MCC Licensing CL's for public use

[Wildman]

quite simply Jim because there is no exclusivity in that statement as Graham pointed out earlier.
The situation was created by the CC who wanted means of increasing membership. At the time the MCC was licenced there was no pretention of exclusivity and the situation has gone on for 30 years. in planning terms that is established use even if the loophole was closed for later licencees.

If you want a level playing field then expect it in everything from MOT's on any age car being the same, seatbelt rules, driving licence groups and even car taxation laws. You took out your exemptions knowing the current ruling.

As for people going with the MCC instead of Fun, you will remember that was your choice not mine. Non subscribing members of fun are still members and can use the CFL's so providing they get signed up on arrival at no cost to them you are both winners.

I don't understand the sudden change of heart re the CFL's how come they are now a good idea, if you did not think so in the first place why did you bother to get an exemption and I wonder.

Many people have asked how many CFL's there are without a definitive answer, its a shame they are not listed someplace on the site.

 

[GJH]

I don't see any ambiguity in 5.2

To quote NE "I do agree that the legislation could have been better worded but that’s all we have got." - which doesn't really deny ambiguity

I agree with your thought in the OP. I, too, would be happy with either view, as long as everyone is treated the same. Until there is universal agreement or a court ruling, though, I shall have to remain interested to see what occurs

 

[Jim]

quite simply Jim because there is no exclusivity in that statement as Graham pointed out earlier.
The situation was created by the CC who wanted means of increasing membership. At the time the MCC was licenced there was no pretention of exclusivity and the situation has gone on for 30 years. in planning terms that is established use even if the loophole was closed for later licencees.

If you want a level playing field then expect it in everything from MOT's on any age car being the same, seatbelt rules, driving licence groups and even car taxation laws. You took out your exemptions knowing the current ruling.

As for people going with the MCC instead of Fun, you will remember that was your choice not mine. Non subscribing members of fun are still members and can use the CFL's so providing they get signed up on arrival at no cost to them you are both winners.

I don't understand the sudden change of heart re the CFL's how come they are now a good idea, if you did not think so in the first place why did you bother to get an exemption and I wonder.

Many people have asked how many CFL's there are without a definitive answer, its a shame they are not listed someplace on the site.

There is not a sudden change of heart, they have just not been a priority, now they are. As for the current rulings, as far as I can see they are the same as they were in 1960. I don't really care what they decide upon, but IMO it is only right that one club enjoy the same rights as another. Presently we don't have enough CFLs for a 'list' one in Wales and one in Somerset.

Meanwhile Roger you keep trying make this a personal issue accusing me of sour grapes and meddling, Its not (if you persist it might) I'm just doing what I think is right for motorhomefun. Thanks

 

[GJH]

quite simply Jim because there is no exclusivity in that statement as Graham pointed out earlier.
[HI]The situation was created by the CC who wanted means of increasing membership.[/HI] At the time the MCC was licenced there was no pretention of exclusivity and the situation has gone on for 30 years. in planning terms that is established use even if the loophole was closed for later licencees.

Where does that come from Roger? Whilst any club can set rules within the law no club can change it. I don't think "established use" comes into it either. Para 5 has to have one meaning or the other and the important point is that it is applied universally.

If you want a level playing field then expect it in everything from MOT's on any age car being the same, seatbelt rules, driving licence groups and even car taxation laws.

That's comparing apples and oranges isn't it? Legislation on those matters has changed over the years and, as is normal, those changes were not retrospective. On the other hand, the 1960 Act has not changed in any way affecting this discussion.

 

[Wildman]

meddling I said, sour grapes I did not, nor did I say it was personal this is only my third and last post in this subject.

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

 

[UK Pete]

Can someone explain to me what types of site i can stay at for a reasonable price, without having to be a full member of their club,
I really enjoyed my stay at rogers over easter and i would like to return, and also find out similar low priced sites where you just have waste disposal and a tap, rather than the big buck over crowded sites where everything is very expensive
Does being a motorhome fun member entiltle me to any of these low cost sites ?
All these bloody rules and regulations really take the fun out of motorhoming for me, no wonder there are so many people sticking the middle finger up and going wildcamping
pete

 

[Jim]

meddling I said,[HI] sour grapes I did not,[/HI] nor did I say it was personal this is only my third and last post in this subject.

How about here.. "ah now I see, sour grapes", Broken Link Removed

and here, "As said earlier sour grapes comes to mind and its not a nice trait." Broken Link Removed

 

[movan]

/as I type, eleven GUESTS viewing this thread ... I don't think any of them care about MCC s or LLLB or PUT s or whatever letters you want, they just want somewhere to stay that is reasonable and has water and is in a nice area ........ Can we remember that this is Motorhomefun. There is a lot of discontent at the moment can we try and get back to what it used to be please.

 

[Jim]

/as I type, eleven GUESTS viewing this thread ... I don't think any of them care about MCC s or LLLB or PUT s or whatever letters you want, they just want somewhere to stay that is reasonable and has water and is in a nice area ........ Can we remember that this is Motorhomefun. There is a lot of discontent at the moment can we try and get back to what it used to be please.

This always used to be and still is a place for valid debate such as this Joy, long may it remain so

 

[DuxDeluxe]

Joy, I've clearly been drinking too much. Your avatar looked blurred. I had another drink and it still looks blurred. Oh well, time for another - purely in the interests of research and getting into focus of course......

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

 

[teddybard]

Just do what the French do with any legislation.

Accept it and Ignore what you don't Like

 

[Reallyretired]

It's a great shame that CLs cannot register with several clubs, thus maximising their potential customers and pleasing the customers as well. The big clubs obviously would be against it as they are not interested in serving their members, only maximising their membership and profits.
If that could be done we would only need to belong to one club to use all the CLs.

 

[TheBig1]

if it were me. I would take legal advice then write a formal letter to NE proposing that you wish to have a level playing field with the MCC, as it is restricting your business and the club unlawfully. propose that you are prepared to follow best practice and follow the guidelines as used by the mcc and ask for their considered response

they cannot lawfully decline if they allow another similar club such exemptions surely?

 

[Chris]

Can one site be dual registered in the sense that two or more club's members can use it?

If not, why not?

 

[TheBig1]

It's a great shame that CLs cannot register with several clubs, thus maximising their potential customers and pleasing the customers as well. The big clubs obviously would be against it as they are not interested in serving their members, only maximising their membership and profits.
If that could be done we would only need to belong to one club to use all the CLs.

thats what happens in practice already for a quite a few sites. parts of the field separated off by a fence, each with its own tap and a separate 5 van exemption for each

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

 

[John & Joan]

Can someone explain to me what types of site i can stay at for a reasonable price, without having to be a full member of their club,
I really enjoyed my stay at rogers over easter and i would like to return, and also find out similar low priced sites where you just have waste disposal and a tap, rather than the big buck over crowded sites where everything is very expensive
Does being a motorhome fun member entiltle me to any of these low cost sites ?
All these bloody rules and regulations really take the fun out of motorhoming for me, no wonder there are so many people sticking the middle finger up and going wildcamping
pete

Exempted clubs and commercial sites are the only legitimate caravan sites allowed under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960. Pub stops are not covered by this legislations and could result in the land owner being prosecuted by the local authority.

Some have compared Aires to CLs. There is no requirement to join any club to use an Aire. However the way some interpret the UK legislation means any foreign visitor must join a UK caravan club to stay on that clubs site. If you want to stay on another clubs site then you must also join that club as well.

From the Guidance notes issued by Natural England on behalf of DEFRA

Q17. What are the membership requirements for different certificates?​

[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]Membership is a matter for the organisations themselves, but the use of different exemption certificates dictates who can take part.
[/FONT][/FONT]

1. 
   [*]Paragraph 4 [FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]– both members and non-members of the organisation are permitted to use the site, provided they all remain under the supervision of the organisation occupying the site;[/FONT][/FONT]
   [*]Paragraph 5 [FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]– exempted organisations issue certificates stating that a site has been approved for the use of its members. However, non-members may also use the site, unless there is an agreement between the site owner and the organisation that restricts its use to members only;[/FONT][/FONT]
   [*]Paragraph 6 [FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]– only for members of the organisation holding the meeting. Membership must have been given in advance of attending meetings and must be for a longer period than that associated with attendance at only one event (usually for a full year). Both the individual and the organisation must enter into a membership agreement with the intention that it is to run its full course (although there may be genuine reasons why an individual does not remain a member for the full term). An arrangement to give prospective members a trial to see what an organisation is like by inviting them to attend a meeting or by granting "temporary" membership is not allowed. [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]
[/FONT][/FONT]As can be seen Membership is required to use Paragraph 6 sites (5 day rallies) and this must be full, not temporary membership and must have been in existence before attending the meet.

Members and Non members can use Temporary Holiday Sites (paragraph 4 sites) provided a marshal from the club is present.

Paragraph 5 Exempted organisations .................................. site has been approved for the use of its members. However non-members may also use the site, unless there is an agreement between the site owner and the organisation that restricts its use to members only;

That wording was clarified ten years ago after I raised my query. So the Motor Caravanners' Club is only following the guidance, by not entering into exclusivity agreements with the landowners.

I see no contradiction in that the paragraph 4 or 6 site is approved for use of its members and that non members can also use the site.

DEFRA (Natural England) are trying to push a set of conditions onto clubs for paragraph 5, while saying something contrary in their Guidance notes.

There is no body to represent those clubs that do not want to be dictated to by the big clubs and ACCEO.

John

 

[TheCaller]

It's a great shame that CLs cannot register with several clubs, thus maximising their potential customers and pleasing the customers as well. The big clubs obviously would be against it as they are not interested in serving their members, only maximising their membership and profits.
If that could be done we would only need to belong to one club to use all the CLs.

Who says that they can't?

I can see that the big clubs might insist that they can only register with them & no one else, as a matter of commercial policy, but I haven't seen anything to suggest it's not allowed in a legal sense.

On the other hand, I haven't looked very hard.

 

[Chris]

It's a great shame that CLs cannot register with several clubs, thus maximising their potential customers and pleasing the customers as well. The big clubs obviously would be against it as they are not interested in serving their members, only maximising their membership and profits.
If that could be done we would only need to belong to one club to use all the CLs.

Sorry I missed this before posting mine.

Completely agree:thumb:

 

[GJH]

(snip)
Paragraph 5 Exempted organisations .................................. site has been approved for the use of its members. However non-members may also use the site, unless there is an agreement between the site owner and the organisation that restricts its use to members only;

That wording was clarified ten years ago after I raised my query. So the Motor Caravanners' Club is only following the guidance, by not entering into exclusivity agreements with the landowners.

I see no contradiction in that the paragraph 4 or 6 site is approved for use of its members and that non members can also use the site.

DEFRA (Natural England) are trying to push a set of conditions onto clubs for paragraph 5, while saying something contrary in their Guidance notes.

There is no body to represent those clubs that do not want to be dictated to by the big clubs and ACCEO.

John

Very interesting John. That differs from what NE told me. I'll get in touch with them again.

 

[teddybard]

Seems to me a storm in a nutshell

Roger is a member.

It is a members rally ?
Unless I'm wrong
End of Argument

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

 

[GJH]

Seems to me a storm in a nutshell

Roger is a member.

It is a members rally ?
Unless I'm wrong
End of Argument

The thread is about CL certification Roger, not rallies

 

[Jim]

Seems to me a storm in a nutshell

Roger is a member.

It is a members rally ?
Unless I'm wrong
End of Argument

This is not about Rogers CL.

Rallies are different, we have an exemption and insurance to rally most anywhere with the landowners permission, I'm sure Roger has given you that

 

[haganap]

All I know is that I am on a Cl in the high peak district. I have my lovely wife and dog with me and am looking out at baby lambs hills all side of me and a caravanner putting up an awning.... $10 per night electric hook up on meter... It costs me 40$ per year to be a member and I think that's a bargain... I've stayed in Aires in France and other than some convenience would have a good clevery day.
Most Aires these days are charging close to cl prices anyhow to be squeezed in next to some union Jack short brit or table and awning out Herman...

Anyhow must dash got some relaxing to do.

 

[movan]

All I know is that I am on a Cl in the high peak district. I have my lovely wife and dog with me and am looking out at baby lambs hills all side of me and a caravanner putting up an awning.... $10 per night electric hook up on meter... It costs me 40$ per year to be a member and I think that's a bargain... I've stayed in Aires in France and other than some convenience would have a good clevery day.
Most Aires these days are charging close to cl prices anyhow to be squeezed in next to some union Jack short brit or table and awning out Herman...

Anyhow must dash got some relaxing to do.

Bustard!!!

 

[TheCaller]

5(1)Subject to the provisions of paragraph 13 of this Schedule, a site licence shall not be required for the use as a caravan site of land as respects which there is in force a certificate issued under this paragraph by an exempted organisation if not more than five caravans are at the time stationed for the purposes of human habitation on the land to which the certificate relates.
(2)For the purposes of this paragraph an exempted organisation may issue as respects any land a certificate stating that the land has been approved by the exempted organisation for use by its members for the purposes of recreation.
(3)The certificate shall be issued to the occupier of the land to which it relates, and the organisation shall send particulars to the Minister of all certificates issued by the organisation under this paragraph.
(4)A certificate issued by an exempted organisation under this paragraph shall specify the date on which it is to come into force and the period for which it is to continue in force, being a period not exceeding one year.

I don't see any ambiguity in 5.2

But there is ambiguity Jim.

The alternative reading of 5.2 is that it's a requirement for the granting of a certificate that the exempting organisation approves the land as suitable for use by its members - i.e. that it's fit for the intended purpose. It does not say that such use should then be restricted to that use solely by its members.

It may well be that what parliament intended was 'members only' & the courts might decide that it should be interpreted that way. If that is what was intended, then it was poor draughtsmanship by the officials at the time.

I can well understand why both the big clubs & NE want the 'members only' interpretation to stand, each for their own rather different reasons. I also fully understand that if the 'members only' interpretation wasn't insisted on by the licensing body responsible at the time MCC got their original certificate, then MCC have quite a good case for insisting on what they see as the status quo.

We have a tradition in this country that legislation is rarely retrospective. Whether this should apply to changing interpretation of unchanged legislation is another matter, but it's apparent from the conflicting guidance from NE itself that even it can't be consistent.

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

 

[TheBig1]

Bustard!!!

what a lovely bird and to think if it wasnt for live firing by the army on salisbury plain it would be extinct. guns can save lives too
http://greatbustard.org/

 

[Jim]

But there is ambiguity Jim.

The alternative reading of 5.2 is that it's a requirement for the granting of a certificate that the exempting organisation approves the land as suitable for use by its members - i.e. that it's fit for the intended purpose. [HI]It does not say that such use should then be restricted to that use solely by its members.[/HI]
.

It doesn't say a lot of things but it does say "For use by it's members"

I doubt it will ever be crystal clear, or that everyone will agree, its why lawyers are rich. The MCC use public use as a 'selling point' while we must insist members only. No matter how the legislation is read, I think that we are treated differently is wrong.

 

[GJH]

It doesn't say a lot of things but it does say "For use by it's members"

I doubt it will ever be crystal clear, or that everyone will agree, its why lawyers are rich. The MCC use public use as a 'selling point' while we must insist members only. [HI]No matter how the legislation is read, I think that we are treated differently is wrong.[/HI]

That's the salient point and Defra should ensure it is resolved, either by parliament or the court, at the earliest opportunity. In the meantime, Defra (via NE) should use the more liberal interpretation so that other organisations may enjoy the same rights as the MCC.

 

[John & Joan]

In my dealing with Natural England when it took over from DEFRA as its executive agent, I had discussions about how relevant the act actually was today.

There are lots of problems in the way it was drawn up and some of its interpretations.

The officer I was dealing with agreed that the act needed a redraft. However even then he said it would not happen due to the cost of drawing up the new legislation. So we have an imperfect situation impounded by imperfect regulation.

It will take a court to sort this out so until that happens we are stuck with it.

This act allows local authorities to set up Aires but they are reluctant to do so as it would upset their partners (the big clubs) who lease local authority sites to run as club sites open to non members.

Who would take on the expense of thing things to court. I doubt if NE (DEFRA) would as it could involve them in much more expense.

The 28 day rule is also a club rule, it is not in the exempted organisations section of the Act but applies to a different situation in another part of the act.

John

 

[GJH]

I agree that the NE/Defra is unlikely to raise a court case for cost reasons but they don't really need to. If they insist on the MCC ceasing to allow non-members then the MCC would have to use the court to challenge that ruling, with the attendant cost risks.

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