Hobby Caravans on CAMC sites

CRH54 replied on 06/10/2017 07:53

CRH54

Posted on 06/10/2017 07:53

Hi, there is so much conflict on so many social media sites about where Hobby Caravans are allowed, I have been told by a warden on a CAMC site that Hobby caravans are BANNED, however he did not have the decency to say which site, quite happy to scaremonger but not actually say where he was. I am sure this will provoke a major discussion but all I need to know is do all CAMC sites accept Hobby caravans and if not which ones do not. Incidentally for those who are insular and narrow minded about Hobby Caravans this is an interesting statistic; Hobby have held the world’s top position in caravan production since 2003. 55% of their caravans are exported; for motorhomes, this figure stands at 52%. Look forward to your responses. Chris

44 replies

replied on 23/03/2019 09:28

Posted on 23/03/2019 09:08 by

Which unsubstantiated dig is that?

I tolerate a lot on this forum but being called a liar I won't. Explain yourself

Posted on 23/03/2019 09:28

Not aimed at you David. I am not opposed to the odd good humoured dig but there does seem to have been a few too many of late.

I think JVB might have been referring to 'As the site was had lots of vacancies (in spite of showing full on the website) our 3 Hobby vans accounted for about 50% of the actual caravans'.

No idea which site you were on David but if it showed full then 6 vans on site does seem surprising.

1 person likes this

replied on 23/03/2019 09:36

Posted on 23/03/2019 09:28 by

Not aimed at you David. I am not opposed to the odd good humoured dig but there does seem to have been a few too many of late.

I think JVB might have been referring to 'As the site was had lots of vacancies (in spite of showing full on the website) our 3 Hobby vans accounted for about 50% of the actual caravans'.

No idea which site you were on David but if it showed full then 6 vans on site does seem surprising.

Posted on 23/03/2019 09:36

The user and all related content has been Deleted User

replied on 23/03/2019 09:40

Posted on 23/03/2019 09:40

That makes more sense now David.

JVB66 replied on 23/03/2019 09:46

Member

JVB66

Campervanner from Hertfordshire

Posted on 23/03/2019 09:08 by

Which unsubstantiated dig is that?

I tolerate a lot on this forum but being called a liar I won't. Explain yourself

Posted on 23/03/2019 09:46

If as I posted on another thread ,you had queried the "facts?"that you had advised about the site you were staying on (which you did not)then you would have found out (as i did this week)the reasons for the anomally in the site occupancy figures, and i did noy say you were a liar ,on any post ,but as usual your post as others was inaccurate

replied on 23/03/2019 09:50

Posted on 23/03/2019 09:50

Report
Like

Content has been removed.

2 people like this

replied on 23/03/2019 09:51

Posted on 23/03/2019 09:46 by JVB66

If as I posted on another thread ,you had queried the "facts?"that you had advised about the site you were staying on (which you did not)then you would have found out (as i did this week)the reasons for the anomally in the site occupancy figures, and i did noy say you were a liar ,on any post ,but as usual your post as others was inaccurate

Posted on 23/03/2019 09:51

Don't know why you should say that David's post was inaccurate. He indicates that there were a dozen or so outfits on site.

JVB66 replied on 23/03/2019 09:57

Member

JVB66

Campervanner from Hertfordshire

Posted on 23/03/2019 09:51 by

Don't know why you should say that David's post was inaccurate. He indicates that there were a dozen or so outfits on site.

Posted on 23/03/2019 09:57

Et I think you need to read ADs past posts to get the facts about the reason for ADs comments about the figiures it is not how many were on site that is wrong it was the inaccurate reason