necessity to have flotatation chambers fitted to every caravan stipulated by the insurers. This is ugly and expensive. some owners, who had flotation fitted before the July 2007 floods, found that they worked up to a point but were hindered by gas bottle connections . The gas bottles weigh 47kg each and are not going to float up with the caravan. Most are anchored to the spot by 2 of these. Consequently the caravan is held down on one side and if there is an adjacent balcony it will pierce the thin aluminium skin and it will be beyond repair.
5) There is a longstanding resident on site who has gained the confidence of successive park owners and they have delegated some tasks to her. This has obviously inflated her ego and she has been heard to drop it out in casual conversation with strangers that "she has a caravan site at Binton Bridges". She has been in this "privileged" position for so long that she actually seems to believe that she has authority to tell other residents what to do and she does. She is very jealous of her perceived power and anyone who does not agree with her warped views is immediately targetted as a threat to her. She sets about undermining her rival with whispering campaigns against them with completely unfounded rumours. Because she is so confident and plausible she misleads people by quoting that she is acting on the park owners views and her audience assume she is speaking the truth. One of her favourite tactics is to tell all her "confidants" that if they do not stop talking to the rival then they will be the next to be evicted.
The rival then finds she is isolated and cannot understand why previously friendly neighbours have stopped talking to them. People do not stand up to her because she is so plausible and of course if her threats are taken seriously then there could be a large financial penalty incurred.
At best you are very likely to be the next rival to be attacked. I know as I was targetted mainly, I think, because my wife was very popular on the site and the troublemaker felt overshadowed and in danger of losing her "power". Because she fed the new park owner with various rumours, and the park owner did not know us, he set out to evict us. So because of her unfounded accusations we were put to a lot of worry, (my wife suffered a heart attack in Oct 2006) trouble and expense with solicitors' bills (to the point of issuing an injunction) and eventually lost our caravan and £20,000 insurance money when the site flooded. She is still there and still using the same tactics.
6) A number of people have decided not to renew their membership on the park and have told the park owners that the reason is the way their neighbours were so unfairly evicted. And with the troublemaker mentioned above they do not want to risk the same treatment. They have taken the insurance payment and left breathing a sigh of relief that they have escaped the unpleasant prospect of the same thing happening to them.

The conclusion is that this business seems to be going downhill fast because lack of customers means lack of rent, lack of commission and the bills continue regardless.

Thoughts on static caravans

I was talking rcently to a friend who was cheated out of his static van on Binton Bridges last year. He went to the NEC last week and has ordered a new camper van. He and his wife are naturally very excited about it although they cannot take delivery until May. He was speaking about his decision and pointed out one important factor about static van ownership. This is that he can with confidence know that when he is no longer around to enjoy his camper he can ensure that his son can inherit it. He originally thought he could do the same with his static. When you think about it a site owner can , with virtually no justification, tell you to go. Even if you resist you will only be able to stay until the end of the year when your licence expires and the owner is under no obligation to offer you a new one. In these circumstances you will find it virtually impossible to find another site because site owners make more money by installing new units. If you did find an alternative place there is the problem of de-siting and transporting it which is very expensive. So the normal result is that the man making you go makes a very low offer to take your van off you. No way to leave it in your will. You are cheated and so are your beneficiaries.You have signed away all rights. If ever you consider a static please buy the land to stand it on first or buy a tourer or camper. You have been warned

Dispute with Warwickshire County Council

The Head of Warwickshire County Council legal department is satisfied that the dispute has been settled. This refers to the meeting on site at Binton Bridges on 2 October 2007 to discuss the report from the Highways Dept that the site owner, Mr T.M.Charles, had erected fencing on land that did not belong to him. In an effort to prevent the local Millenium Comittee accessing the site to maintain their facility, Mr Charles had put up the barrier on County Council owned land. As a result of the meeting Mr Charles was told that he must either remove the offending fencing or pay the bill for the Council to remove it.
He has obviously concluded that the cheaper option would be to undo his own work and removed it before the Council did.