MCC Licensing CL's for public use (1 Viewer)

[GJH]

Actually.. this may not be the case
We have a farmer type chappy we visit on occasions.[HI] He has a licence[/HI] to run a small ( I spose it can take maybe 10 vans ) site.
Last time we spoke he said he was thinking of offering members of a certain club ( not my favourite but obviously his ! ) a wee discount.

So it is possibly the tother way round

Different legal situation with a licensed site as opposed to a certificated site

 

[Jaws]

Yes I know.. what I am saying is that MAYBE the site in question is licensed and just offers a discount to MCC members the same as the chap we know does ?

 

[Jim]

Judging by the change in the paperwork, it looks like the MCC have only just this weekend adopted the members only rule, it will take time to get the message through to all their CL owers.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[GJH]

Yes I know.. what I am saying is that MAYBE the site in question is licensed and just offers a discount to MCC members the same as the chap we know does ?

Point taken. As it happens the site in question is one of the current Featured CLs and Nightstops on the MCC web site.

 

[John & Joan]

So that looks like the Practical Motorhome magazine Night stop scheme is scuppered for those subscribers who are not MCC members. MCC were backing this scheme and certificating the locations.

This has provided MCC with a large boost in certificated locations, but they will no linger be able to state "No membership is necessary".

Could this lead to another set of sites operating un-licenced like the other Pub stop schemes. Why bother to go through the hoops of certification if you can get away without.

As Graham said it was not the result I had also hoped for and goes against the current guidance and the wording of the 1960 Act.

John

 

[John & Joan]

Judging by the change in the paperwork, it looks like the MCC have only just this weekend adopted the members only rule, it will take time to get the message through to all their CL owers.

I have just looked at their paperwork http://motorcaravanners.eu/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=12&id=36&Itemid=88 and it is still stating:
"You may allow anyone to use your camping facilities, but we hope you will give preference and a small discount to Members of The Motor Caravanners’ Club."

WHAT DO I CHARGE?​

​

​

​

​

​

​

The fee for each 24 hours for a Motor Caravan varies depending on the area and demand.​

We can advise you what other Certified Location owners are charging in your area.​

The Motor Caravanners’ Club Locations are certificated for open use so they are not​

‘members only’. You may allow anyone to use your camping facilities, but we hope you​

will give preference and a small discount to Members of The Motor Caravanners’ Club.​

The final decision, of course is yours – you set the fees and receive the income.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[GJH]

So that looks like the Practical Motorhome magazine Night stop scheme is scuppered for those subscribers who are not MCC members. MCC were backing this scheme and certificating the locations.

This has provided MCC with a large boost in certificated locations, but they will no linger be able to state "No membership is necessary".

[HI]Could this lead to another set of sites operating un-licenced like the other Pub stop schemes. Why bother to go through the hoops of certification if you can get away without.[/HI]

As Graham said it was not the result I had also hoped for and goes against the current guidance and the wording of the 1960 Act.

John

It has always surprised me that organisations have operated schemes without obtaining exempted organisation status. After all, they appear to be perfectly well qualified.

I would be surprised if the major clubs didn't lobby NE/Defra to target such schemes now. If NE/Defra are truly determined to implement the legislation consistently they cannot do anything else.

 

[GJH]

I have just looked at their paperwork http://motorcaravanners.eu/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=12&id=36&Itemid=88 and it is still stating:
"You may allow anyone to use your camping facilities, but we hope you will give preference and a small discount to Members of The Motor Caravanners’ Club."

I think that document is only now available from the old MCC site John, not the new site (which is where the amended documents are accessible).

 

[Jim]

Much was made of the nightstops scheme but I don't think it ever really got off the ground. There were only three or four in Wales and only a few dozen nationwide. Meanwhile there are many hundreds of pubs who invite customers stop on their property in a motorhome for a few hours overnight.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Detnor]

I've just tried to read through all of this just out of interest and a pot of tea to hand!
So, am I right in surmising that all of this effort from groups such as the motorhome fun and interested individuals has achieved a uniform rule implementation that stops 'non MCC' members using MCC certified locations?

 

[GJH]

Much was made of the nightstops scheme but I don't think it ever really got off the ground. There were only three or four in Wales and only a few dozen nationwide. Meanwhile there are [HI]many hundreds of pubs[/HI] who invite customers stop on their property in a motorhome for a few hours overnight.

Which is why (given the overall circumstances) I would be surprised if the major clubs didn't lobby NE/Defra to target them now.

 

[GJH]

I've just tried to read through all of this just out of interest and a pot of tea to hand!
So, am I right in surmising that all of this effort from groups such as the motorhome fun and interested individuals has achieved a uniform rule implementation that stops 'non MCC' members using MCC certified locations?

No. What has happened is that NE/Defra have been insisting for some time that the MCC should stop non-members using MCC certified locations. Despite arguments that non-member use is legal, NE/Defra have stuck to their guns and it looks like the MCC has accepted that ruling rather than going to the expense of fighting a court action.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Jim]

I've just tried to read through all of this just out of interest and a pot of tea to hand!
So, am I right in surmising that all of this effort from groups such as the motorhome fun and interested individuals has achieved a uniform rule implementation that stops 'non MCC' members using MCC certified locations?

No effort from MHFun; a single email asking why motorhomefun must insist on Members only and the MCC do not. No intention at all to stop the MCC doing anything, rather we are asking the governing body to treat two clubs the same. It is up to them how they want to interpret the legislation, we just want them to apply their policy across the board fairly.

 

[Detnor]

thanks for the clarification, I'm just trying to understand all of this.
My meaning of 'effort' was from the point it seems other individuals and organisations appear to have contacted the government on this issue, and of course, all of the funster comment on this thread.

So, a 'level playing field' for all exempted organisations, including the MCC, under the relevant legislation, only members of the organisation that certified the site may use it.


.

 

[GJH]

thanks for the clarification, I'm just trying to understand all of this.
My meaning of 'effort' was from the point it seems[HI] other individuals[/HI] and organisations appear to have contacted the government on this issue, and of course, all of the funster comment on this thread.

So, a 'level playing field' for all exempted organisations, including the MCC, under the relevant legislation, only members of the organisation that certified the site may use it.


.

To clarify from a personal angle. After seeing the matter raised here shortly after it was raised on the CC forum I e-mailed NE (and said so in a forum post) to push the point that the legislation does not ban use by non-members. In a friendly exchange of views, NE rejected that argument in favour of the more restricted existing policy which it was holding a firm line on. It appears that the MCC have now accepted that they must follow NE policy.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[John & Joan]

No effort from MHFun; a single email asking why motorhomefun must insist on Members only and the MCC do not. No intention at all to stop the MCC doing anything, rather we are asking the governing body to treat two clubs the same. It is up to them how they want to interpret the legislation, we just want them to apply their policy across the board fairly.

And my enquiry 10 or so years ago resulted in the present wording in the guidance. However NE still insisted that the club I represented had to remain members only for its CLs. As a result despite trying we have not yet been able to persuade a landowner to go with us. I sympathise with Jim on this issue.

John

 

[John & Joan]

Much was made of the nightstops scheme but I don't think it ever really got off the ground. There were only three or four in Wales and only a few dozen nationwide. Meanwhile there are many hundreds of pubs who invite customers stop on their property in a motorhome for a few hours overnight.

Provided they limit it to one van for no more than 2 nights and the total of those nights do not exceed 28 in a calendar year they can allow customers to stay the night in their motorhome. Therein lies another can of worms. It is legal but is it being abused. Local Authority Planning Departments do not seem to be checking on this.

John

 

[GJH]

Provided they limit it to one van for no more than 2 nights and the total of those nights do not exceed 28 in a calendar year they can allow customers to stay the night in their motorhome. Therein lies another can of worms. It is legal but is it being abused. [HI]Local Authority Planning Departments do not seem to be checking on this.[/HI]

John

I would be most surprised if they were proactively checking John. They simply don't have the resources to identify pubs &c potentially breaching the limits, never mind checking up on them constantly.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}