swanageview: Swanage Bayview Transition (Series 2)

Monday, December 14, 2009

Swanage Bayview Transition (Series 2)

The story continues...
Previous posts can be found below and/or at:
http://www.swanageview.blogspot.com/2009/10/swanage-bay-view-transition-news.html

143 comments:

Park Facility User said...: I understand that the other users of the park complex who rent rooms on the site are also having major problems with Darwin and getting rent bills issued and problems with their leases which the council should have renewed over 2 years ago and dispite verbal aggrements nothing has happened.; 14/12/09 4:30 pm
Anonymous said...: If you are referring to the Swanage Musical Theatre Group, the Indoor Bowls Club, and the Shooting and Archery Club, these hold long term leases issued by STC. One of them (I can find out if you wish but I think it is the shooting club, if memory serves) has a lease renewal due about now - the other two had their leases renewed for long periods (something in excess of ten years) in recent years. This is all on mentioned in past STC minutes.

I have queried in the past whether these leases would be taken over by Darwin, or what would happen. I have to presume that legally the leases have to be honoured by Darwin. STC declined to answer as it was 'privileged information'. Now that the deal has been fulfilled, it is no longer privileged.

However, the events over past two years have been so murky, that who knows what has been agreed, in fact - or not.

I am certain that these leases are of no benefit to Darwin as they produce a very low rent, and I would not blame them for eyeing those spaces with a covetous eye, for they are in investment firm, not a charitable provider of benefits to Swanage as was STC. So I think there should be some concern about the issues you raise until such time as the situation is clarified. I would also suggest that the people of Swanage should be 'interested' in other aspects of the Vista complex, especially the swimming pool. It is no longer a public facility, but a private one that continues to be available to members of the public at a reasonable rate. That may remain the case, or it could change.

I can say little as yet about Darwin, except that after nearly two months, they have said almost nothing, nor have they revealed much about what are their intentions. This makes me take a 'heightened interest' in them.

I suggest that you, or a concerned Swanage rate payer, or a member of one of these clubs, ask STC what conditions it placed up Darwin regarding these leases and facilities. I will not do this because I am certain that Darwin will not answer any questions unless it suits their investors' interests. In other words, I am pessimistic about what you hint may be happening.

This is what you get when a public asset it sold to a private, profit driven company. I suspect it will not be the end of it. Am I surprised?
Not one bit.; 14/12/09 5:16 pm
Anonymous said...: I understand that a member of the shooting club was concerned about what a change would mean to his licence he has with STC. This was last year on a swanage forum. Did he get any response from the council I wander? What a mess and let down for the electors of swanage - this whole business is a mess.; 14/12/09 7:21 pm
Anonymous said...: Agreed. Swanage has lost out on this 'deal' - big time. Now we know why all deliberations were held with the public excluded from that portion of the meetings. Democracy in action, Swanage style! Funny how the truth always wins, in the end.

I think it was the Shooting Club whose lease was about to expire last year. If so, then the Bowls and Music Clubs ought to be safe, if Darwin agreed to honour these leases when it bought the park. I haven't seen the leases so I cannot comment whether they are transferable if new owners take over the park.; 14/12/09 8:34 pm
PGC Member said...: I was told that it is the gun/archery club lease which wasnt renewed by the town clerk dispite him saying verbally that it would be renewed 2 years ago. It is also in the council meeting minutes that it would be renewed. There hasnt been any communication from the council regarding the lease even after numerous phone calls and letters (recorded) to the town hall.; 14/12/09 9:16 pm
Anonymous said...: Off Topic,but do we still have a town clerk?; 14/12/09 9:19 pm
Anonymous said...: re 9:19 PM

I understand he now has an assistant for helping with his "duties"; 14/12/09 9:37 pm
Anonymous said...: He has had an assistant for quite some time - long before the sale of SBV was placed out to tender the first time.

The last time somebody mooted a change at the Town Hall, the moderator of this blog deleted that remark. Shhhhh!

However, I will suggest this - with 7.25 million pounds in the bank, the formerly cash-strapped Council is now in a position to offer an interesting early retirement package to one of its chief officers. Only a thought....; 15/12/09 8:55 am
ScepticalCamper said...: 'You are right DryButFreezingCamper - no attempt was made in Darwins letter to explain or justify the fees increase, just the paragraph I quoted and a sentance about how to pay the fees, all buried away on page 2 of the letter. I think they are testing the water to see how much opposition they get. Perhaps they hope they wont get any - Dream on Darwin!!!!!!'

I copied this from the tail end of the first blog thread.....I think all non-Association members should consider this.

The new Darwin license and its accompanying letter appear to contradict and compromise our protections provided by the existing license, particularly these provisions:

14. The Park Owner shall give the Caravan Owner at least three months notification of an increase in pitch fees. Normally pitch fees will increase in line with changes in the cost of living or to cover the cost of improvements on the Park.

15. Where an increase in pitch fees is proposed the Park Owner shall give the Caravan Owner an explanation in writing of the reasons for the proposed increase.

(Darwin has given us only 2 1/2 months notice, not 3. Darwin has not explained its calculations of cost of living, nor has it mentioned any improvements being undertaken.)

Our remedy is provided thus:

16. If not less than 51% of all Caravan Owners on the Park affected by the increase object in writing then the matter shall be referred to the special arbitration scheme for pitch fee disputes.

14, 15 and 16 are from our existing license WHICH REMAINS VALID FOR ITS DURATION UNLESS YOU SIGN A NEW LICENSE.

This is what Darwin is attempting to get you to do.

Caveat Emptor!!; 15/12/09 9:12 am
Anonymous said...: In order to become 4 (and subsequently 5) Star, SBV will need a shop, among other things. I have heard that the Caravan Sales shop may become Darwin's office. (Caravan sales might be better located in Vista reception.) If so, a location such as the shooting club's gallery is ideally placed for a shop. What about a kid's play area? Video games etc? The shooting range could be connected through the old skittles room to create quite an attractive, profitable indoor income-producing area with the shop attendant supervising the facilities. Nothing like bored kiddies on a wet afternoon with a pocket full of dosh and a video arcade! Why not add a soft drink bat, microwave snacks, milkshake bar, pizza, popcorn, kids' video/tv entertainment 'Zone', dance floor, etc, etc. Just a thought......(!)

Back to reality.......

Does anyone know anybody on the Bowls or Music Club Committees who can confirm that their tenures are assured? My suspicion is the shooting club is under threat if they don't have a signed lease.

I don't want to criticize these clubs in any way, but their very existence on SBV/Darwin's site doesn't match the 'aspirational', 'Kate Moss' lifestyle Darwin's philosophy claims. In fact, holiday punters at SBV are excluded from these clubs anyway, so they provide no real financial benefit to SBV/Darwin. Seeing as they occupy well in excess of 5000 square feet of prime space and provide less than 10k annual rental income, in my mind their future is in doubt - if the leases can be legally broken or bought out.

I wonder if STC placed a covenant in the sales contract requiring Darwin to honour these leases for their full terms? I wonder.......

........If Darwin pulls the plug on these leases, it may be STC that deserves blame. After all......

.......Darwin is not a charity!!!!; 15/12/09 10:13 am
Paul. said...: I understand, (only as a new member of the indoor bowls club) that the existing lease has seven(?) years to run and there is a renewable option after that?

Apparently, indoor bowls as a club operation ceases each 1st April until September 30th, as the holidaymakers etc. have full use of the facility during the summer months?

Indoor bowls is actually a well supported holiday activity elsewhere, (Torquay for instance)so it is more of an asset than some may consider. Maybe, there is further scope in this area that has not been realised at SBV, or that the new owners have in mind, as there are only three rinks at present?

The whole sale would seem to have many flaws in it and Council Tax payers will still vote in Councillors whose actions are not up for public debate on such important issues and implications for the residents of the town.

This figure of £7M + will surely go nowhere in todays budget sheets and the unfortunate thing is that it is very doubtful that it will be spent to the benefit of local people, but lost in figures. It can only be sold off once!

Paul.; 15/12/09 10:57 am
Anonymous said...: Are these commercial leases? If so, so far as I understand the law on this point, the tenant is entitled to a renewal unless the freeholder wishes to use the property for themselves or redevelop it. Perhaps those who are worried should consult a learned friend who may be able to allay their fears.

Swanage Town Council is not a charity, some comments give the impression it is one with the aim of subsidising the various leisure occupations the tenants use the property for. In fact it is under the same obligation to get the best return on its assets as company directors are. "Hard pressed tax payers" as the papers usually describe them are entitled to be miffed if tenants were paying less than they might have been and the tax payers are having to take up the slack.; 15/12/09 12:23 pm
Anonymous said...: Re 8.55 I had heard that AL was [allegedly]taking an early retirement package. Jumped/pushed?; 15/12/09 4:35 pm
Anonymous said...: I would suspect if true, it was his decision. No one on the Council would be able or have the nous to push him (one tried, and failed) - but after 16(?) years I would charitably put it this way - he is 'entitled to a change'.

If anybody pushed him over the edge, it would be the District Auditor and new regs.

If, indeed, this is not a scurrulous a rumour!; 15/12/09 5:23 pm
Anonymous said...: Found the rents and lease expiration dates of the three clubs:

http://www.swanage.gov.uk/pdf/meetings/minutes_p_&_p_-_23_march_2009.pdf

Page 4.

The Purbeck Gun Club lease expired two years ago.

Look at the rent income. Can you see why I believe Darwin will want to end these leases as soon as possible>
??; 15/12/09 5:30 pm
Anonymous said...: "Swanage Town Council is not a charity, some comments give the impression it is one with the aim of subsidising the various leisure occupations the tenants use the property for. In fact it is under the same obligation to get the best return on its assets as company directors are." -12.23 prevous entry

Swanage Music Theatre Company pays a fixed rent of 10 quid a year until 2016 - 'http://www.swanage.gov.uk/pdf/meetings/minutes_p_&_p_-_23_march_2009.pdf'

And that facility is not open to any other user.

Charity? You bet. Wonder how they got that deal?; 15/12/09 6:37 pm
Anonymous said...: Is anybody mean minded enough to complain to the auditor or the standards body that they have failed in their fiducary duty to the taxpayers? I suspect the right course of action was for them to get advice on a market rent, charge it and give the Soc. a grant to cover it. I am sure there are many other organisations that would like to rent a large room for £10 a year.

Not sure how long Alan Leeson has been in post. Its not 17 years. He was welcomed by many as a breath of fresh air compared with the previous incumbent. Memories are short; 15/12/09 8:30 pm
Anonymous said...: He has been town clerk since 1998 - 11 going on 12 years. Still a respectable innings.; 15/12/09 8:46 pm
Anonymous said...: 'Is anybody mean minded enough to complain to the auditor or the standards body that they have failed in their fiducary duty to the taxpayers? I suspect the right course of action was for them to get advice on a market rent, charge it and give the Soc. a grant to cover it. I am sure there are many other organisations that would like to rent a large room for £10 a year.'

I am trying to understand this. However, the fact remains the same:
Darwin has assumed a lease for a reasonably sized room, until 2016, for a tenner a year. How or why STC allowed this is another issue. My point is: Darwin is not a charity. What you seem to say is that a 'charitable' act may have been committed so that a peppercorn rent could be given in this case.

I cannot see how Darwin will be happy with this lease continuing until 2016. That is my point.; 16/12/09 8:39 am
Anonymous said...: Is there anything in the lease which entitles them to end it prematurely? If there is a provision for reviews is there anything saying on what basis the review will be conducted? STC increased it from £10 to £11.50 which is a lot more than the inflation rate.; 16/12/09 9:45 am
Anonymous said...: 'STC increased it from £10 to £11.50 which is a lot more than the inflation rate'

Please read again the minutes of STC's meeting. The 150p increase is VAT (at 15%) on 10 pounds rent. STC did not increase the rent.

Can Darwin change/cancel the lease? I do not know - I haven't seen the lease so I do not know if it has a clause stipulating that it would remain in force only as long as STC was the landlord. That is the crux of the matter. We do not know whether STC 'grandfathered' these leases as a covenant in the legal agreement with Darwin.

I note that this lease originated in 1987.; 16/12/09 10:38 am
Anonymous said...: However, the situation regarding the shooting range and its users is open to Darwin's control, unless the clubs using it have renewed their lease. If STC did not renew the license, any promises to do so are moot unless this fact was covenanted.

I note that one user of the gallery is listed as a 'co.uk' suffix on its domain name address. This implies it is a company, not a charity.; 16/12/09 10:46 am
Anonymous said...: Neither the bowls club, shooting club, nor the music theatre club appear to be registered charities.; 16/12/09 10:50 am
Anonymous said...: Is there anything in the lease which entitles them to end it prematurely?'

My interpretation is-

If the club's pre-Oct 15 lease was between STC and itself, then the questions of its status and validity would have to be addressed when STC no longer (Oct 15) had legal control over the property in question. This could have been addressed by:

-revocation of the old STC/club license, and a new like for like lease issued by the new owners on or shortly after Oct 15;

-a covenant in the sale/lease agreement between STC and Darwin acknowledging the club's leases; and transfer of the landlord's role from STC to Darwin.

-or termination of the lease upon sale of SBV, if legally allowed. Some form of compensation might have to be offered by STC.

Darwin could then decide to offer a new lease on its own terms, or not, if it had not entered into a covenant to honour the pre-existing lease.

I would be amazed if, during due diligence, this point wasn't addressed by Darwin and STC. Both parties employed legal counsels to act in this transfer.

As interested parties, they should have been informed of their rights by STC before the transfer date.

If the shooting club did not have a new lease in hand as of Oct. 15th, their situation is more vulnerable. If their enquiries are not being addressed, that is not an encouraging sign.

Let's leave this matter up to those clubs and their members to pursue - but it will be interesting to follow what the outcomes are. Good luck to them.; 16/12/09 12:15 pm
Anonymous said...: "I would be amazed if, during due diligence, this point wasn't addressed by Darwin and STC. Both parties employed legal counsels to act in this transfer.

As interested parties, they should have been informed of their rights by STC before the transfer date."

Why?
The Caravan owners wern't and I understand they asked on more than one occasion; 16/12/09 12:31 pm
Anonymous said...: 12.31 You are dead right - the caravan owners were given no information about the transfer and their rights under the existing license(s).

The letter to us from Darwin dated 30 Nov. formally declares that our existing licenses will be honoured by Darwin if we elect to retain them in favour of the new licenses.

This tallies with the legal position of our licenses as determined by HP&HPA and OFT. Existing licenses must be honoured by new park owners.

These clubs are in a different legal position, and their leases have different laws or regs. than do our licenses. Had I been a purchaser of the park, these leases would have been one issue I would have had my legal team explore. They are pesky little things that can come back to bite me!

In brief - owners' licenses are protected by existing OFT regs. Club leases by other means. Like apples and oranges, they do not compare the same.; 16/12/09 12:46 pm
Anonymous said...: Can anybody explain why the caravan sales page has been deleted from the Swanage Bay View website? Does this mean my caravan is not being marketed?

Darwin expects 15% of the sales price for no work on their part??

What is going on??; 16/12/09 12:56 pm
Anonymous said...: That web site is owned by Swanage Town Council, not Darwin. I alerted them that it is possibly illegal to post inaccurate or misleading information regarding the sale of caravans or the conditions under which the sale could be conducted, or inaccurate license or site fee information. The page was deleted within hours.

(Why do I do their work for them?)

Darwin has yet to list SBV as one of its property assets. Hence, SBV is in a sort of state of limbo.

Good luck selling your caravan while this remains the case! I would ask for a reduction in the commission they can charge until they sort this out. 15% is the maximum they can charge, if you still have your old license, but you can negotiate a lower figure. 5% sounds about right at the moment - considering the lack of effort on their part (5% covers them issuing a new license).; 16/12/09 2:18 pm
Anonymous said...: If you have the old licence then the buyer has to pay the commission anyway, not the seller.; 16/12/09 7:13 pm
Anonymous said...: 'If you have the old licence then the buyer has to pay the commission anyway, not the seller.'

According to SBV, this is wrong. Or, the price they list contains the commission.

They won't budge on this. I tried. It was like dealing with ignorance.

Didn't matter. I took my figure, bunged on the 15% plus VAT, and made that the sale price. As long as everybody else does it, it is a level playing field. I get me dosh, everybody is happy.; 16/12/09 7:21 pm
Anonymous said...: 'If you have the old licence then the buyer has to pay the commission anyway, not the seller.'

According to SBV, this is wrong. Or, the price they list contains the commission.

They won't budge on this. I tried. It was like dealing with ignorance.

Didn't matter. I took my figure, bunged on the 15% plus VAT, and made that the sale price. As long as everybody else does it, it is a level playing field. I get me dosh, everybody is happy.; 16/12/09 7:22 pm
Anonymous said...: SBV are wrong. Read the licence. It says the buyer pays the commission.; 16/12/09 7:42 pm
Anonymous said...: I know. I pointed that fact out. I quoted the license. I was told 'No - that is how SBV does it'. Now I am told 'No - that's how Darwin does it' and was met with a blank stare.

The practice that has crept in is that the asking price is the gross price the buyer pays - and includes commish and VAT. What should be quoted is our net price (the price the seller gets) and commish and VAT are then added. I mean, it is a matter of accounting: 10000 for the caravan, plus 15% commish (1500) plus 15% VAT (225) = gross price 11750. Fergoodnesssakes, just list it that way - game, set match!

An interesting point concerns site fees. Right now the value of site fees on my caravan is negligible. After March 1, provided I pay them, these will become significant (over 3k) and should reflect in the sale price. I have argued that the selling price should not include the value (if any) of the site fees as these decrease over time and are refunded pro rata to the vendor to Darwin and paid pro rata by the buyer to Darwin. Seems simple but.......

....This is all very challenging for some to grasp.........

Why am I doing their job for them?; 16/12/09 9:45 pm
Anonymous said...: Darwin's new license says that commission is paid by the vendor. Apparently Darwin will operate according to the terms of the new licence, not the old. Example? They have not provided reasons for an increase in next year's site fees.

Darwin letter hints that OFT has approved their new licence. Is this true?; 17/12/09 12:24 pm
Anonymous said...: No. They carefully imply this but what OFT approved is the new model license, not Darwin's bastardization of it.

Yes - that word is appropriate in the instance.; 17/12/09 6:46 pm
Anonymous said...: That's right. Darwin have taken the new model licence but then changed it into something else which suits them. The old licence therefore benefits caravan owners more.; 17/12/09 7:48 pm
Anonymous said...: I asked if they will honour the old license if we don't sign the new. Was told 'not sure - we will ask'.

My solicitor is chuckling up his sleeve. What amateurs these fools be!; 17/12/09 7:52 pm
Anonymous said...: Just a reminder, folks - write to object to the unwarranted increase in park fees within 28 days of the post mark of Darwin's letter - that's on or before 27 December. According to our license any fee increase has to be explained in writing - Darwin chose not to do this. Portents of things to come!

We need 51% to object.; 17/12/09 8:09 pm
Anonymous said...: As I understand it OFT have neither agreed nor disagreed with the new Licence. After all it was drawn up by the site owners association with no import from caravan owners. In several places it is in direct conflict with OFT 734 and OFT suppliment on unfair caravan licence practice.; 18/12/09 12:59 pm
Anonymous said...: As BVO have 83% of owners as members (afidavit supplied for 2009-10) and they have disagreed with the proposed fees, owners have over 51% disagreed.; 18/12/09 1:02 pm
Anonymous said...: Good. Make sure Darwin understands and acknowledges this fact. It took a while to get STC to agree. I suspect will use whatever subterfuge it takes to claim they can do as they please!

As a matter of interest have Darwin explained their justification for the fee increase (there are valid reasons that are permitted according to our license). I received no such explanation when I received the 30 Nov. letter. Hence the increase is not justified.

Are they somewhat unaware about the finer point of licenses, OFT734 etc.? Are we 'back to the drawing board' with them, as we were with STC?; 18/12/09 3:57 pm
Anonymous said...: It might be useful if the Owners' Association could provide the means to allow non-members to contact them about joining. Sorry we couldn't make the last meeting. I asked the front desk but they were not helpful.; 18/12/09 3:59 pm
Anonymous said...: "I asked the front desk but they were not helpful."
Golly wonder you were not shown the door if you asked that.
Ask anyone on site someone will know.; 18/12/09 4:42 pm
Anonymous said...: Re 8.55 I had heard that AL was [allegedly]taking an early retirement package. Jumped/pushed?

4:35 PM

I would put money on AL not being here in the next financial year.; 18/12/09 8:34 pm
Anonymous said...: Non members who want to join contact
"bayviewcaravanownersassociation@yahoo.co.uk" with your name & van number.

A member of the committee will contact you; 19/12/09 12:09 am
Happycamper said...: I strongly suspect that the proportion of owners that Darwin will accept is represented by the Owners Association will be exactly the number who have nominated the Association to represent them on the form they sent us. Proof positive of numbers!
Darwin are trying to do what they are in existance for - make a good profit for their investors. That does not make them malicious or fools - it just makes them efficient business people. Challenge and negociate and stick to legally enforcable facts would seem a good starting point. Surely we are all aiming for a mutually advantageous working relationship?; 20/12/09 12:16 pm
PGC Member said...: Re 12:09 AM

it is a shame you have to have a van to be updated on what is happening on the complex. I know that the other users of the complex would like to be kept up to date on what is happening with the place and their rent money.

I did email the association earlier in the year but they didnt bother to reply.; 20/12/09 5:14 pm
Anonymous said...: 12.16 pm

Efficient business people know the terms of their own business operation. They way Darwin have tried to set the fees shows they don't.; 20/12/09 6:23 pm
Anonymous said...: I take greater note in what Darwin ISN'T telling than in what it IS.

All they are is a letterhead. The park is ticking over at best. There is no evidence beyond a letterhead that anything has changed at the park.

I expect a 'launch' of the Darwin brand before 1 March - perhaps even in the New Year. A new manager, perhaps, to rebrand the park?; 20/12/09 9:58 pm
Anonymous said...: Big Freeze this weekend -

Friday night's sub-freezing temperatures coupled with gale force northerly winds meant that a number of caravans froze up. You may want to bear this in mind if you haven't winterized your caravan yet.; 20/12/09 10:01 pm
Anonymous said...: PGC Member said... I did email the ass earlier this year. They didn't bother to reply. The committee reply to EVERY e mail within a couple of days.; 21/12/09 6:55 am
Anonymous said...: In response to HappyCamper's point about Darwin's 'efficiency' -

Report on Darwin's performance so far-

1) The Staff have no idea what will happen to the Park in the immediate or long term future. As they are the primary source of day-to-day information for Owners from Darwin, this means the Owners are entirely in the dark about the future, as are members of the public who wish to use the Vista's facilities.

2) Darwin IS NOT marketing new or second hand caravans but still it requires Owners to sell through Darwin or pay Darwin commission. It sets commission at a fixed 15% when the terms of our license state 15% is the maximum amount they can charge. This sum will be charged whether the sale is private or through Darwin (this creates an unfair monopoly which may be illegal). It also forces owners to absorb VAT which again contravenes our license. Darwin also reserves the right to meet with and 'vet' prospective new owners, and may reject anyone it chooses. All these conditions contradict the existing license. The 20 or so caravans, whose owners are desperate to sell, are not being marketed on site or on the internet. The only other option these owners have is to have the caravan removed from the site, at a probable huge loss of value.

The Park's website (www.swanagebayviewholidaypark.co.uk) is inaccurate and misleading; it is still owned by STC; it no longer lists caravans for sale; and it provides email links that are defunct.

The sales office is permanently closed and a table with dirty coffee cups, used by Darwin representatives when they are one site, sits in the window next to the incomplete set of listings. A turn off to any prospective owners.

3) Darwin has failed to produce its letting agreement. This was promised in their letter of 30 Nov.

4) The following items do not work, are unavailable or are 'out of order'-

-gym
-sauna
-men's toilet in pool changing rooms (as of Saturday)
-wifi internet in Vista - off since last Tuesday.
-coffee machine in reception
-vending machine in Vista

5) Darwin has produced a new license the terms of which manifestly contradict the terms of the current license. In its accompanying letter, Darwin implies that OFT have agreed with this license. Reading it more carefully, it actually states that OFT agrees with the 'new model license' upon which the Darwin license partly draws upon, but separates itself in significant ways. Whether intended or not, Darwin may have loosely misrepresented the new license to Owners as having been 'approved by OFT'.

Darwin has asked owners to identify their relationship with the Owners' Association. They have no right to this knowledge.

6) Darwin has produced new park rules which materially deviate from existing rules, and which were not discussed in consultation with owners as required by the Owner's license.

...to be continue.....; 21/12/09 9:24 am
Anonymous said...: .....continued.....

7) The new park rules place the onus on Owners to ensure that anyone on the sex offender's register be excluded from being on the park as an owner or a guest. This is not the responsibility of the owners of caravans but the park itself, if indeed it has that right. Will all guests who hire a caravan through Darwin be required go through the CRB check or the Vetting and Barring scheme? What about users of the Vista - members of the public?

Returning to reality, Owners are unable to place themselves, their family or their guests through CRB or Vetting and Barring checks, so we cannot do this. In contrast, Owners do not have access to CRB/V&B checks on employees of the Park, especially those in the pool, gym, first aiders and those who manage them or indeed whether Darwin's managers and Directors have been adjudged 'fit and proper persons' as required by the HB&HPA.
This rule, while perhaps well intentioned, is unreasonable, unworkable and risible.

8) Darwin has increased owners' site fees without prior consultation, nor has it provided owners with reasons for its unilateral increase in fees, as required by OFT and the license. It has not offered the full three month period to challenge a fee increase.

According to the Site License issued by PDC, water and sewer must be provided by the site owner - Darwin. Darwin has placed a provision whereby these may be charged for separately. Under our existing license, these are provided for within the site fees.

9) Until an owner pointed it out to the Site Manager, the certificate of employer's liability insurance posted in the Vista was invalid, as it was issued under the name of STC and not transferred to Darwin. It has been since removed but not replaced with a valid certificate. This raises the possibility that Darwin has neither obtained nor posted valid employer's or public liability insurance certificates, which has also raised the possibility that no such valid cover was/is in place. While one would prefer to believe that this is not the case, until Darwin produces and posts such documentation, with effect 15 October 2009, such speculation is justified, and is fair, insofar as Darwin has required Owners to produce certificates of liability for their caravan.

This Owner has informed the Health and Safety Executive about these issues.

10) Darwin has neither announced nor is it engaged in any maintenance work to any part of the park, including areas which are 'closed for refurbishment'.

In response to HappyCamper's comment, I have concluded that:

-Darwin is manifestly poor at good customer relations

-and is ineffective at observing legal and regulatory requirements.

I point out these findings for the information of the Owners' Association (of which I am not a member) and Owners generally.
I have and am taking robust steps to inform the relevant regulatory bodies about these and other more serious issues. I suggest that the Owners' Association and others consider doing the same.; 21/12/09 9:25 am
Anonymous said...: In order to be fair and transparent, I will post any news about the points raised as and when it occurs.; 21/12/09 9:49 am
Anonymous said...: Wow.

Jaw hits floor!; 21/12/09 2:27 pm
Anonymous said...: It looks as though the honeymoon period is over.

The bride never made it to the altar!; 21/12/09 6:11 pm
Anonymous said...: Happycamper

I don't see how we can ever have a 'mutually advantageous working relationship' if one party doesn't play by the rules (or worse, doesn't seem to know/care what they are).; 21/12/09 7:44 pm
happycamper said...: Wow anonymous 9.24. that all sounds a very familiar tone to all the "gripes"that used to be leveled at STC! No wonder they withdrew from communication if that was the way things were put to them!! Im sure you have some valid points in there but just as in the past no "relevant regulatory bodies" dived into action, I am not holding my breath to see any rushing in now. You make a lot of negative assumptions about Darwins business ability, but in the wider scheme of things their results are ok and no-one in the business has anything bad to say about them. True they are not moving fast or sharing much, but I suspect SBV is not the centre of their universe!!
Anonymous 7.44 - what rules are these? Perhaps they are subject to various interprtations? Perhaps Darwin say the same about us!!!
Incidently, I was never asked to identify my relationship with owners association, just to appoint a representative if I didnt want to represent myself. I could have nominated the association even though I wasnt a member or my auntie Maud even though I was a founder member of the association. I could choose to represent myself even though I was a member. Hundreds of permutations - no proof of anything!!!!; 21/12/09 8:07 pm
Anonymous said...: Happycamper

By 'rules' consider the 'licence', which Darwin have failed to comply with in their very first actions and communications. This is simply bad business practice. I'm sure you wouldn't put up with it in any other walk of life, so I can't see why you seem to trust Darwin so much where the park is concerned. Nothing I have seen of them makes me want to give them the benefit of the doubt, as you seem to.

I understand that when STC were getting it wrong in the past, the 'relevant regulatory bodies' such as Trading Standards did intervene, quite forcefully I am told. If circumstances are similar with Darwin then there is good precedent for them to intervene again. Let's hope Darwin get their act together so that is not necessary (but I'm not holding my breath!).; 21/12/09 10:10 pm
Anonymous said...: Happycamper I think 9.24is spot on. You are beginning to sound as though you are not an owner but connected with Darwin. Just who 'in the business' have nothing bad to say about Darwin? Name 'them' please. I haven't found anybody in or out of the business who know much about Darwin and how it looks after its customers.

Maybe 9.24 is worried that Darwin has become 'STC on steroids'. Maybe this is because Darwin is trying to change his license and hurt his rights. Maybe because Darwin exhibits the same sort of behaviour as STC did. What should the owners do? Role over on Darwin's command? Say "Yes please, Darwin, one more please"?

How else can we respond to Darwin's attempts to subterfuge our legally established rights, according to our license, except to exercise our rights to object under the license we agreed to sign? Should we just 'trust' Darwin, when the little they have communicated to us has raised huge concerns?

I know that Darwin will not talk to owners about any concerns. They leave this to staff, who say they cannot answer the questions. They will not reply to well written, fair and polite letters of concern. I know because I have experienced this.

Tell me ONE thing about Darwin you think makes up for all the things 9.24 lists and supports with evidence. ONE thing. Not your 'trust' in them, not what 'others say' - ONE TANGIBLE THING Darwin has said or done so far, during the two-plus months since taking the park over.

I will wager you cannot do this!; 22/12/09 12:24 am
swanagebornandbreed said...: is that all you old folk up there can do all the time! WINGE!.to much time on your hands?. some of you LIVING up there are only here because its a place in swanage on the CHEAP!.; 22/12/09 11:05 am
Anonymous said...: The last post does not need a reply. It speaks volumes about itself.; 22/12/09 4:46 pm
Anonymous said...: And its author!; 22/12/09 5:07 pm
Happycamper said...: At risk of repeating myself, it was the TONE of 9.24s rant that I took exception to - it is not a negociation style which will get positive results!!! I have only been an owner for a short time, I hold my hands up to that. That means I am not conversant with what went on in the past - but the past is just that -past and gone. This is a new era for SBV. I bought my caravan in the hope that the park would be regenerated and change from its rather municiple retirement retreat image. I have looked at plenty of other site licences and they were very similar to the one Darwin has floated. Darwin has achnowledged the right to keep retain the old licence, so what is the problem? Darwin have only been running things for a very short time - changes such as refurbished facilities, take a little more time to impliment. I can well see that if you want to sell a caravan the hiatus in marketing is frustrating, but I cannot imagine too many people would be rushing to view caravans at this time of the year. You never know, if the park is improved your caravan may be worth more!!
I do not intend to list people I know working in the leisure industry, but all I have heard is that Darwin are a young company with modern ideas, who appear to be having some success. Not much I know, but beleive me , if their business practices were dodgy or worse, as has been implied, everyone in the industry would know about it. Bad news travels very fast indeed!!!!!; 22/12/09 5:27 pm
Anonymous said...: 'Bad news travels fast' indeed, HappyCamper. Another old quote is 'Nature Abhors a Vacuum'.

Darwin's reluctance to enter into a dialogue to discuss the many issues it has thrust on to the owners has created a vacuum that sucks in the misinformation and anxieties that form the crux of the problem.

Perhaps 9.24 would not have had to raise those issues here if Darwin or its staff had entered into a dialogue he quite properly and respectfully attempted to establish with them to address these issues?; 22/12/09 6:21 pm
Anonymous said...: The real issue here is that for a long time caravan parks have not been run in accordance with the licence agreements that exist between the the park owners and the caravan owners. Over the years it has become industry practice for park owners not to consult about fees and to charge a fixed and exorbitant 15% commission on caravan sales, among other things, and these things are in breach of the licences which no-one seems to have looked at for years. They are also in breach of OFT guidance. Now, at SBV, people have woken up to this and are challenging it - and rightly so. The various regulatory bodies and other national bodies appear to support this and are waking up to the situation to. Hopefully things in the industry are going to change as a result, something which is long overdue and is better for us all.

As for Darwin, as a result of all this they may just find that they have entered the industry at the wrong time, and it is not what they thought it was. There is, of course, an opportunity as a new operator for them to set a good example as to how to run a park
(by reading their licence with caravan owners and PDC, for a start, and complying with it!). I hope they take it, but whether that fits in with their investment strategy is something only they will know.

To finish, I support 9.24's entry. It was a well considered, factual and perfectly polite post, which is what you need in negotiation which produces results. It is not impolite, as some appear to think, to point out if someone is doing something wrong. And there's no point approaching these things in such a way that the other side think you a pushover.; 22/12/09 8:20 pm
Anonymous said...: Happycamper

No-one has suggested that Darwin are dodgy. They have just pointed out that they have not communicated with us or complied with our licence. That's not good, but it does not amount to saying they are dodgy.; 22/12/09 10:07 pm
RealisticCamper said...: I hope Darwin sees these posts. It will gain useful insight into what its 'base' - the caravan owners - thinks. For the record, I am an owner but not a member of the Association. I speak for myself.

----------------------------------

An Open Message to DarwinPIM:

These posts provide a clear message that you are not communicating effectively with owners. In the past, park owners could do as they please with near immunity. Not now. The industry is under scrutiny by Parliament; and the owners, and the owners' association, are at the forefront of these changes. At last year's meeting of the BH&HPA (the park owners' association of which you are a member) they were warned of a 'tsunami' of changes to their business practices due to OFT734. It isn't just us 'up the hill at the park' who are making a fuss about this - it is national!

Following the rules, and being fair, were two things I was taught as a young lad. I have still succeeded in life (well......mostly!) and I respectfully suggest to you that your business model will prosper if you keep to the rules, and work with, and not against, the legal provisions accorded by our license and OFT 734. (Why swim against the current? You will get there faster if you swim with it.)

The first thing you should do is seek the goodwill of the owners - who are mostly willing to move forward. Your few actions thus far have only caused concern, suspicion and opposition among us. Is this your intention?

If you do this, you could become an innovative market leader, a good landlord, and a good investment for investors. To date, you have acted in the old, outdated mode. You are a young company with young directors. Who advised you? Think forward, not back! There is still time to get this right!

You could begin by recalling the new license and park rules, which are flawed. Offer instead the new model license, after approval by OFT and input from owners (both association members and not). And do the same with park rules. Now THAT is good business practice!

I want you to succeed and I want the park to improve for our mutual benefit. I think most of us do. Thank you.

-A Concerned Owner

-----------------------------------; 23/12/09 9:21 am
Anonymous said...: 'You could begin by recalling the new license and park rules, which are flawed.'

By flawed, I refer to the many inconsistencies that exist between Darwin's license and the existing license (which Darwin will continue to acknowledge). The park cannot run with two conflicting set of conditions. This suits neither the Owners nor Darwin, a point I would assume Darwin acknowledges.; 23/12/09 9:32 am
Anonymous said...: Word has it very few owners have signed the new licence. Many have been returned unsigned.; 24/12/09 12:19 pm
SantaBaby said...: A Tale for the Season:
...................................

"And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a new license from DarwinPIM that all the owners should accept. (And this licence was meant to replace the one first made when Leeson was Town Clerk of Swanage). And all beheld the licence, every one into his own home. And the owners also went up from their easy chairs and sofas, out from in front of the telly (where yet again was seen The Sound of Music), in their warm homes, all over the length and breadth of Britain, and from even other countries (because Swanage is popular the world over:) To reject this licence (because it was wrong, and not in their interest); And so it was, that while they were there, the license was pronounced dead; And Darwin brought forth a new attitude, and met with the owners, and OFT, because they knew the got it so badly wrong. And they wrapped the new licence in an envelope, and posted it to owners (first class stamp of course)..

....and there was a choir of owners, saying "Good on yer, Darwin! Peace at last"."

Happy Christmas friends - and let's hope 2010 is a better one for us all!!; 24/12/09 12:37 pm
Anonymous said...: Recent news is that loads of owners have refused the new licence and have challenged the unjustified fee increase. I bet Darwin ignores their refusal and protestation, citing the looser terms of the new licence, and not those of the old one. Good luck with that strategy!

Wonder when the effective date is - March 1st (that's what the front desk says) or Feb 15th (that's the date Darwin demands to be paid)? Seems to me it should be March 1 - three months after the 30 Nov. letter as per our licence. At least that is what I have written to Darwin I will honour, as I am retaining the old licence.

Another tid-bit of info - If you want to use the park's management to manage your caravan for letting, as in the past, you will have to pay site fees by the effective date (or half on that date, and half later). No more settling the bill after November, as in the past. Just fair warning so that you can prepare yourself and your bank account for this. That's straight from the front desk, who asked Darwin that question for me.

There is still no sign of the letting agreement, that Darwin said we could request in their Nov. 30th letter. Was told today it may not be published until the end of January, meaning that lettings won't be marketed until then. Not good marketing, in my humble opinion. But expected.

Happy New Year!; 27/12/09 9:28 pm
ethel68 said...: As far as I can see, from reading Darwins licence, rules and accompanying letter, we have a choice, remain with our current licence, rules and continue the benefits that we have enjoyed for the past few years. This includes rules, terms and conditions for lettings to remain the same.
Or sign up with Darwin and lose all these. If we wish to stay with our current licence we can - no one can stop us. Dorset Trading Standards are with us on this. We have a choice - it is simple.; 28/12/09 5:06 pm
Anonymous said...: ethel68 - I agree with you (and I will keep my old licence) but the devil is in the details.

I have tested Darwin over several issues and their response is always based upon 'their' licence. It is as though we exist in parallel universes. I have fought to get them to answer or respond to my queries according to the terms of my licence. Silence. Then an answer according to their licence. I guess they imagine we will begin to believe them if they wear us down.

This issue will have to be tested through DTS, OFT, or the courts, I fear. Darwin doesn't seem to have grasped what it has acquired.

My prediction for 2010 - Darwin will flog off the site, having found too many 'problems' and will sue STC for their losses. Ahem.; 28/12/09 5:16 pm
Anonymous said...: If an owner decides to keep their old licence all conditions of that licence remain. Therefore if you let your caravan you do not have to give Darwins exclusivity nor do you have to pay your fees until they were due under the agreement you hold. If that was November then that is when they are due. Some owners have been letting their vans themselves quite successfully. All CONDITIONS OF THE OLD LICENCE STILL HOLD if you decide to keep it. Darwin are expected to uphold those licence terms, not only by the owners but by the law.; 28/12/09 5:36 pm
Anonymous said...: 5:16 pm. can they do that????????; 28/12/09 6:18 pm
Anonymous said...: 'My prediction for 2010 - Darwin will flog off the site, having found too many 'problems' and will sue STC for their losses. Ahem.'

Do you mean this, 6.18? Yes they can. STC is not out of the woods yet, by a long shot - hence why do you think the Town Clerk (who masterminded this 'deal' along with his 'legal advisors') has just resigned?; 28/12/09 6:26 pm
Anonymous said...: Where is my friend HappyCamper? Ever since someone surmised that he might be a shill for Darwin, he has disappeared from this blog.

Come back HappyCamper - we miss yea!; 28/12/09 6:32 pm
ethel68 said...: I fear that Darwin have tied STC up extremely tight. ie if Darwin do not get what they want, increased fees, they will claim the difference from the council.

Has the Town Clerk resigned?? I wonder why.; 28/12/09 7:08 pm
Anonymous said...: quote: Has the Town Clerk resigned?? I wonder why.

7:08 PM
quote

Anything to do with a hot pending court case?; 28/12/09 9:12 pm
Anonymous said...: Let's ask the Town Councils' well qualified 'legal advisor' that one!; 28/12/09 9:42 pm
Anonymous said...: Ethel - if what you say were true, and Darwin could force STC to cover any shortfall in income, then Swanage is in deep, deep trouble. I can just see that 7.25 million windfall evaporate back into Darwin's grasping little hands!

Has any other rate payer in Swanage wondered why the Town Council has been so muted about this whole business?

Swanage : We been sold down the river!!; 28/12/09 9:50 pm
ethel said...: I have a feeling that more will come to light regarding the Town Clerks dealing in this issue.

But things have not been right for the people of Swanage for a long time. The council has secret meeting - locals and electors are evicted when the sale was discussed and only perfunctory minutes produced. Nobody knew what was going on.
Darwin are realising that the park is not what they thought. Owners are not going to be pushed into accepting their terms - we are not an easy pushover and Darwin will have a fight on their hands. In court if necessary. We are not alone, there are many more caravan owners all over the country being dictated to by park owners. We do have rights and must use them - it will help all other owners eventually.; 28/12/09 10:51 pm
Anonymous said...: While I concur with you that Darwin may not have realised just what a challenge the owners would be, I will not shed a tear for them. If their due diligence had been any good, and if they had heeded it, then they have to take their share of the responsibility.

I have just returned a simple legal agreement to Darwin because it does not cover all the bases, some of which are for Darwin's protection. I really think that their financial officer, who looks after the day-to-day affairs, is rather inexperienced in this game.

That's a kind way of putting it! I expect his expertise involves 'bottom lines' and not the finer details such as contracts and licences. We will have to educate him (we have had to do this before!).; 29/12/09 7:06 am
ethel said...: I have only recently come across 'due dilligence' and believe it is an American term. The following is based on my understanding of it.
I agree, if Darwins investigations had been thorough they would know all of the problems STC had with the site and management of it. However, did Darwin have all the facts regarding STC past management practices, that resulted in current issues with owners?
No I do not feel sorry for Darwin either, it is profit they want and what their business is about, profit for their investors.; 29/12/09 10:38 am
Anonymous said...: dear 6;32pm, i can asure you happycamper is alive and well. he/SHE is a bit busy at the moment, xmas/new year and all that!. i can also tell you NAY! asure you he/SHE does NOT have any affiliation with darwin whatsoever!. bet that spoilt your fun!!!!. im sure my partner will be back to comment on your blogs in the new year. in the meantime it,s down to me to WISH YOU ALL A HAPPY AND PEACEFULL NEW YEAR lets hope 2010 proves so!.quick footnote!. shame i cant make the red lion this new year eve,ENJOY SO MUCH!.; 29/12/09 12:22 pm
Anonymous said...: 12.22 pm

Your style of writing, especially the punctuation (fullstops after exclamation marks etc), is very similar to the comment posted by 'swanagebornandbreed'. Are you by any chance connected? I think we should be told!; 29/12/09 8:44 pm
Anonymous said...: I don't get it. It has been suggested that in the sale negotiations Darwin did not become aware of the strength of the position of the caravan owners. Presumably as a result they paid more than would otherwise have been the case. Surely this is grounds to congratulate the council and town clerk on rather than criticize them. If Darwin did not study the obligations they were entering into properly it is hardly the council's fault. Why should it come back to haunt them. Darwin's shareholders may wish to ask their people awkward questions though.; 30/12/09 10:38 am
Anonymous said...: The whole deal is a mess. The Owners ass asked to talk to the preferred buyer, but the Council refused to supply the name. They asked for a letter asking for a meeting to be passed on, was it? The Council threw out the public (You and Me) every time it was discussed.

If you look at the agreement, just ask the Council for a copy (FIO act) and you will see that it is possible for £1.8 Million to be claimed back if Darwin can’t put up the fees!!! The Owners Ass is not going to agree to any increases that are not in the licence just to save STC skin. There are things in the Agreement that refer to industry practices; the licence doesn’t get a mention! This will leave STC very vulnerable I think, which in turn will cost us rate payers money.; 30/12/09 11:03 am
Happycamper said...: Not sure what a "shill for Darwin" might be, but its definately not me!!!! Tis the festive season, so as it looked far too cold to spend it in Swanage as planned (shame) I decided instead to stay in town and do some research into improvements for the Vista bar - (a hard job I know, but someone has to do it!)Wetherspoons, Shepherd Neame, Greene King and Fullers all gave me lots of ideas, all of which had to be thoroughly tested. Im pleased to say thats completed and I have eaten more turkey and mince pies than was good for me so time to catch up here. I can see everyone is full of seasonal goodwill as usual!!
It sounds as if Darwins initial game move was met with healthy opposition, which is exactly as it should be. How many actually took the trouble to write and protest I wonder? How many nominated the owners association to represent them- does anyone know? I am sure Darwin suspected full well their first draft would be rejected but they would have been silly not to give it a punt and they will have learned a lot from it. We now need to keep calm and wait for Darwin to stop partying and get back to the job in hand and issue the next installment in the saga - no doubt it will be interesting. The nearer we get to the new season the more activity I think we will see.
Incidently, anyone know what the owners association are up to? Surely it is to their advantage to make public their activities and give all the owners chance to support them. Perhaps the social secretary has worn them all out over Christmas but a New Years knees-up, open to all, before close down, would be an ideal opportunity to rally support and plan further action.
Bah Humbug!!!; 30/12/09 4:46 pm
Anonymous said...: The site has arranged a “Do” for New Year, as advised in their letter to owners along with the request to book early. No price for tickets. Reception are awaiting tickets to be sent to find out the price. Oh and Darwin do not return to work until 4th Jan 2010. Will the tickets ever arrive?

I also hear a rumour that the site next door is up for sale, could be Darwin are concentrating on that to make one big site. Owners from next door can’t wait to join the BVO Association and get a fair deal.; 30/12/09 5:56 pm
Happycamper said...: Dont think I would be relying on that for my new years entertainment!!! Head for the town pubs wearing a silly hat would be a much better bet.
Interesting about the site next door - lots of potential for a large state-of-the art "spa experience" type site. Would certainly be worth developing the facilities +++ for that sort of capacity. I can hear the owners association collective sets of teeth grinding from here!!!!
I was intrigued by the idea mentioned earlier that Darwin could recoup money from STC if they were unable to raise site fees. Top marks for Darwin if that is true. Lets see....... float an unacceptable fee increase and new licence which you can rely on the owners (who are a stroppy lot) to reject. Claw back money from the council and use it to fund facility upgrades on the park. Next year you can float a justified site fee increase as the facilities are now 5* - a win-win sitution for Darwin and not a bad result for the owners either!!!; 31/12/09 9:27 am
Anonymous said...: I don't think Darwin are that clever, Happycamper. Darwin won't be able to claim any money off STC if they haven't followed the correct procedures for a fee increase, which is currently the case. Even STC's oft quoted legal advisor would be able to see that one off!; 1/1/10 9:05 pm
Anonymous said...: Agreed.

In any event, the argument could be made that Darwin was aware of the Owners' Association, as it had received correspondence from it. In undertaking due disclosure, there is an assumption that both sides of the contract will do their part according to their own interests. SBVOA is not a secret association (see how many times it is referred to in STC meeting minutes, including being 'formally recognised'. Darwin would have been able to ascertain the issues between STC and SBVOA quite easily, and could/should have factored this into the terms of the deal. Unless they are naive or inept!; 2/1/10 8:03 am
Happycamper said...: Not sure I get the point about the owners association in the last post. The licence says that if more than 51% of the owners object to fee increse then it will go to arbitration. Obviously if the association can prove it speaks for 51% (or more) of the owners then they can carry this alone. Other than that the owners association carry no weight in influencing anything, certainly not the day to day running of the park (including the choice of staff) or anyones business practice.
Going onto more immediate concerns, I got a letter this morning from Ms Fooks advising that an agreement is "being designed" for owners who wish to sublet their caravans. This will apparently be available for 31st January 2010. It wont affect me, I have plenty of family members who use the caravan, I wouldnt get to visit myself if I let it out as well! - but Im sure lots of others will be very interested. In particular, I am interested to hear what is involved in "portraying the Darwin brand image to potential clients!!!!!"
Interesting times!; 2/1/10 3:55 pm
Anonymous said...: The Owners' Association considers itself empowered to act on behalf of its members according to decisions made by its committee, as well as from feedback from owners at meetings and through correspondence. As such not all issues it has raised on behalf of owners have been with all owners' knowledge or approval, if indeed this is required. This is why several owners have chosen to leave, not renew, or not join the association, which is of course their right.

In contrast to the previous post, the Owners' Association does consider itself empowered to act on matters beyond challenging the fee increase, such as matters affecting all aspects of the licence and OFT734. This has been declared many times and is no secret.

I am not sure what you mean by 'Other than that the owners association carry no weight in influencing anything, certainly not the day to day running of the park (including the choice of staff) or anyones business practice.' The part after the parenthesis I can understand, but not the first part. If anything done by Darwin breaches the licence or OFT 734, the Association has a right to speak on behalf of its members if they ask it to. How Darwin runs the business is up to them, provided the licence and OFT 734 are correctly observed. It is really quite simple to grasp.

I too have been told by Vikki Fooks that a letting agreement will be published, probably toward the end of January. I have further been told that Darwin will expect a very high standard (the 'Darwin brand') in any caravan it lets, including standardized items such as duvets, crockery etc., and that older or obviously 'used' carpets, curtains and seat cushions will have to be up to Darwin standards and may require cleaning or replacement. Be aware that, at its other sites, Darwin hires out caravans for as little as one night, which may produce little profit for the owners after cleaning, booking fees etc., are taken into account. It will be interesting to see what requirements, as well as under what conditions, Darwin will countenance our right to sublet the caravan ourselves or through our own agency as contained in the older licence.

As you say, interesting times ahead.; 2/1/10 5:53 pm
Happycamper said...: Mmmm - very interesting post 5.53! The second part agree I with entirely, I suspect its spot on.
The first part only confirmed to me why I am no fan of the owners association. Having seen the commitee in action I would be most concerned that, if I were a member, they would " consider themselves empowered to act according to their own decisions, without knowledge or approval of
the owners" These presumably, would be the very same people who have been warned off in the very recent past for wasting police time!! I would be very concerned indeed if they were speaking for me "without my knowledge or approval"!!!!!! No wonder several owners have already chosen to leave , not renew or not join the association.
The committee may well consider itself empowered to act on any matter - how much influence they actually have is a different matter. Clearly they like to imagine they have great power but should perhaps remember - "wishing dont make it so"!; 2/1/10 6:30 pm
Anonymous said...: Who was warned off for "wasteing Police time"? Not the Committee. I complained as my post had been clearly opened and read. Should this happen again I will complain again. The police did talk to STC about this!!! The reason the council used for stopping post was to stop anyone takeing up their right to register to vote in local elections. The fact that you do not have the ability to recieve post does not preclude you from registering. We now have a postal vote to our home address instead.; 2/1/10 7:15 pm
Anonymous said...: Several people have not left, indeed we are haveing owners joining. Since we obtained an afidavit of membership percentage we now have more members. All members are informed of an up to date position via newsletter. Owners who choose not to join the association (as is their right) only find out by rumor which is usually wrong. It's quite funny to hear what the committee have done from the staff and non members. Their employers don't even tell them what is happening.; 2/1/10 7:22 pm
Anonymous said...: Happycamper

Your posts are very entertaining, but you really are in the minority, as indeed are those owners who are not in the association. Over 80% of owners are members of the association, including myself, and we are quite happy for the committee to take up any points we raise with the park owner. That is how associations work, if you didn't know. Opt in or out as you choose, but in my opinion you do not do the owners as a whole any favours when you make your disparaging comments. Unless that is your intention?; 2/1/10 7:30 pm
Anonymous said...: I don't know where you get your information from, Happycamper, but it isn't a very reliable source. No-one in the association was warned about wasting police time I can assure you. Methinks you hath perhaps listened to the Town Clerk too much!!; 2/1/10 7:38 pm
ethel said...: Happycamper, you sound a most disgruntled and misled camper. I wonder where you get you info from- or is it your own sumising of issues. No-one in association has been told off for wasting police time. If you are talking about the post issue. individuals made enquiries themselves.
The association do not go ahead making decisions and taking action without the members knowledge. Committees work as spokespeople for a group who have elected key people to act with others to speak and act on their behalf. We have meetings where any concerns of members are taken forward to a satisfactory conclusion. I know you know this and are just being pendantic for some reason. I wonder what your problem is and who are you? I am a member and extremely grateful for what they do for us caravan owners.; 2/1/10 8:31 pm
Anonymous said...: Happycamper

You quote about the association:

" consider themselves empowered to act according to their own decisions, without knowledge or approval of
the owners" ...but where is this from? I cannot see any post which says this. Have you made it up?

There is a post (5.53pm) which says that the committee raises issues which maybe not all of the members have raised, but it is always the case that the issue will have been raised by someone within the association (even though that may not be actually necessary). When people join they know that the committee will act in this way (which is the usual constitution of an association) and if anyone wants to say they do not agree with the committee on any particular point they are free to do so, or leave the association if they feel the need to (not that many have).

Hope that clears things up for you.; 2/1/10 9:30 pm
Anonymous said...: As the blogger of 5.53 p.m., I agree with most posts - I did not intend to imply that the association decides things willy-nilly without the approval of its members - instead, I believe any such organization will, from time to time, act on a matter that one or two members might not approve. This happens in any representative organization. And yes, members may decide not to be part of it if they choose not to. 20% or so have done this. But the majority have joined, a point that is salient.

HappyCamper, you are an enigma. I haven't seen many who agree with your more recent posts (just the opposite) so your views seem to be in the minority. I hope you are not connected with the owners or management of the park, or STC, but sometimes I wonder........; 3/1/10 9:15 am
Gun club member said...: Does anyone have a contact address for Darwins accounts department or anyone there who will respond to any questions regarding rent and the complete lack of sending any bills?

If anyone can help please can you send the contact info to info@purbecktargetsports.co.uk or post it on here?; 3/1/10 11:13 am
Happycamper said...: I think you are probably right - I AM in a minority, for several reasons. I purchased a HOLIDAY caravan on what is advertised as a HOLIDAY site. I have a home and a life elsewhere - I have no desire (and think I have no right) to get involved in local politics. The running of Swanage is the rightful business of Swanage people - we are their gusets and should behave as such. Since I have been on the site I have gained the impression that many owners (yes, in particular association members) main interests seem to lie in areas such as post delivery, rubbish collection and bring and buy sales, all of which are generally concerns of people who are not holiday makers but who LIVE on the site. I know that is the impression of many of the townsfolk too, and they dont like it!!! People living on a site such as SBV change the dynamic and detract from the holiday atmosphere. That is my objection. I thoroughly enjoy my time in Swanage and intend to continue to do so. I do not need the services of a social secretary.
Finally, unlike most of the posters on this site, I am determined to look to the future positively and beleive SBV is desperately in need of being dragged (probably kicking and screaming) into the world of 21st century HOLIDAYMAKING!!!!!; 3/1/10 1:41 pm
Anonymous said...: SBV would make a wonderful site for social eco housing, small 2 bedroom dwellings with gardens.
Would this solve all the problems of trying to find a site for housing.; 3/1/10 5:18 pm
Anonymous said...: We purchased our HOLIDAY caravan for our holidays albeit long holidays now we are retired. We chose the site because it had some facilities but not too much as we prefer a quiet HOLIDAY. We were prepared to pay for services offered and AGREED. What we were not prepared for was a council who felt that we must stick to the licence but they could do as they liked, charge what they like and take away services which make life difficult for a lot of owners. Do I want to be “Dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century” Darwin seem incapable of even running the site as is God knows what will happen if they add more to the Vista, probably even more confusion from staff who know nothing. I am not prepared to pay for something the majority don’t want.

If they had come prepared to show what their plans were, to discuss what we want, need and would like instead of treating us like a necessary evil, they might get somewhere. They have obviously not planned this takeover in any shape or form. How can we trust them to get anything else right? A simple thing like Wifi seems beyond them.; 3/1/10 11:03 pm
Anonymous said...: 11:03 pm. well then find a holiday retirement park for old folk.; 4/1/10 10:06 am
Anonymous said...: 10.06 When STC empowered Nick Pearce to sell as many new caravans as possible, he did so, marketing the park as a weekend getaway. Meanwhile, all of the council's hire fleet was sold off. If you read past town council minutes, you will see that it was decided to transform the park from mixed letting/owning to primarily owning (and some private lets). The age of many owners (who you appear to disparage) accurately reflects the age of many who come to Swanage to holiday or retire.

So - exactly what point are you trying to make?

HappyCamper - according to the site licence issued by PDC, the park is not permitted for residence. The rules governing this are contained in the park rules, of which you have a copy if you are an owner. If you feel somebody is in breach of these rules, and feel your rights are being affected, you have a right to raise this with the park management. Whatever rumours the town folks want to spread is of no concern.

5.18 The horse has bolted from the barn as far as your point is concerned - this should have been considered by STC before it sold the park. There may be issues or restrictions (PDC again) that preclude this, although I too thought it an interesting proposition at the time. But, besides reducing the value of the asset if used for social housing, STC would have had to compensate all caravan owners for loss of their site, removal of their caravan, and the remaining term of their licence - an impossibly high loss of value of the park for STC to absorb.; 4/1/10 10:35 am
Anonymous said...: 11.13 GunClubMember - write to:

Simon Midcalf,
Finance Director,
Darwin Property Investment Management,
Office 3.6,
93-95 Gloucester Place,
London, W1U 6JQ
Phone 020 7487 8271
Fax 020 7487 8273

He handles matters such as yours and appears to be the point man for matters regarding SBV. Good luck!; 4/1/10 10:49 am
gun club member said...: 11.13
Thank you for the contact info. I have passed it onto our treasurer.; 4/1/10 4:49 pm
Happycamper said...: 10.35 - I know very well what the licence says, but I am not blind! It is not only STC who do not play by the rules!!! I am happy to let Darwin sort it out- I am confident that they will because people living on the park does not fit their business plan.
11.03 The times they are a-changing , both on SBV and in Swanage itself. I hear Holbourne Park next door is very quiet and has services such as rubbish collection and post delivery to suit the more sedate holidaymaker who wants to spend big chunks of time on the site.
I am at a loss to know why you think Darwin would want to discuss their plans at length with any group of owners. They know exactly what they want to do with the park and you only have to look at their other parks to know they are very capable of doing it. I dont think I have heard any positive comments about either STC, Darwin or any of the park staff anywhere in this blog. Such negativity is destructive and depressing and will do nothing to persuade any management team to listen let along take on any ideas that may be put forward.; 4/1/10 6:11 pm
Anonymous said...: Can anyone NOT see that somebody who frequently posts pro-Darwin comments is in fact a shill for Darwin??

Def.: 'SHILL' : A shill is an associate of a person selling goods or services, who pretends no association to the seller/group and assumes the air of an enthusiastic customer. The intention of the shill is, using crowd psychology, to encourage others unaware of the set-up to purchase said goods or services.; 5/1/10 6:27 pm
Anonymous said...: Holbourne Park is entirely different. It is year round. Its site licence allows permanent residency. You are comparing apples to oranges. What statement are you trying to make?

Your point is fatuous.; 5/1/10 7:06 pm
Anonymous said...: 'I am at a loss to know why you think Darwin would want to discuss their plans at length with any group of owners.'

Try 'Good Customer Relations' which Darwin has failed to exhibit. Even if Darwin wants to pursue its own strategy, it would facilitate matters if it kept owners relatively happy with positive news, and aware of its goals. One brief introductory letter, a last-minute forum few could attend, unjustified fee increases, and a radically different licence/set of park rules, amount to the only contact we have had. Period. The poor park staff are frustrated and uneasy about being unable to answer even the simplest queries without referring to Darwin first. Darwin intends to steamroll its agenda through as fast as possible for the benefit of its shareholders and no one else.

You can take that to the bank. They will.; 6/1/10 5:22 am
Anonymous said...: 6;27 pm WOW!. did you swallow a dictionary ?.; 6/1/10 10:55 am
Happycamper said...: 7.06 My point fatuous? I dont think so - the services and ambiance found next door on Holbourne Park seem to be the very ones held dear by many members of the association and anonymous bloggers here! To use the same comparison, they would like to be in an orange grove and find themselves with new park management planting apple trees!!!!
Of course that sort of park is very much more expensive to own a caravan on than a holiday park because the only source of income for the management is the owners as they have no short let income of income from amenities.
Of course Darwin want to make money for their shareholders - thats their business - their business plan is not to be a charity providing a cosy retirement hideaway but to make money from holidaymakers. Hopefully if they are successful, this will help subsidise our site fees so will be to our advantage too. As an occaisional festival goer I would love to see a sound stage at the top of the park during the summer and the Vista bar full to overflowing all night but even I think I will have to wait a while for that one.)
6.27 I repeat - no shill for Darwin( but now you mention it, perhaps If I send them a printout of this blog they will pay me some commission.......)No, seriously, to use the same comparison as above, I like apples and Darwin are dead ringers for apple farmers.
Perhaps we will see some local cider in the Vista bar along with the real ale. I understand the sausage and cider festival at Corfe Castle is very popular!!!!!!; 6/1/10 6:15 pm
Anonymous said...: Caravan owners have recieved a letter with instructions to send letters to this address.

Darwin Contract Management Ltd
22 Parkway
Welwyn Garden City
Hertfordshire
AL8 6HG
GUNCLUB MEMBER PLEASE NOTE; 9/1/10 3:53 pm
gun club member said...: Thanks for the contact address. We have had several emails from the accounts department and they are going to get back to us next week regarding the rent.; 9/1/10 9:12 pm
Happycamper said...: The silence here is deafening!!!! And speaks volumes. Where are all the anonymous contributors, who are usually only to ready to comment? Are you lost for words? or are you all up on the site with your dongles freezing off?? Such are the disadvantages of living on a holiday caravan site.............; 10/1/10 11:09 am
Anonymous said...: If they are on the site they cant walk or drive down as the roads below are all iced over and there was a sign up yesterday telling the resdents not to drive up to their vans.; 10/1/10 11:43 am
happycamper said...: Thought that might be the case.Dont envy anyone holed-up up there - occupational hazard I guess. I was planning to visit over the weekend to give the caravan the once-over before shut down, but decided not to chance the M3. Will be a few burst pipes on site come March! I suspect this much snow and ice is as unusual in Swanage as it is in London. Bet no-one from Darwin has braved the snow to do any on-site planning for next season!!; 10/1/10 1:03 pm
Anonymous said...: I was down the other day to check my caravan - fortunately it had been drained down before the big freeze. Andy thinks there will be a lot of damage come to light in the spring. Anyone who didn't drain down - you will probably have damage. Saw one unit with water flooded out of it - alerted the front office. Seems that they should close the park after New Year if this happens very often. Several water mains were frozen, stopping water getting to sections of the park.; 12/1/10 2:54 am
happycampers other half. said...: we came down before xmas and i drained down left all taps & drain valves OPEN turned off all services. bit late in the day i know but some people just dont listen!. i had a feeling this weather was coming. i watched people back in october locking up for winter "oh dear". last weekend our idea was to give caravan last once over before shutdown. so we will sleep peacfully over next few weeks hopefully!.; 12/1/10 8:40 am
Anonymous said...: If you did that, you should be fine!

Is anybody else waiting to hear from Darwin about their letting scheme for private owners' caravans? Should be out in a few weeks. Let's hope Darwin is better at marketing lets that STC was! I bet they are!; 12/1/10 2:42 pm
Anonymous said...: The rumours about the retirement of the Town Clerk are confirmed.

Having sold the park down the river, to the detriment of the town and the caravan owners, Alan Leeson is to retire in March. Expect a generous golden handshake!

See the latest blog entry at the top for more on this.; 13/1/10 6:32 pm
Anonymous said...: Just been told SBV has a new Manager. Anyone confirm?; 17/1/10 1:51 pm
Anonymous said...: No, but when I left the park ten days ago, Vikki Fooks indicated that she might not be around much longer.

It would seem rational to me that Darwin would want to begin to transition in its own team now that TUPE issues are more or less complete.; 17/1/10 5:04 pm
Anonymous said...: Leaving a change to Jan 15th, when the park closes for the season, makes sense - no owners around. I wonder when we will be told, if it is true? As usual, rumours precede fact at SBV. Methinks I will phone tomorrow....; 17/1/10 5:18 pm
Happycamper said...: Be careful what you wish for!!! Im looking forward to the park opening for the new season - hopefully some green shoots of regeneration will be in evidence. Has anyone seen any signs of holiday advertising for the park? Will be good to hear how it will be marketed. Also silence so far on the question of next seasons fees - the next few weeks will
be interesting!; 18/1/10 6:11 pm
Anonymous said...: As far as I can see, Darwin has not included SBV as one of its property assets on its company website, nor has it linked its website to another website specifically to advertise SBV, as it has for its other sites. Vikki Fooks was concerned about this when I last spoke with her - she wondered how the park could advertise and list lets without any publicity (and with reception unable to answer any queries about dates, rates, etc.) The caravan owners still haven't been given information about how they can let their caravans through Darwin. The letting season begins in six weeks' time. This is not encouraging.

I too look forward to green shoots but haven't seen even a weed as yet, HappyCamper.....perhaps things will move very quickly in the next few weeks.

I note that the old SwanageBayViewHolidayPark website is still up online, listing 2009 letting rates and info. Caravan sales have been removed from the website, so those trying to sell have to hope somebody will initiate an enquiry. The FAQ section has been removed, which contained last year's information for potential owners. These are green shoots? More like a bunch of lousy weeds, they are! I will be patient, however........; 18/1/10 10:26 pm
Anonymous said...: HAS ANYBODY HEARD ANYTHING FROM DARWIN ABOUT WHAT IS HAPPENING? RECEPTION IS BEING SILENT ABOUT IT!; 19/1/10 10:05 pm
Happycamper said...: I suspect SBV is not yet up to Daewins standard so they are not advertising it. I dont let my caravan and havent really paid much attention to that aspect of the park. How many letting caravans did STC own and let out? Have Darwin got any letting caravans to market or is it just them acting as an agent for letting owners caravans? If its the latter then they have nothing significant to gain for their effort and I strongly suspect the owners could grow old and grey waiting!!!!!
If an owner has chosen to retain his/her original licence agreement (as Darwin acknowledged they could) surely there is nothing to stop them carrying on as usual and taking bookings from their usual source. If it were me I think I would be advising Darwin that that was what I intended to do and get on with it sharpish - as someone has already said the season starts in 6 weeks and the travel press is full of ads and offers.; 20/1/10 5:54 pm
Anonymous said...: Darwin did attempt to buy my caravan (it is one of many listed for sale) ten days ago but the offer was far too low and I was given in effect 48 hours to get out (just as the park froze up). So they must want to own caravans for letting purposes. STC had about 20+ council-owned caravans for let four or five years ago, but sold the fleet off. It used to be that about a quarter to a third of the park took part in lettings, mostly through STC. Last summer I believe less than 10% did this - about 20. Hardly worth the effort.

I am unsure whether Darwin DOES let old licence holders let their units privately - there seem to be a number of conflicting rules that have been introduced that need sorting first.

If my business invested over 7 million of my investors' money into a project, I would have ensured it was well on the way toward the sort of standards expected four months later. When do you propose Darwin will bring it up to standard?

My guess is that they have rather given up any big plans until they sort out the owners association and its issues, etc. Plus I am sure they know the economy is so weak that 2010 may not be the year to invest in the letting side -they can let the park tick over on owners' site fees for another year, or whenever the economy improves. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they can reclaim some of the money from STC due to loss of income over the issues they have discovered, too. That's what investment funds do for a living! I bet you and I are glad not to be wrapped up in all the %^&* flying around between the BVOA and Darwin, eh, HappyCamper?!

Apparently a mass mailing has just been posted to us about various things such as licences, etc. It might be an interesting read!; 20/1/10 7:57 pm
Happycamper said...: I agree with most of what you say anonymous. However I suspect that rather than "giving up any big plans" the plan all along may have been to let the park tick over for a while and let time sort out many of the issues flying around. (money back from STC would be a bonus!) Darwin have other interests and projects to work on and may be content to leave the park alone, with a bit of investment in the vista complex, and see what the state of play will be at the end of the season. I would be willing to bet that by then a lot of the hassle would have gone away. Some owners would have been desperate enough to sell their caravan at a knock down price, others would have decided to cut their losses and move on.Others will have decided their issue was not important enough to persue and given up. Considerable gain for zero effort!!
As to if Darwin can prevent owners letting their caravans themselves if they decline to provide a letting service, I think legal advice would be needed, but I think they would be on shaky ground.
I look forward to receiving this mailing - as you say, will be interesting reading!!; 20/1/10 9:12 pm
Anonymous said...: The mass circulation letter from Darwin arrived - just a generic one telling us which address to use. Quite boring. Signed by Vikki Fooks. Perhaps she is still in charge?; 23/1/10 10:04 pm
Anonymous said...: I can confirm that Vikki Fooks has left Swanage Bay View and that Jackie is now the park manager.; 29/1/10 7:12 pm
Anonymous said...: Look at the Information Commissoners site under recent jugements. STC get a mention. They failed under 5 points.; 29/1/10 10:44 pm
Happycamper said...: Another big fat envelope from Darwin - more laughter. I really enjoyed the paragraph " We recognise that you may have already received booking enquiries directly that have been confirmed. We thereby ask that all details of confirmed bookings be provided to the park and appreciating your efforts in securing the booking, we will charge a reduced rate of 15%"!!!!!!!!!!!! For sheer breathtaking cheek that takes the buscuit!. They should be paying the owners commision not vice versa!!!!!
I am very glad I do not let out my caravan so this is not a problem for me. I can only hope for the sake of those who do that the owners association is on the case.
Incidently the paragraph that states "During the holiday season..... there is often a higher demend at our parks than the capacity of our own hire fleet and this enables us to successfully let privately owned caravans as part of our letting fleet" also raised a smile. I read this to mean AFTER we have let all our caravans we will look at letting yours! BIG deal - a very generous agreement I dont think!!A recipe for a very lean year indeeed for the owners- definately NOT to their advantage.
Im looking forward to viewing the website www.darwinholidays.co.uk -not a very well advertised holiday website unless I am well out of touch.; 30/1/10 10:21 am
Anonymous said...: I am happily sitting out the winter in my home in Florida, so the letter HappyCamper has cited has yet to land on my doorstep.

(I will instead enjoy my margarita while soaking up the warm sun sitting by the lapping warm Gulf of Mexico's waves.......oops, sorry!)

I will read it carefully before coming to a judgment, but the little he cites raises concern but not surprise.

In the meantime, has Darwin mentioned anything about reinstating the services that it removed; in particular the gym and sauna? These affect drop-in visitors as well as caravan owners - the public. We pay for these, after all.; 30/1/10 9:40 pm
Anonymous said...: I have requested that a new thread be created - Swanage Bay View Transition has generated over 270 entries in two threads, making it the most active subject ever in SwanageView!; 30/1/10 9:48 pm
Anonymous said...: From www.darwinholidays.co.uk :
..........................................

Swanage Bay View Holiday Park
Static holiday home sales & hire in Swanage, Dorset

Overlooking the beautiful Swanage Bay and flanked by uninterrupted countryside, this holiday park boasts an outstanding setting in the Isle of Purbeck.

The park is only a mile away from Swanage town centre and beach, and is within easy reach of Dorsetâ€™s finest attractions including the majestic Corfe Castle, the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site and numerous seaside resorts.

Be dazzled by the incredible sea views held by most of the static caravan accommodation and enjoy Swanage Bay Viewâ€™s extensive range of facilities, which include a leisure club and indoor swimming pool. Our superb restaurant and entertainment suite, which also has stunning views across the bay, make it an ideal venue for weddings and functions..

For more information or to book your holiday at Swanage Bay View Holiday Park please contact us or visit thier website at www.swanagebayview.co.uk.

.........................................

-what is the meaning of these symbols (and appearing twice): 'â€™s'? A typo?

-'please contact us or visit thier website' - should be 'their'. Oh dear!!

-'and functions..' - why two full stops?

-'extensive range of facilities, which include a leisure club' - I have never understood what is meant by 'leisure club' at SBV - it separately lists pool, bar, and restaurant, so what is the 'leisure club' - beyond these facilities?.

It then asks the reader to click the link www.swanagebayview.co.uk which is a bad link that take one nowhere - it should be
http:www.swanagebayviewholidaypark.co.uk. Don't get me started about the errors and misleading statements found on that site!! It is useful to see what the letting fees were in 2009!

There should be a few red faces in Welwyn Garden City over these mistakes! Come on, boys and girls, check your prep before handing it in!!; 30/1/10 10:19 pm

swanageview

Pages

Monday, December 14, 2009

Swanage Bayview Transition (Series 2)

143 comments:

ShareThis

Blog Archive

Links

Search This Blog

Labels

Unique visits

swanageview

Pages

Monday, December 14, 2009

Swanage Bayview Transition (Series 2)

143 comments:

ShareThis

Blog Archive

Subscribe to Swanageview

Links

Search This Blog

Labels

Unique visits