Solo Campers NOT Allowed

[adinalee111]

Last week I went to meet some friends at SEARLES HOLIDAY PARK IN HUNSTANTON.
Only to be turned away for being a solo even though I was meeting friends here the next day.

I understand the campsite has the right to refuse anyone but I can't understand why they would discriminate against people who are solo.

Any other solo campers are to be warned!

 

[Seaview]

That seems unreasonable, did they explain why they discriminated against singles?

 

[Hotel California]

Maybe the are thinking £ , renting a pitch to a family of four brings in more cash...
Shame the send you away.

 

[rich-s]

I've read similar on here before. As a park operator for the last 25 years, I've never come across a valid reason to ban single campers. In my opinion, your far less likely to get problems from someone camping on their own than in a group.

 

[rich-s]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-35471684

Knew I'd seen it before. Obviously didn't change their policy at the review.

 

[rich-s]

Maybe the are thinking £ , renting a pitch to a family of four brings in more cash...
Shame the send you away.

If this is true, the way to address it is to charge a minimum pitch price that includes the number of people you desire. Unless of course your business model relies upon spending in the clubs and restaurants etc - which as I don't know the park involved is not something I can comment upon.

 

[rich-s]

Last week I went to meet some friends at SEARLES HOLIDAY PARK IN HUNSTANTON.
Only to be turned away for being a solo even though I was meeting friends here the next day.

I understand the campsite has the right to refuse anyone but I can't understand why they would discriminate against people who are solo.

Any other solo campers are to be warned!

Were you given a reason for not allowing single campers?

 

[WelshGas]

They do state in their "Terms & Conditions" that Group and Single bookings must be made at least 7 days in Advance.

6.2 If you request a group booking (by which we mean a booking for more than one unit or pitch) or a single occupancy booking, then we may contact you before deciding whether to accept the booking to help us decide whether we are able to provide the holiday experience you are looking for. For this reason all group or single occupancy bookings must be made at least 7 days in advance.

 

[rich-s]

I'm guessing most rules are born out of experiences that the park concerned would not wish to be repeated. It would be interesting to know the background for this one.

 

[GrannyJen]

Oh my goodness, surly Searles.

Why anyone would want to stay at Hunstanton is beyond me but they also turn away ever so demure, old and ancient grannies.

I got the big heave-ho last year.

As my old auntie would say ....... "sod 'em"

There's loads of better places

 

[Stoneybroke]

Where a business treats a single person differently to a couple or a family it is discrimination and could be unlawful under The Equality Act 2010. They appear to offer different terms to people according to their martial status (or a perception of it). Even if that is not their intent the rule disadvantages people travelling alone who, by virtue that they are alone, are more likely to be single than married, which amounts to indirect discrimination.
No terms or conditions can overrule the act.
Someone needs to point this out to them. Perhaps a letter to the council who licence the site?
You can be certain that if they discriminated against some of the other protected characteristics listed under the act, some campaigning group would be taking them to court.

 

[WelshGas]

Where a business treats a single person differently to a couple or a family it is discrimination and could be unlawful under The Equality Act 2010. They appear to offer different terms to people according to their martial status (or a perception of it). Even if that is not their intent the rule disadvantages people travelling alone who, by virtue that they are alone, are more likely to be single than married, which amounts to indirect discrimination.
No terms or conditions can overrule the act.
Someone needs to point this out to them. Perhaps a letter to the council who licence the site?
You can be certain that if they discriminated against some of the other protected characteristics listed under the act, some campaigning group would be taking them to court.

There you are. Something you could do on behalf of the Forum!

 

[AlisonF]

It makes it rather tempting for a load of single Cali owners to turn up looking for a pitch - on the way to an informal event nearby... would cause so much 'stress' for the owners and 'smug' amusement for the Cali owners to be able to say - "no worries, XXX down the road appreciates our custom, oh, and doesn't break the law by discriminating against our circumstances"...

 

[WelshGas]

It makes it rather tempting for a load of single Cali owners to turn up looking for a pitch - on the way to an informal event nearby... would cause so much 'stress' for the owners and 'smug' amusement for the Cali owners to be able to say - "no worries, XXX down the road appreciates our custom, oh, and doesn't break the law by discriminating against our circumstances"...

Groups and Singletons have to give 7 days notice as per T's and C's.

 

[bigmac77]

It makes it rather tempting for a load of single Cali owners to turn up looking for a pitch - on the way to an informal event nearby... would cause so much 'stress' for the owners and 'smug' amusement for the Cali owners to be able to say - "no worries, XXX down the road appreciates our custom, oh, and doesn't break the law by discriminating against our circumstances"...

Probably only get a manager quoting company policy so they would not be too bothered.

As @rich-s has said this must be due to something that has happened on their Park/parks in the past. Most places have a minimum charge per pitch based on 2 people so you pay that if you are a couple or a solo camper occupying a pitch so it's hardly like they are loosing out financially. When I did camping on our park I welcomed solo campers they paid the money but had the least impact on facilities, refuse, noise etc.

 

[WelshGas]

Someone needs to go to SpecSavers.
I just do not see how someone can DISAGREE with this posting which quotes the Campsites Terms & Conditions copied from their own website 6 posts above.

 

[Amarillo]

I just do not see how someone can DISAGREE with this posting which quotes the Campsites Terms & Conditions copied from their own website 6 posts above.

Maybe it was your somewhat dubious use of the apostrophe in "T's and C's" they were disagreeing with. Personally I feel you can just about get away with it by claiming that "T's" is a contraction of "Terms" and "C's" is a contraction of "Conditions". Only you will know if that was what you had in mind when you typed it.

Alternatively, and perhaps more likely, they just hit the wrong button.

 

[Stoneybroke]

Someone needs to go to SpecSavers.
I just do not see how someone can DISAGREE with this posting which quotes the Campsites Terms & Conditions copied from their own website 6 posts above.

View attachment 16434

Perhaps they disagree with the T&C's, which, as highlighted, are quite unreasonable and probably unlawful.
No terms and conditions can overrule or sign away statutory obligations on behalf of either party.

 

[calicasas]

I would boycott the site on principle, particularly if they had turned away fellow Cali owners. We should vote with our feet and avoid this and other sites with a similar policy...

 

[WelshGas]

Maybe it was your somewhat dubious use of the apostrophe in "T's and C's" they were disagreeing with. Personally I feel you can just about get away with it by claiming that "T's" is a contraction of "Terms" and "C's" is a contraction of "Conditions". Only you will know if that was what you had in mind when you typed it.

Alternatively, and perhaps more likely, they just hit the wrong button.

Perhaps they disagree with the T&C's, which, as highlighted, are quite unreasonable and probably unlawful.
No terms and conditions can overrule or sign away statutory obligations on behalf of either party.

In that case EXPLAIN your reasoning, and by the way the Terms do not necessarily rule out Groups and Singles but request that such bookings are made 7 days in advance in the first instance, prior to confirmation. The company obviously have their reasons and have no doubt taken Legal Advice as I'm sure they have come across this before.
If the " Disagree " is related to my use of the apostrophe then explaining the reasoning would educate both myself and others.

 

[WelshGas]

With respect to whether the Terms and Conditions are Legal.
Are there any Anti-Discrimination Laws relating to Singletons?
I'm sure I will be corrected if I am wrong but as far as I can gather there are Laws relating to Ethnicity, Sex, Sexual Orientation, Colour, Religion and Age but I cannot find anything relating to Singletons with relation to accommodation or travel. I could be wrong and I'm sure someone will be quick to correct me if I am.
This is a Family site offering holidays for Families. Not my sort of site/holiday by any means but many enjoy it. I see no reason why the owners cannot accept bookings that maintain that ethos for those that enjoy such holidays.
They are heavy handed in interpreting their Terms and Conditions but that is the way of the world/society we have created. " Computer says No " so no discussion.
No point ranting and raving about it.Just put the site on your " No " list and in the wider picture put Hoseasons on the list as well as they are the main owners.

 

[Stoneybroke]

In that case EXPLAIN your reasoning, and by the way the Terms do not necessarily rule out Groups and Singles but request that such bookings are made 7 days in advance in the first instance, prior to confirmation. The company obviously have their reasons and have no doubt taken Legal Advice as I'm sure they have come across this before.
If the " Disagree " is related to my use of the apostrophe then explaining the reasoning would educate both myself and others.

Firstly, I wasn't the disagreer, but offered a potential explanation for the poster who did.

The T&C's are reasonable for groups - different scenario, not a protected characteristic - and fairly standard.

The treatment of singles is different to a couple as advance agreement is required before singles are accepted. So, if two vehicles arrive at the same time, unbooked, one containing a couple, the other a single person, and they allow the couple to stay, but turn away the other away because they didn't abide by the 7-day rule (which only applied to the single camper). This different treatment is discrimination, in this case against the single person. Now that person may be married or in a civil partnership and traveling alone, unmarried, or perhaps widowed, it matters not because the majority of people affected will be unmarried.

Discrimination may be unlawful if it is based on a protected characteristic as defined in the Equality Act and it is not one of the circumstances which are amongst the many exceptions. Marital status is a protected characteristic BUT not for the provision of services, only for employment.

So they're off the hook then?

No, not quite, since statistics show that significantly more people between the age of 16 & 29 years old are single, so the 7-day single rule indirectly discriminates against people by age. There is a difference in the proportion of singles by gender too - so this could also be indirect discrimination. It's a minefield!

They may have had legal advice on their T&C's, but they may not have revised then post Equality Act 2010. Many T&C's are old, copied from other places, or just plain wrong.

The chances are no one will ever challenge it in the court since legal aid is so limited and the discrimination indirect, so those affected will feel aggrieved, as the OP did, and move on, perhaps starting a post on a forum for an interesting exchange of opinions.

I hope you will accept my reasoning as to why I consider the 7-day rule for singles appears unfair and may be unlawful.

 

[WelshGas]

Thank you for the explanation, very informative, but the company involved have just reviewed their Terms and Conditions so I presume they have Legal Advice contrary to your explanation and reasoning.

 

[GrannyJen]

Fascinating.

For those not willing to stand their ground, argue the toss, invoke legal ratifications or plough through the T's and C's I can recommend both the CC site at Sandringham, who were thrilled to have royalty staying when I was there (it thrilled and flattered me as well until I realised they were referring to the old girl in the big house opposite) or the Brickyard at Wells next the sea.

Quite frankly Searles can keep the place,I considered it to be a lucky escape

 

[Amarillo]

If the " Disagree " is related to my use of the apostrophe then explaining the reasoning would educate both myself and others.

Agreed - a simple link to the Apostrophe Protection Society web page would have sufficed.