'We wish we did not buy caravan for £36K after what we know now'
A couple claim they can't sell their caravan which cost more than £36,000, and are "stuck living on a pitch that continues to flood".
Alicia Mearns and partner John Hayden splashed out £36,600 on the caravan at a holiday park they are now in dispute with and say they have now been told it is "basically not worth anything" due to a kitchen John installed. But Park Lane Holiday Homes, who operate the site in Meols, Wirral, refuted their comments. A spokesperson said: "The couple have not engaged in any communications with the company regarding selling the caravan."
Alicia, 41, and partner John, 48, were hoping to buy a property in Spain but wanted a base close to their places of work. Alicia, who owns Allure beauty salon in Birkenhead, Merseyside, and John, who runs building business JandJ Joinery, decided holiday parks seemed to be the best option for a secondary residence, provided they could find one they were allowed to live in at any time of year.
In early 2023 they met a salesman regarding a site at Park Lane Holiday Homes in Meols, and had a budget of £25,000. They claim they were told there was only one caravan available near their price range at £36,600.
Additionally, they claim they were told that, as someone else was interested in buying it, they would need to commit right away with a £500 deposit. Alicia said: "We felt rushed. But the caravan seemed to be what we wanted, so we took the plunge."
John added: "The rest of the money we had to pull together from bank loans and part-exchanging our 2013 touring caravan, pending the sale of our former property."
Alicia said: "We were not given a contract. Not then and not later. All we ever received was a piece of paper in the office to confirm the sale."
They claim site fees were £4,600 a year, which they had to pay upfront. They also said a further £300 was charged a few weeks later. Alicia said they spend most of the year on the site but claimed that problems arose on October 20, 2023, when floods occurred.
She said: "Whenever there are heavy rains, our pitch floods, which is often, due to the British weather. The water depth can be such that we find it extremely difficult to get in and out of the caravan. I am a mum with two kids and the youngest is seven."
John added: "They told us a new water pump was installed to keep water levels down in future. But the flooding is actually worse now. It has flooded badly - a total of seven times since we moved in."
The couple claim they asked if they could move the caravan to a higher pitch to avoid future floods. They claim they were told they could, for a fee of £1,400. They said they arranged for it to be done while they were in Spain trying to facilitate a move abroad.
Alicia said: "(The owner) told us outright that they would not be moving our caravan. He told us that the only way to move to a more flood-proof location was to upgrade to one in a more preferable location."
They claim they were hit with another blow when they were told by a manager on the site that their caravan was "basically not worth anything" because of a new kitchen joiner John had installed at a cost of £10,000.
Alicia said: "Apparently this had devalued the caravan... plus the fact it was 20 years old (we had no idea about its age until this point) rendered it worthless."
She continued: "We are probably biased, but we feel that the caravan looks objectively better after John's lovingly installed kitchen replacement."
John claims they were told the cheapest upgrade was around £75,000, which is more than they were willing to pay. As such, the couple said they attempted to sell the caravan privately.
However, a spokesperson from Park Lane Holiday Homes said: "The couple have not engaged in any communications with the company regarding selling the caravan and therefore their comments are wholly refuted."
Responding to this, Alicia claims she spoke to a manager about wanting to sell the caravan. She said: "Two friends expressed an interest in buying our caravan. He (the salesperson) told us that 'because of the caravan's age', the park would have to put the ground rent up from £4,600 to £10,500 for the new owners. Understandably our friends did not want to go through with the purchase after learning this."
Alicia and John claim they investigated the possibility of moving the caravan to a different site, but said that because of its age no other site would allow this.
Alicia said: "This information is something they absolutely should have disclosed to us before we paid out £36,600. We never would have paid so much money for a caravan if we had known the limitations caused by its age. Not telling us this was a serious failure on their part in our opinion.
"We are now stuck living on a pitch that continues to flood, resulting in our electricity tripping out as our washing machine and dryer are located outside. The tumble dryer is now ruined due to water damage.
"Currently we are in limbo. The park keeps sending us a new lease to sign, and we daren't sign it because it states a caravan age limit of ten years. We have paid two years' site fees for a pitch that is unliveable, not fit for purpose and a danger."
A spokesperson for Park Lane Holiday Homes said: "We can confirm that over the past two years the park has, on occasion, experienced flash floods.
"However, we would like to emphasise that such events are not unique to the park itself. They are consistent with weather patterns affecting the wider local area of the Wirral and are reflective of the environmental conditions experienced across the region, where flooding commonly occurs.
"We wish to reassure all guests that we remain fully committed to ensuring that the holiday park continues to be managed safely and responsibly. All necessary measures have been taken to protect visitors and maintain the high standards our guests expect.
"In respect of the allegations made by the couple regarding their caravan, we must highlight that firstly this is a holiday site, and not a residential site. Further the couple have not engaged in any communications with the company regarding selling the caravan and therefore their comments are wholly refuted.
"The 19-page licence agreement in place with the couple (signed on each page) is for one year, and they are at liberty to move to another holiday site if they so desire."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
13 minutes ago
- Spectator
The problem of striking a defence deal with the EU
The UK-EU summit in London in May at which a new relationship between the parties was agreed seems a long time ago now. In fact, it is barely eight weeks, but we live in a world which has supercharged Harold Wilson's mordant dictum that 'a week is a long time in politics'. They seem like aeons now. One major subject at the summit was the EU's financial instrument Security Action for Europe (Safe). This is a fund of €150 billion (£130 billion) which will provide loans for member states to undertake urgent, large-scale defence procurement projects, with the aim of addressing capability gaps and boosting the European defence industry's production capacity. However, Brussels makes clear that 'beneficiary member states will have to carry out, in principle, common procurements involving at least two participating countries to qualify for the loans'. It is now clear that the UK will need to pay a fee to participate in this scheme. The amount has not yet been fixed, but EU diplomats reason that 'since British businesses would receive EU money to create jobs and expand capacity under the scheme, London should recompense Brussels'. France is said to be pushing for a significant contribution, while others, including Germany, are keen not to set the tariff so high that the UK does not participate at all. This should come as no surprise. The prima facie terms of the Safe scheme, initially excluding the US and the UK (between them home to ten of the world's twenty biggest defence contractors), left French and German manufacturers like Thales, Rheinmetall and KNDS at the head of the queue to benefit from new spending. Thales and KNDS, as well as Naval Group and Safran, are, as it happens, part-owned by the French state. In these circumstances, the question of who benefits was not a particularly challenging one. Surely this wasn't supposed to happen? At the summit in May, Sir Keir Starmer said that the UK-EU agreement would 'open the door to working with the EU's new defence fund – providing new opportunities for our defence industry, supporting British jobs and livelihoods'. That was, I argued at the time, one of the main motivating factors behind the agreement. After all, the rules for Safe make it clear: Safe will also allow acceding countries, candidate countries, potential candidates and countries that have signed a security and defence partnership with the EU, such as the United Kingdom, to join common procurements. Alas, there was a brief cautionary note that Britain's participation would be 'subject to a separate negotiation and conditions, including a financial contribution from the UK'. The European Commission's spokesman for defence, Thomas Regnier, told the Financial Times that, under the terms of the agreement, UK-based companies could provide up to 35 per cent of the value of procurement through Safe, but going beyond that would depend on 'an agreement with the EU on the precise modalities on aspects such as budget contribution and security of supply'. This was inevitable. The EU is a fundamentally protectionist organisation which seeks to gain as much advantage as possible for the economies of its member states. That is not a criticism, merely an observation: but it has highlighted the disadvantages of pursuing defence policy through the EU, of which we are not a member, rather than Nato, a dedicated military alliance of which we have been part for more than 75 years. (It is true the overlap between the EU and Nato is not complete: although acting through the latter would include the US, Canada and Turkey, it would exclude the military superpowers of Austria, Ireland, Malta and Cyprus.) The Cabinet Office has offered bland, reality-defying reassurance: 'It is in all our interests for the UK and EU to bring together our unique capabilities and expertise to make Europe a safer, more secure, and more prosperous place'. Indeed so, but perhaps that is a message better directed towards the French government, while there still is one. There have been pious expressions of hope that 'parochial national interests' do not undermine Safe's potential to contribute to Europe's overall security. But this is the EU, the bare-knuckle fight club of national interests. It has weak defence institutions but strong ambitions to accrete more competencies to the centre. And the hard-edged realpolitik of Brussels is showing the relative emptiness of the clutch of bilateral agreements Starmer has concluded. There is a clear choice. What is Europe's overriding priority: building the continent's defence capabilities or strengthening national defence industrial bases? The rules governing Safe effectively choose the latter; that is a matter for member states. But perhaps the British government should not have so eagerly chased a mechanism that was bound to work to our disadvantage. The Strategic Defence Review set out a 'Nato First' policy – perhaps we should have focused more closely on that mantra.
Daily Mirror
14 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Transfer news LIVE: Arsenal's crunch Gyokeres talks, Ekitike set for Liverpool medical, Man Utd exits loom
Manchester United finally have their man after Bryan Mbeumo completed his move to Old Trafford on Monday in a deal worth just over £70million - and plenty more big deals are lined up across the Premier League. With Mbeumo signed, Ruben Amorim and Co will turn their attention to finding a new No 9. One player who won't be joining, though, is his ex-frontman at Sporting Lisbon, Viktor Gyokeres, who is hopeful a move to Arsenal can be completed soon. The Gunners want a new No 9 and have gone after the Swede, who is doing all he can to force his exit from the Portuguese champions. That move could take Mikel Arteta 's summer spend close to the £200m mark. Liverpool are the summer's biggest spenders and, after breaking the British-transfer record, look like they've landed even more firepower with Hugo Ekitike set to undergo a medical before joining from Eintracht Frankfurt. Elsewhere Marcus Rashford 's loan move to Barcelona is almost done, Jack Grealish still wants a way out of Manchester City and speculation over Newcastle 's Alexander Isak simply refuses to go away. 06:33KEY EVENT Ekitike set for medical Moving onto a deal which is all agreed, we're expecting Hugo Ekitike on Merseyside today. The Frenchman, 23, is set to undergo a medical ahead of sealing his £79million transfer to Liverpool. Once this ones confirmed all eyes will be on the champions to see if they spend again. 06:31KEY EVENT Gyokeres to Arsenal status Are we any closer to an end in the Viktor Gyokeres saga? Maybe. Arsenal and Sporting Lisbon remain locked in talks as they bid to nail down the final structure of a deal which would bring the Swede to north London. Arsenal are now on their pre-season tour of Asia, which they would like Gyokeres to join them on. But if that's going to happen, they need to find a resolution to the current stalemate in talks.
South Wales Guardian
an hour ago
- South Wales Guardian
Mandelson's plea to Blair for a fresh chance
According to papers released by the National Archives in Kew, west London, Mr Mandelson (as he then was) even enlisted the help of former BBC director general Lord Birt in his campaign to secure another top job. His efforts were rewarded when Mr Blair appointed him to the plum post of Britain's commissioner on the European Commission in Brussels with responsibility for trade. Mr Mandelson was forced to quit as Northern Ireland secretary in January 2001 following claims he had helped the controversial Indian businessman Srichand Hinduja secure a UK passport in return for sponsoring the Millennium Dome. Although an official inquiry cleared him of any impropriety, Mr Blair was reluctant to bring his old friend back into the fold after he had already resigned once before in a scandal over an undeclared home loan from fellow Labour minister Geoffrey Robinson. In April 2003, however, Lord Birt – who was serving as a senior policy adviser in No 10 – wrote to the prime minister urging him to think again. 'I gather from Peter that you still talk to him regularly – but, as a safeguard, you may like to know what he reports to me about his current state of mind,' he wrote. 'He feels this spring/summer may be the moment of decision for him. He's approaching 50 – and he is sorely conscious that time is passing and he has yet to fulfil his promise. 'As you know, Peter's deepest wish is to return to government. He stresses that he has already proved to be a capable minister, and that he would be a strong ally for you in cabinet. 'If you judge a return to government is not possible, then he would like you to consider appointing him as EC Commissioner. 'One way or another, he says he wants to settle his future this year, even if it means a career outside politics.' Just four months later, it was announced that he was to be the UK's next European commissioner. He was subsequently awarded a life peerage in 2008 and is currently the British Ambassador to the United States.
