The Thirty-One Salient Points of Our Greenmount Caravan and Motorhome Storage Complaint
Address: Greenmount Storage, Preston New Road, Freckleton, Preston PR4 1TU Lancashire
Manager/Owner/Director: Brian Dixon
Date of our First and Only Meeting: 14 December 2023
Date of £400 Advance Payment for 12 months' Storage: 15 December 2023
Date of Termination of Intention to Bring a Motorhome: 14 January 2024
Date of Refusal to Return £144 (36%) of Advance Storage Payment: 14 Janaury 2024
Manager/Owner/Director: Brian Dixon
Date of our First and Only Meeting: 14 December 2023
Date of £400 Advance Payment for 12 months' Storage: 15 December 2023
Date of Termination of Intention to Bring a Motorhome: 14 January 2024
Date of Refusal to Return £144 (36%) of Advance Storage Payment: 14 Janaury 2024
Undated, but given to us during our first and only meeting on 14 December 2023, this scrap of paper is all we had as an invoice. We paid £445 into the business account of Bremholdings Ltd the following day.
Ultimately, the £35 deposit was repaid to us but £144 was retained in the accounts of Bremholdings Ltd through a series of illicit pretexts oulined in these documents.
Ultimately, the £35 deposit was repaid to us but £144 was retained in the accounts of Bremholdings Ltd through a series of illicit pretexts oulined in these documents.
Supporting his spoken words, this is the formal written promise made to us by site owner Brian Dixon at our first and only meeting on 14 December 2023. "Your contract will begin on the day that you bring your m/home."
We never brought the motorhome and so the contract never began.
And yet, in an email dated 17 January2024, he wrote: "You visited and signed the contract on 15th December 2023 which is agreed. This is the date the contract began."
The meeting was the on 14 December 2023.
We never brought the motorhome and so the contract never began.
And yet, in an email dated 17 January2024, he wrote: "You visited and signed the contract on 15th December 2023 which is agreed. This is the date the contract began."
The meeting was the on 14 December 2023.
The Thirty-One Salient Points of our Complaint as at 12 February 2024
(The Number grows with Time!)
1. The storage business has no complaints procedure, forcing us initially into lengthy and futile argument.
2. The simple matter of parking a vehicle in a field for an agreed period of time has been turned into the most complex mixture of bureaucracy, management games and pseudo-legalistic contract terms, mingled with false pretexts for retaining our money.
3. Our ages as pensioners (totalling 160 years) have not been taken into account in this potentially stressful process, nor was any empathy or interest shown in our personal circumstances which were the reason for the cancellation.
4. An assertation has been made in writing by the director that our first and only meeting with him was on 15 December, when it was actually 14 December 2023. This is an indication of his memory or record of basic facts.
5. The director has also asserted that this was the date on which the contract started, which is absolutely untrue.
6. A handwritten note given to us by the director on the date of the first meeting quite clearly stated that the contract would begin on the day we brought the motorhome to the storage location. We never took the motorhome to the storage location.
7. The director now claims that this is “a note which has been amended without my consent”. We have the actual note and have sent him a scan. The only addition to it is that Margaret later added the allocated plot number and the director’s surname (unknown to us at the time) next to his first name, for our own record. She didn’t know that this required his permission. Is there another director with the name ’Brian’ but with a different surname? In any case Margaret’s action should not have been necessary. The director should have identified himself fully in such an important matter, if he was taking the contract process seriously.
8. The 7-page document which formed the contract was given to us on a clipboard to be completed in the open air on a cold December afternoon. Margaret had to work in her car with the clipboard on her knee, rather than going into an office.
9.Margaret could not complete all the 47 items required as some data could not be known, such as the period of the contract (its start and end dates).
1 0. Margaret was not in a position to read and raise queries concerning the 43 numbered paragraphs (2,000 pseudo legalistic words) in the contract itself, whilst the manager and Barry stood outside the car, waiting in the cold.
11. Accepting that the contract was only partially completed, the director said he would complete it later.
12. The director did not notice that the contract was signed by a person who is NOT the owner of the motorhome which is an important contractual requirement.
13. We were never given a copy of the contract as it was completed and signed by the director, at the time or later.
14. It was weeks later before we were informed that the digital version of the contract was available on the storage site’s website, but this option was not offered at the time.
15. This online digital version of the contract was in Microsoft WORD, which is astonishing and quite unprecedented, since it could easily be modified and sections added or removed.
16. It would be impossible to write within the digital version of the contract without changing the formatting.
17. The digital form of the contract could not be signed online.
18. In practice, the digital form of the contract would have to be downloaded by the customer, printed and completed by hand including a dated signature. There was only one date for both signatures.
19. There were no instructions for any of this, including how the completed printed version is returned to the storage location and signed by the director at a later date.
20. Overall the director took a very cavalier attitude to the contract and its completion, given that it is supposed to be a legally binding document. It is one he himself refers to, albeit without great accuracy and later arbitrarily destroys without notice.
21. We were invoiced for the full amount of 12 months’ storage etc (£445) at the first (and only) meeting, to be paid immediately.
22. The director stated that our car could replace the motorhome when the latter was taken out for use, despite the contract expressly forbidding this in paragraph 16.
23. There was no basis, legal or otherwise, to take £35 from us without our prior knowledge, agreement or invoice for something called ‘administrative costs’ which, if any, would have been of the director’s own making and in his own interest.
24. There was no basis, legal or otherwise, to retain £10 from us without our prior knowledge or agreement for something called a ‘Code’, of which we had no use at any time.
25. There was no basis, legal or otherwise, to take £66 from us without our prior knowledge or agreement for 2 months’ storage in lieu of notice. The director claimed that the contract required that 2 months’ notice had to be given before removing a motorhome. This could not apply to us in any way, since (a) this actually isn’t in the contract (b) it would apply only within the period of the contract, which had not begun, (c) the motorhome was never on the site and therefore could not be removed from it and (d) the terms of the contract did not apply to us (see 6 above).
26. There was no basis, legal or otherwise, to take £33 from us without our prior knowledge or agreement for storage in the period 15-12-23 to 15-1-24. It was agreed that the contract would not apply to us in the period between the first meeting and unspecified date when we would bring the motorhome we initially proposed to bring the motorhome. How could it?
27. The director assured us that our data was secure but item 43 in the contract states: “We process your personal data to provide storage for your vehicle at our site, handle enquiries and complaints, offer services, and to meet legal or regulatory obligations. We may disclose your personal data to third parties” “We may transfer your personal data outside the European Economic Area (“EEA”) “You have various rights, including to see a copy of the personal information held about you” “Your data will be retained for 7 years unless the data must be retained for a longer period due to business, legal or regulatory requirements” All this is very reassuring!
28. The director wrote that it would be easy to fill the parking place that we might have used, so he was, in effect, charging twice and more for the same plot. Is it possible to have an occupancy rate of more than 100%?
29. In seeking to take the complaint to a second stage, the director has actually accused us of blackmail! The second stage of a complaints procedure is not a chat on the phone.
30. It was a shock to us that vital evidence had been destroyed in the contract shredded by the director.
31. The director appeared to propose on 22 January that we phone him, because “matters with regard to the storage space intended for you have developed onwards” (whatever that means). This takes the ridiculous to a new high. Does an embezzler return money he has falsely withheld from you only because he has got some more money from elsewhere? But also see paragraph 28.
32. Another director (Rachel Dixon) then suggested we come to a meeting (a return journey for us of over 30 miles) to discuss the situation. There is nothing to discuss, just an overdue refund to be made.
(The Number grows with Time!)
1. The storage business has no complaints procedure, forcing us initially into lengthy and futile argument.
2. The simple matter of parking a vehicle in a field for an agreed period of time has been turned into the most complex mixture of bureaucracy, management games and pseudo-legalistic contract terms, mingled with false pretexts for retaining our money.
3. Our ages as pensioners (totalling 160 years) have not been taken into account in this potentially stressful process, nor was any empathy or interest shown in our personal circumstances which were the reason for the cancellation.
4. An assertation has been made in writing by the director that our first and only meeting with him was on 15 December, when it was actually 14 December 2023. This is an indication of his memory or record of basic facts.
5. The director has also asserted that this was the date on which the contract started, which is absolutely untrue.
6. A handwritten note given to us by the director on the date of the first meeting quite clearly stated that the contract would begin on the day we brought the motorhome to the storage location. We never took the motorhome to the storage location.
7. The director now claims that this is “a note which has been amended without my consent”. We have the actual note and have sent him a scan. The only addition to it is that Margaret later added the allocated plot number and the director’s surname (unknown to us at the time) next to his first name, for our own record. She didn’t know that this required his permission. Is there another director with the name ’Brian’ but with a different surname? In any case Margaret’s action should not have been necessary. The director should have identified himself fully in such an important matter, if he was taking the contract process seriously.
8. The 7-page document which formed the contract was given to us on a clipboard to be completed in the open air on a cold December afternoon. Margaret had to work in her car with the clipboard on her knee, rather than going into an office.
9.Margaret could not complete all the 47 items required as some data could not be known, such as the period of the contract (its start and end dates).
1 0. Margaret was not in a position to read and raise queries concerning the 43 numbered paragraphs (2,000 pseudo legalistic words) in the contract itself, whilst the manager and Barry stood outside the car, waiting in the cold.
11. Accepting that the contract was only partially completed, the director said he would complete it later.
12. The director did not notice that the contract was signed by a person who is NOT the owner of the motorhome which is an important contractual requirement.
13. We were never given a copy of the contract as it was completed and signed by the director, at the time or later.
14. It was weeks later before we were informed that the digital version of the contract was available on the storage site’s website, but this option was not offered at the time.
15. This online digital version of the contract was in Microsoft WORD, which is astonishing and quite unprecedented, since it could easily be modified and sections added or removed.
16. It would be impossible to write within the digital version of the contract without changing the formatting.
17. The digital form of the contract could not be signed online.
18. In practice, the digital form of the contract would have to be downloaded by the customer, printed and completed by hand including a dated signature. There was only one date for both signatures.
19. There were no instructions for any of this, including how the completed printed version is returned to the storage location and signed by the director at a later date.
20. Overall the director took a very cavalier attitude to the contract and its completion, given that it is supposed to be a legally binding document. It is one he himself refers to, albeit without great accuracy and later arbitrarily destroys without notice.
21. We were invoiced for the full amount of 12 months’ storage etc (£445) at the first (and only) meeting, to be paid immediately.
22. The director stated that our car could replace the motorhome when the latter was taken out for use, despite the contract expressly forbidding this in paragraph 16.
23. There was no basis, legal or otherwise, to take £35 from us without our prior knowledge, agreement or invoice for something called ‘administrative costs’ which, if any, would have been of the director’s own making and in his own interest.
24. There was no basis, legal or otherwise, to retain £10 from us without our prior knowledge or agreement for something called a ‘Code’, of which we had no use at any time.
25. There was no basis, legal or otherwise, to take £66 from us without our prior knowledge or agreement for 2 months’ storage in lieu of notice. The director claimed that the contract required that 2 months’ notice had to be given before removing a motorhome. This could not apply to us in any way, since (a) this actually isn’t in the contract (b) it would apply only within the period of the contract, which had not begun, (c) the motorhome was never on the site and therefore could not be removed from it and (d) the terms of the contract did not apply to us (see 6 above).
26. There was no basis, legal or otherwise, to take £33 from us without our prior knowledge or agreement for storage in the period 15-12-23 to 15-1-24. It was agreed that the contract would not apply to us in the period between the first meeting and unspecified date when we would bring the motorhome we initially proposed to bring the motorhome. How could it?
27. The director assured us that our data was secure but item 43 in the contract states: “We process your personal data to provide storage for your vehicle at our site, handle enquiries and complaints, offer services, and to meet legal or regulatory obligations. We may disclose your personal data to third parties” “We may transfer your personal data outside the European Economic Area (“EEA”) “You have various rights, including to see a copy of the personal information held about you” “Your data will be retained for 7 years unless the data must be retained for a longer period due to business, legal or regulatory requirements” All this is very reassuring!
28. The director wrote that it would be easy to fill the parking place that we might have used, so he was, in effect, charging twice and more for the same plot. Is it possible to have an occupancy rate of more than 100%?
29. In seeking to take the complaint to a second stage, the director has actually accused us of blackmail! The second stage of a complaints procedure is not a chat on the phone.
30. It was a shock to us that vital evidence had been destroyed in the contract shredded by the director.
31. The director appeared to propose on 22 January that we phone him, because “matters with regard to the storage space intended for you have developed onwards” (whatever that means). This takes the ridiculous to a new high. Does an embezzler return money he has falsely withheld from you only because he has got some more money from elsewhere? But also see paragraph 28.
32. Another director (Rachel Dixon) then suggested we come to a meeting (a return journey for us of over 30 miles) to discuss the situation. There is nothing to discuss, just an overdue refund to be made.