I've been forced to sell my beloved caravan at a holiday park after Haven Holidays increased our rent by £5,000 - we only used it for ten weekends and I'm now £36,000 out of pocket
Christopher Jeff and his wife, Ida, thought snapping up a caravan using a chunk of their pension would provide a lifetime of happy memories.
But the couple were faced with a tough ultimatum; sell at a loss or continue drowning in mounting annual fees.
The first year's ground rent was £3,127 - which they didn't realise was only a partial payment - and it has since increased to £8,161 which is more than half the cost of the entire caravan.
It's left the retired couple at least £36,000 out of pocket.
'Being unable to pay the ground rent this year, we are in the position of needing to sell the caravan,' Christopher, from Bedworth, told Luxury Travel Daily.
'It's just too expensive to own one of these units. We have only holidayed in it for ten long weekends.'
The former lorry driver first visited Haven Holidays' beachfront park, Doniford Bay, 13 years ago.
They then returned with their grandson and out of curiosity, Christopher asked how much it'd be to own a caravan at the site before spending £14,859 on the secondhand holiday home.
The grandad said: 'We knew we couldn't afford a brand new caravan, but we found what we thought was a nice one that was a bit older.
'I had to cash in a good chunk of my pension to pay for the caravan. I thought it would be worth it for some family holidays away from the rat race.
'We were told that we would be able to resell it back to the park, or we could resell it privately but pay the park 15 per cent.
'We had no intentions of reselling at that point, we wanted the holidays. What we didn't realise was how much all the other costs were going to be.'
The couple forked out on a new microwave, fridge freezer and bedding, totalling £5,000.
They claim to have been 'encouraged' to also pay out for new decking, costing £4,500, as well as a storage box, £300, and a bench for £120.
A MailOnline graphic detailing the hidden costs of owning a static home (pictured)
To cover the mounting annual costs, the Haven salesperson allegedly told the couple that they could rent out the holiday home privately.
But to do so, they'd need to have someone staying in it every single week of the season for £450, including passes.
He said: 'If we were using it some weeks ourselves, we would have to charge even more than that.
'Haven were undercutting us by renting their own caravans cheaper all season long - sometimes £150 for a week in the off-season.
'We managed to rent out for a few weeks [last year] - five in total - but my wife, Ida, is still working in sales and all of her commission was used up covering the shortfall in rent.
'Also the park is closed for three months.
'That's a quarter of the year we can't even advertise it for rent.'
Christopher and Ida have tried to sell the caravan back to Haven, though they claim to have been told they have 'too much stock already and couldn't make an offer' unless they upgraded to a more expensive unit.
The best offer they've had so far privately is £3,000 and with the added 15 per cent commission to pay the park on any private sales, they're looking at a gut-wrenching £12,450 loss.
He added: 'Even that offer fell through due to the costs involved.
'Nobody wants to buy a caravan and take on the commitment of paying over £8,000 for nine months of caravan access.
'Especially when you can't rent it out and break even because it's cheaper for guests to go directly through Haven.'
European Consumer Claims has been called in to help get the couple's money back.
Greg Wilson, CEO, said: 'When we first started looking into holiday park consumer abuse, we were aware that there were issues.
'However, the sheer scale of wrongdoing was shocking, even to us.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
25 minutes ago
- The Independent
Belfast leisure centre workers to take 24-hour strike action
Belfast leisure workers are set to stage a 24-hour strike over pay. In a joint statement, the trade unions Unite and Nipsa said Belfast leisure workers are the lowest paid in Northern Ireland. They said they are seeking a £1 an hour increase to the current pay offer, but they said talks ended with management company Greenwich Leisure Limited (GLL) without an improved pay offer. Unite and Nipsa said a 24-hour strike will be carried out by leisure staff at the 14 leisure centres and two gyms operated by GLL in Belfast. The strike is to commence at 00.01 on August 12 and continue until midnight. It is expected to 'shut down entirely' the operation of several leisure centres, with more than 200 leisure workers currently members of two trade unions. Unite general secretary Sharon Graham said it is 'deeply unfair that Belfast leisure workers are the lowest paid leisure workers in Northern Ireland'. 'Workers who perform the same tasks and have the same responsibilities are paid significantly less than they would be in neighbouring councils,' she said. 'Belfast City Council's decision to outsource services to GLL has proven disastrous not just for workers who are underpaid and overstretched but for the public who have endured hikes on charges.' Nipsa spokesperson Janette Murdock added: 'Leisure workers in the biggest council in Northern Ireland are the lowest paid in Northern Ireland. 'That has to end. Our members are seeking a one pound an hour increase to the current pay offer as a start on closing the gap. 'Our members will carry out a militant campaign of industrial action, until we get justice. 'Belfast City councillors cannot wash their hands of responsibility for the pay gap facing leisure workers at council-owned leisure centres.' A Belfast City Council spokesperson said: 'GLL manage and run leisure centres across the city on behalf of Council. GLL is a social enterprise that reinvests all profits back into the centres and all operational matters, including those relating to pay, are under its remit. 'Council is committed to working with GLL and its employees on the continued provision of leisure services in the city.'
The Independent
25 minutes ago
- The Independent
Fact check: Bank has held rates four out of nine times since Labour took power
The Labour Party has claimed that since it was elected to Government, the Bank of England has cut interest rates 'five times in a row'. The party said: 'Interest rates have now been cut five times in a row since Labour came into power.' The message was also shared in a social media graphic which read: 'Interest rates have been cut five times in a row with Labour.' Evaluation The Bank of England has cut rates five times since Labour got into power. But these cuts were not at consecutive meetings of the Bank's rate setters. At four meetings – every other meeting since July 2024 – the Bank has actually decided to hold rates unchanged. The facts Interest rates in the UK are not set by the Government, but by an independent nine-person committee run by the Bank of England. This group is called the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) and it meets eight times a year. Since Labour got into power in early July 2024, the MPC has made nine separate decisions on rates. The committee has cut rates on every other occasion it has met since the election – starting on August 1 2024 – with the most recent cut being confirmed on August 7 2025. That has produced five cuts in total. But at the other four meetings the MPC decided to hold rates unchanged. By saying 'in a row' it is possible that Labour means that there have not been any interest rate hikes in between the cuts. However, this ignores all the times that the MPC has actively voted to leave rates unchanged. At the time of publication Labour had not responded to an email asking it to clarify how the five cuts are considered to be 'in a row'. Links
Auto Express
25 minutes ago
- Auto Express
Why not getting car finance compensation could be a blessing in disguise
Time has passed since the Supreme Court's ruling. The dust has settled, and I, for one, have abandoned my plans for a new games console and a weekend getaway, because my hopes for car finance compensation now lie mostly in tatters. In that time, however, I – as well as many other voices across the industry – have concluded that while not being in line for a payout in the ongoing car finance scandal saga might be disappointing, the reduction in scope has ultimately been a good thing for all of us, consumers and businesses alike. Now this might sound counterintuitive – why would consumers not getting the cash they feel they're owed be the preferred outcome? But the truth is that the long-term repercussions of mass payouts may greatly outweigh the benefit motorists would get from a bit of extra cash in the post. Advertisement - Article continues below One of the biggest concerns for the car finance industry prior to the Supreme Court's ruling was that redress on the scale that was expected – analysts warned of anything between £40-45 billion in payouts to almost anyone who has taken out motor finance in the two decades – could be nothing short of armageddon for the motor finance industry. Skip advert Advertisement - Article continues below 'Why's that a bad thing?' I hear you ask. 'Don't those greedy lenders deserve what's coming to them?' Maybe. Maybe not. But regardless, the general consensus was that such a sizeable financial hit to the industry would consequently push up the cost of lending, thus increasing the price of car finance in the future, and potentially make it harder to secure a loan altogether. Thinking of buying a car? Our Find a Car service has over 45,000 used cars in stock , with everything from superminis to supercars - all at a great price. Check it our now. Given that nine out of 10 cars in the UK are bought on finance, disaster for the finance sector would inevitably have a very substantial negative impact on the UK car market as a whole, if the cost of financing increased. Any drop in new-car registrations would in turn diminish manufacturer profits, potentially forcing them to raise prices – not ideal when we're already struggling to encourage buyers into more eco-friendly electric cars, which are only now beginning to get less expensive. Advertisement - Article continues below Financial ruin and the crippling of the automotive industry aside, there's also the moral issue of assuming all motorists were completely naive and oblivious to commission payments being made to dealers. We motorists are (generally) more intelligent than we give ourselves credit for and would be doing ourselves a misservice if we didn't at least secretly acknowledge that deep down we know that dealers do, of course, need to make a living and don't entirely exist in our servitude. Now, I must emphasise that we at Auto Express are very keen to see those who were wronged being appropriately redressed; excessive levels of commission, such as in one of the cases featured in the Supreme Court case, in which it accounted for 55 per cent of the cost of the consumer's finance deal, are frankly obscene and should be called out. Skip advert Advertisement - Article continues below Discretionary Commission Arrangements are also unfair and we're glad the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has announced a consultation on a potential redress scheme. However, the Finance and Leasing Association has since argued that such a scheme goes too far, questioning whether something covering finance agreements going back as far as 2007 can be fair, given that firms weren't obliged to hold all of the appropriate data. This feels like nothing more than a blatant attempt to narrow the scope of payouts even further; DCAs only account for roughly 40 per cent of finance deals between 2007 and 2021 anyway, with the total industry bill having more than halved since the Court's ruling to a maximum of £18 billion. Thus, we feel the FCA should continue with its plans, ignoring interference from the industry and Government to ensure those affected get what they deserve. So, in short: the Supreme Court's ruling may well be a blessing in disguise, with consumers possibly missing out on compensation for something they never would have known to even feel aggrieved about, had it not come to light as part of the DCA fallout, at the same time as protecting the system most consumers rely on to fund their next car purchase. So while some will still be eligible for compensation, I for one will have no choice but to launch a GoFundMe campaign, ensuring that Nintendo Switch 2 will be mine in no time… Find a car with the experts BYD gives up on EV grant, and offers five years of maintenance instead BYD gives up on EV grant, and offers five years of maintenance instead With a Government grant looking unlikely, BYD has announced a new warranty and maintenance scheme to tempt buyers Car Deal of the Day: MGS5 EV for under £200 a month is a true bargain Car Deal of the Day: MGS5 EV for under £200 a month is a true bargain The ZS EV's replacement is an excellent small electric SUV, and our Deal of the Day for August 4 Fiat and Abarth electric cars plummet in price as brand reintroduces 'E-Grant' Fiat and Abarth electric cars plummet in price as brand reintroduces 'E-Grant' Fiat offers sizable discounts as it awaits confirmation that its EVs are eligible for the new Government grant
