Abuse of the CaSSOA Contract by Greenmount Storage of Preston
A Report for CaSSOA and Publication by Barry and Margaret Williamson
Address: Greenmount Storage, Preston New Road, Preston PR4 1TU
Manager/Site Owner/Director: Brian Dixon
10 March 2024
The term ‘holiday vehicle’ refers to caravans, campervans, motorhomes and static caravans.
Address: Greenmount Storage, Preston New Road, Preston PR4 1TU
Manager/Site Owner/Director: Brian Dixon
10 March 2024
The term ‘holiday vehicle’ refers to caravans, campervans, motorhomes and static caravans.
Planning Permission and Licensing but no Regulation
The holiday vehicle sector for storage, camping or holiday homes (static caravans) is unregulated. If you own a piece of land all you need for storage is a local authority planning permission. There are no statutory bodies serving the interests of the vehicle owners and it is a matter for individual managements to decide what kind of rules and regulations operate. For some storage sites it is minimal and based on good relationship with customers; others have lengthy detailed contracts with many clauses, usually designed to minimise the liability of the management itself. Static caravan contracts are the epitome of this lengthy bureaucratic process.
CaSSOA and Security
The Caravan Storage Site Owners Association (CaSSOA) is what its name implies: a trade body serving the interests of storage site owners. Membership is voluntary and it does not serve as a regulatory body; rather it is focussed on security. The accreditation process awards between 1 and 5 points to each of 26 security features, the total score leading to the ‘award’ of one of four categories: ungraded, silver, gold or platinum. There could not be a simpler business model than the storage of holiday vehicles in rows in a field. No other services are required, so a CaSSOA award trades on the fear of theft. However, there are many other storage locations that are equally secure or better without this accolade.
The CaSSOA Contract (2020)
This is completed and signed by the vehicle owner and counter-signed by the site manager. It runs to 6 pages containing 2,500 words arranged within 9 definitions of terms, with 37 of the 45 items of data to be completed by the vehicle owner. The terms of the contract are contained within 43 clauses with 6 further subclauses, and they cover only what happens during the agreed Period of Agreement, also called the Storage Period, and not what may happen before or after that. None of this serves the interests of the customer, the vehicle owner, and the need for all that data is quite unclear. Click: The CaSSOA Contract (2020).
In our wide experience, equally secure but non-CaSSOA-accredited sites require only the vehicle owner’s name and address, the vehicle registration number, a phone number and/or email address, and a payment on arrival. Prior to arrival a storage place can secured by telephone, sometimes with a small (eg £20) refundable deposit. Compare our experience at Greenmount Storage!
First Meeting at Greenmount Storage
We are a retired couple (total age 160 years) who visited Greenmount Storage on a cold mid-December afternoon in 2023, seeking a storage location for our 9-year-old motorhome. The site owner, Brian Dixon, explained that there was a high demand for storage and he had only two empty places. We were interested and he gave us the scrap of paper measuring 4 inches by 4 inches shown below: an invoice payable in advance to secure the plot. Standing in the cold open air, he also gave us the 6-page A4 CaSSOA contract on a clipboard to read, complete, sign and return. Margaret volunteered, sheltering in our car, while Barry and the site owner waited out in the open. We were not invited into the office, where we could both have taken more time to read the document and ask questions in comfort.
The first 7 items of data were to be completed by the site owner, which did not happen at the time. Of the remaining 35 items, Margaret was in no position to complete half of them and the crucial Period of Agreement (the Storage Period), requiring a start date and end date, could not be completed. It was not known and had not been agreed, although it was accepted that it would be after the Christmas and New Year holidays, when both the site owner and we would be away. The site owner, both verbally and in handwriting on the back of the above 16 square inches of paper, stated that our contract would begin on the day that we brought the motorhome. The apparent informality of all this was reinforced when he simply signed this note “Brian” (see below), leaving us to add the plot number and his surname for reference.
The holiday vehicle sector for storage, camping or holiday homes (static caravans) is unregulated. If you own a piece of land all you need for storage is a local authority planning permission. There are no statutory bodies serving the interests of the vehicle owners and it is a matter for individual managements to decide what kind of rules and regulations operate. For some storage sites it is minimal and based on good relationship with customers; others have lengthy detailed contracts with many clauses, usually designed to minimise the liability of the management itself. Static caravan contracts are the epitome of this lengthy bureaucratic process.
CaSSOA and Security
The Caravan Storage Site Owners Association (CaSSOA) is what its name implies: a trade body serving the interests of storage site owners. Membership is voluntary and it does not serve as a regulatory body; rather it is focussed on security. The accreditation process awards between 1 and 5 points to each of 26 security features, the total score leading to the ‘award’ of one of four categories: ungraded, silver, gold or platinum. There could not be a simpler business model than the storage of holiday vehicles in rows in a field. No other services are required, so a CaSSOA award trades on the fear of theft. However, there are many other storage locations that are equally secure or better without this accolade.
The CaSSOA Contract (2020)
This is completed and signed by the vehicle owner and counter-signed by the site manager. It runs to 6 pages containing 2,500 words arranged within 9 definitions of terms, with 37 of the 45 items of data to be completed by the vehicle owner. The terms of the contract are contained within 43 clauses with 6 further subclauses, and they cover only what happens during the agreed Period of Agreement, also called the Storage Period, and not what may happen before or after that. None of this serves the interests of the customer, the vehicle owner, and the need for all that data is quite unclear. Click: The CaSSOA Contract (2020).
In our wide experience, equally secure but non-CaSSOA-accredited sites require only the vehicle owner’s name and address, the vehicle registration number, a phone number and/or email address, and a payment on arrival. Prior to arrival a storage place can secured by telephone, sometimes with a small (eg £20) refundable deposit. Compare our experience at Greenmount Storage!
First Meeting at Greenmount Storage
We are a retired couple (total age 160 years) who visited Greenmount Storage on a cold mid-December afternoon in 2023, seeking a storage location for our 9-year-old motorhome. The site owner, Brian Dixon, explained that there was a high demand for storage and he had only two empty places. We were interested and he gave us the scrap of paper measuring 4 inches by 4 inches shown below: an invoice payable in advance to secure the plot. Standing in the cold open air, he also gave us the 6-page A4 CaSSOA contract on a clipboard to read, complete, sign and return. Margaret volunteered, sheltering in our car, while Barry and the site owner waited out in the open. We were not invited into the office, where we could both have taken more time to read the document and ask questions in comfort.
The first 7 items of data were to be completed by the site owner, which did not happen at the time. Of the remaining 35 items, Margaret was in no position to complete half of them and the crucial Period of Agreement (the Storage Period), requiring a start date and end date, could not be completed. It was not known and had not been agreed, although it was accepted that it would be after the Christmas and New Year holidays, when both the site owner and we would be away. The site owner, both verbally and in handwriting on the back of the above 16 square inches of paper, stated that our contract would begin on the day that we brought the motorhome. The apparent informality of all this was reinforced when he simply signed this note “Brian” (see below), leaving us to add the plot number and his surname for reference.
|
|
Margaret (who is not the owner of the motorhome) signed the contract and we never saw the site owner sign it. We were never given or sent a copy; in fact we never saw the contract again. Given the relaxed atmosphere, the site owner said he would complete all the missing data on the contract (even though one of us had already signed it) and we agreed to pay £445 in advance to a company called Bremholdings Ltd. £400 of this was for 12 months’ storage. Next day Brian (who later emerged as the controlling director of Bremholdings) emailed to acknowledge receipt, saying how nice it had been to meet us.
Key Features of the Abuse of the Contract at this First Meeting
Change of Circumstances
Due to a change of personal circumstances in the New Year of 2024, and within 4 weeks of the first meeting, we informed the site owner by email that we were unable use the storage facility. We requested that his business account at Bremholdings Ltd return the £445 that we had paid. Displaying no interest whatsoever in the potentially serious reasons why we weren’t proceeding to store the motorhome, the site owner immediately replied on the same day, that he would retain:
Key Features of the Abuse of the Contract following the Change of Circumstances
After the Event
We continued to communicate with the site owner, presenting the arguments outlined above, all to no avail. Another of the four family directors of the site company, Bremholdings Ltd, suggested a meeting to discuss the matter, while they continued to illegally hold our money in the company’s accounts. This suggestion was rejected by us on two grounds: (a) it would mean a 28-mile round trip to the storage location from our home; and (b) they were assuming there was scope for negotiation, with them being justified in holding on to some of our money. This we would never agree to.
Key Features of the Abuse of the Contract after the Event
Conclusion (but not the End)
Whilst a relevant contract, when administered correctly, can be of benefit to both customer and business, it cannot replace trust. This was something that was sadly lacking on the site owner’s part, and sadly misjudged by us when we immediately paid the full amount for a year’s storage in advance. We relied on the written word of the site owner that “your contract will begin on the day that you bring your m/home”. Later, this was something he just ignored, or rather, he claimed that we had actually altered the 4 inch note (copied above). Completely untrue!
In response to our published one-star review, the site owner claimed that his storage site was full with a waiting list and all his customers were happy. (Presumably, none had tried to cancel an arrangement with him.) This is like a burglar justifying his theft from one house by claiming that that all the other houses in the street were unknowingly left alone. So that’s all right then. And if business is that good at Greenmount, why all this performance over returning £144 of our money? Greed? Anger? Envy? With perhaps 150 storage places at £400 each, this is an almost unearned income of £60,000 per annum. Our £144 is just 0.25% of that. There has to be an intrinsic motive for the site owner’s knee-jerk reaction.
Key Features of the Abuse of the Contract at this First Meeting
- The conditions under which it was presented for completion were quite unsatisfactory.
- It was presented on a clipboard that had to be held in one hand whilst the other was writing and ticking boxes.
- Margaret volunteered to complete the contract and asked to use the office but was given no choice but to sit in our own car.
- Margaret signed the contract as asked, although she wasn’t and is not the owner of the motorhome.
- Key information about the motorhome was not known to Margaret and so was not completed.
- The start and end dates were not known or agreed and therefore were not completed.
- Rather than a start and end date, the site owner wrote that ‘your contract will begin on the day that you bring your m/home’ (see photo above).
- Margaret could not consult the site owner or the vehicle owner, given that she was in the car and they were outside in the cold, waiting for the process to end.
- The site owner stated that he would complete the missing entries in the contract ‘later’, saying ‘just leave it with me’, although much of the missing data wasn’t known to him.
- The site owner did not sign the contract in our presence, although both signatures should be on the same date.
- The site owner did not ask to see any evidence of identity, or the V5 or insurance for the motorhome.
- The site owner took the contract off Margaret as soon as she had finished, without looking at it and without a comment.
- We gained the overall impression that the details of the contract didn’t matter – although the site owner’s own version of it did matter later on.
- We never saw the contract again despite requests and we never knew which parts had or had not been completed.
- Any data that may have subsequently been added or changed by the site owner would have been invalid, because they were not included when Margaret signed the contract.
- Later, and at an unknown date, the contract was shredded by the site owner without our prior knowledge or permission: a contract which we never saw completed.
- The site owner complained about the cost of providing a hard copy of the contract and referred us to the version that could be downloaded from Greenmount’s website (which would not of course include whatever had been written on it in our case). This version was in Word, which means its terms could be easily altered. It would have required the vehicle owner to download it, print it and complete what they could before passing it to the site owner to complete and sign. A most unwieldy process and one we have never seen in use before. A ‘legally binding’ contract in Word for Windows!
Change of Circumstances
Due to a change of personal circumstances in the New Year of 2024, and within 4 weeks of the first meeting, we informed the site owner by email that we were unable use the storage facility. We requested that his business account at Bremholdings Ltd return the £445 that we had paid. Displaying no interest whatsoever in the potentially serious reasons why we weren’t proceeding to store the motorhome, the site owner immediately replied on the same day, that he would retain:
- £33 of our money for storage during the 4 weeks since we met.
- £66 for a further 2 months’ storage in lieu of notice.
- £10 for the ‘code’.
- £35 for administrative costs.
Key Features of the Abuse of the Contract following the Change of Circumstances
- The contract was not valid, so it could not be used as a basis for any action, let alone retaining £144 of our money.
- Even if it had been valid, the contract did not relate to any events outside the defined storage period, which had not been defined and had not begun.
- There was no prior agreement of any kind to any of the 4 deductions that were arbitrarily made by the site owner.
- There had been no request for, or mention of, a non-returnable deposit of any amount, let alone £144.
- (a) It’s absurd to charge £33 for storage even before it could have begun.
- (b) Even if valid, the contract does not mention a deposit and there was no mention of ‘notice’ being required before the storage had even begun, let alone 2 months’ notice!
- (b) The site owner claimed and continues to claim that the site is so busy that he now has a waiting list. Therefore, the plot we declined to occupy has been sold twice: once forcibly by us for the “further two months’ storage”, and again by the vehicle owner who does actually occupy it.
- (c) The “£10 for a code” is a complete mystery. If this is part of the security apparatus, then it should only have applied once we actually came to use the site.
- (d) The £35 for “administration” is undefined, arbitrary and amounts to larceny.
- (d) If there had been prior agreement that we would pay for administration regardless of whether we used the storage or not (which we didn’t), the least we would expect would be a detailed invoice.
- (d) Any administrative work that might have been undertaken in anticipation of our arrival was the choice of the site owner, who only had to keep a space available for one vehicle in his field.
- If the site owner felt we owed him £144, he should have returned our money in full and claimed the debt through the small claims court. He didn’t respond to this suggestion because he has no evidence to put before a court under oath.
- When advance payment is demanded for any date-bound future service – campsites, hotels, ferries, hire cars, flights, holidays – invariably the contract defines the penalties, if any, that apply when amending or cancelling the booking prior to its start date. There was no such provision at any stage or in any form at Greenmount Storage.
After the Event
We continued to communicate with the site owner, presenting the arguments outlined above, all to no avail. Another of the four family directors of the site company, Bremholdings Ltd, suggested a meeting to discuss the matter, while they continued to illegally hold our money in the company’s accounts. This suggestion was rejected by us on two grounds: (a) it would mean a 28-mile round trip to the storage location from our home; and (b) they were assuming there was scope for negotiation, with them being justified in holding on to some of our money. This we would never agree to.
Key Features of the Abuse of the Contract after the Event
- Two months have passed since money was taken from us, by invoking terms which did not exist in a contract which did not exist and has literally been shredded.
- *CaSSOA define the ‘site owner’ in their own title and in the contract as the person who owns the site. The site on which the storage is based is actually owned by Kimberley James Wilson (see Land Registry entry below). We don’t know how Brian Dixon can claim to be the site owner when he is just looking after it for his aunt. And not very well at that.*
- We don’t know if the contract or a copy of it is usually forwarded to CaSSOA, so that they can monitor whether their procedures are being followed correctly. Our contract can’t be forwarded or even seen because it has been shredded by the site owner.
- Our partially completed contract would have been evidence of a felony if it had not been shredded by the site owner.
- It is unclear whether the terms of the contract are legally binding, in which case its abuse is a misdemeanour.
- Greenmount Storage, in common with most businesses in the unregulated leisure vehicle industry, does not have a complaints procedure. This means that any complaint rapidly deteriorates into an acrimonious and one-sided exchange of emails, dominated by the person who holds the money.
- The lack of regulation and the lack of a complaints procedure means that the behaviour of the management at Greenmount Storage has not so far been subject to independent scrutiny.
- CaSSOA should encourage both the close monitoring of contracts and the provision of a complaints procedure, in order to avoid the kind of abuse to which we have been and are still being subjected.
- Why is so much data collected in the contract, most of which is unrelated to the question of security. What happens to that data? Is it retained at the site? Is it shared with CaSSOA? Who else sees it and/or uses it?
Conclusion (but not the End)
Whilst a relevant contract, when administered correctly, can be of benefit to both customer and business, it cannot replace trust. This was something that was sadly lacking on the site owner’s part, and sadly misjudged by us when we immediately paid the full amount for a year’s storage in advance. We relied on the written word of the site owner that “your contract will begin on the day that you bring your m/home”. Later, this was something he just ignored, or rather, he claimed that we had actually altered the 4 inch note (copied above). Completely untrue!
In response to our published one-star review, the site owner claimed that his storage site was full with a waiting list and all his customers were happy. (Presumably, none had tried to cancel an arrangement with him.) This is like a burglar justifying his theft from one house by claiming that that all the other houses in the street were unknowingly left alone. So that’s all right then. And if business is that good at Greenmount, why all this performance over returning £144 of our money? Greed? Anger? Envy? With perhaps 150 storage places at £400 each, this is an almost unearned income of £60,000 per annum. Our £144 is just 0.25% of that. There has to be an intrinsic motive for the site owner’s knee-jerk reaction.
Click here for the seventeen emails exchanged between ourselves and the site owner between 14 December 2023 and 31 January 2024.
This is the only entry in the Land Registry showing the ownership of the property within which lies the business known as Greenmount Storage.
This is the only entry in the Land Registry showing the ownership of the property within which lies the business known as Greenmount Storage.