Best Friend Resort .. Yarram Victoria

Submitted: Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 04:46
ThreadID: 52843 Views:6604 Replies:10 FollowUps:20
This Thread has been Archived
HI Folks,

Two years ago I spent a great Christmas at Best Friend Resort which is in the Tara Valley near Yarram in Victoria
http://www.bestfriend.net.au

This is not cheap camping and at $50-00 per night one has expectations of reasonable facilities. We (the wife and I) arrived on Saturday and paid for Ten days IE: $500-00 on arrival, as we had been before we did not ask to see the site first (BIG MISTAKE) .
The site we were allocated was bare earth under deep shade. The site was one where an existing on site van had neen removed and had no grass on the camping area at all.

To cut a very long story short there were many well grassed sites vacant so we after two nights trying to cope with a sea of mud asked to move to a grassed site, this was refused by the managment, so here we are now back at home $500 lighter and no holiday.

The moral of the story.. ALWAYS check the site BEFORE paying your money

Have a happy Christmas everyone

John and Jean (VK3ARK and VK3FJYL)

Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: Member - Bucky (VIC) - Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 05:09

Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 05:09
This is one of the main reasons we camp up in the Bush, or the desert.
There are no expectations, and all conveniences have to be made or set up by us..
And no mongrels to try to "rip you off" !

The single most important things we expect is safety, and courteousy, and that is entirely in our hands anyway.

Cheers
Bucky



AnswerID: 278340

Follow Up By: Atropos - Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 11:29

Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 11:29
Hi and Happy Christmas.

Well there was a safety issue involved in that we were worried about slipping base over apex in the mud :-).

I know the customer is not always right but in this case I felt I had a reasonable ground for complaint, after all all I was asking for was a bit of grass to camp on, not the hardest thing in the world to provide.
0
FollowupID: 542398

Reply By: Member - Dunworkin (WA) - Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 05:43

Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 05:43
Sorry to hear of your spoilt holiday, has the place changed hands since you were there last? $500 for ten days sounds awfully high...thanks for the heads up on that one, will put it on the list of places NOT to go.

Cheers

D


Simba, our much missed baby.

Lifetime Member
My Profile  Send Message

AnswerID: 278342

Follow Up By: Atropos - Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 11:18

Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 11:18
Hi and Happy Christmas.

Yes $50 per night for a powered site is expensive, if you had asked me last week I would have said yes its worth it, the last time we had a wonderful holiday..We (The wife and I) are at a loss, to know what we did wrong, and the only thing we can come up with is that we should have refused the site on arrival instead of attempting to cope.
But what is very upsetting is the take it or leave it attitude of the Manager , in what is supposed to be a very special resort, we did not expect to end up on a mud patch with a couple of very tatty onsite vans as our outlook... its a warning to others look first before parting with you cash..It takes us a long time to save up $500-00 .....
0
FollowupID: 542396

Reply By:- Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 09:31

Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 09:31
G'Day John and Jean,

The website doesn't indicate they are members of any organisation. If they are, even the local tourist authority, I would make a call / write a letter to them sharing your experience.

Even a letter to the local paper may be worth the effort, not for the money lost, but some piece of mind knowing you did not let it go unnoticed.

You could even put in a report to the Badger website on caravan parks

Rolande
AnswerID: 278357

Follow Up By: Atropos - Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 11:25

Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 11:25
Hi and a Happy Christmas.

Yes I've written a report for Badger..I've also written an -e-mail to the managment detailing my thoughts , perhaps they might relent and give me a refund.. even 50% would be ok after all we were only there two nights and paid $200 deposit when booking some time ago and another $300 in cash on arrival, one would have thought that after I went and explained that I had a problem with the allocated site they would have tried their best to help me, however this did not happen and I found the Owner/ Ralph to be most unconcearned at my problems he told me I was "Strange" to be complaining... Frankly I'm at a loss to understand this...
0
FollowupID: 542397

Reply By: disco1942 - Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 11:32

Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 11:32
If you wish to go back to the Tarra Valley, try this one. It is part of the OzPark chain

TARRA VALLEY
Tarra Valley Caravan Park "Fernholme"
Tarra Valley Rd. Tarra Valley 3971 Via Yarram

Ph & Fax: (03) 5186-1283

Email: email@tarra-valley.com

FACILITIES:
River Frontage - Tea Rooms - Free BBQ - Entrance to Tarra Bulga National Park

If you have any problems in an OzPark join the Caravaners forum and post a few groups there - the OzParks manager is a regular contributor on that forum.

PeterD

TARIFFS: Price Range

Ensuite Cabins $75 - $100

Standard Cabins $65 - $75

On-Site Vans $45 - $55

Powered Sites $22 - $27

Un-powered Sites $18 - $22


Pet Friendly

More Info: www.tarra-valley.com
PeterD
Retired radio and electronics technician

Lifetime Member
My Profile  Send Message

AnswerID: 278367

Follow Up By: Atropos - Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 11:43

Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 11:43
Hi

Thanks for the info, that site is about a couple of Kms from Best Friend Resort up the road that runs up to the national park, its a nice part of the world...I'm sitting here in rather a shocked state I just would not have believed it.. really .....after the prevous trip which was so good..

yes the normal run for a powered site is around the $25-00 mark these days so you can understand why I have high expectations when asked to pay $50 per night.....


Happy Christmas
0
FollowupID: 542399

Reply By: Best Friend Holidays - Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 17:44

Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 17:44
John & Jean's alleged non-grassed site !

Hi Happy Campers !

Well. it takes all sorts as they say.

It is most unpleasant to say the least to have to deal with this sort of mischief on a Christmas Day. But I cannot allow John and Jean to get away with such maliciousness.

The TRUTH .....
They paid $ 500 for 12 days, a rate of $ 41.67 per day and NOT $ 50 as they incorrectly claim. They also fail to mention that this rates includes a FREE full traditional Christmas lunch with all the trimmings and a FREE gourmet New Years Eve spread (including a mountain of fresh Australian king prawns). This rate only applies between 23rd December and 12th January. The rest of the year the sites are $ 30 per day.

They claim the site was "bare earth" and "no grass on area at all". Totally UNTRUE. The site was a double site (ie would be two sites in any other caravan park) One half of the site is bare as is in total shade (which most people prefer in summer) but it does have a brick-paved area and the other half is totally grassed. Attached are photos of the site which clearly shows the site and views therefrom.

They claim that there were "many sites grassed and vacant" but failed to mention that these were all totally booked from Boxing Day onwards. We offered that they moved for a couple of nights if they wished.

They claim that they were in a "sea of mud" TOTALLY UNTRUE. I weigh 125 kg and when I walked on their site after they left I didn't even leave foot prints. There was NO mud whatsover. This FACT can be verified by the other 26 campers staying here at the moment.

They claim that they had "tatty on-site vans to look at" UNTRUE
They were next to a tatty on-site van (singular) but their outlook was over the grassed area of their site, then more neat lawns and then the forest as a backdrop.

They state that we "might relent to give a refund". NO refund was requested by John and Jean. So "relenting" does not come into it. However, we are fully booked and in accordance with our most fair refund policy if their site is re-booked they will get a full refund for those re-booked days.

We can accept criticism but we will not accept outright lies in an apparent attempt to slur our reputataion and character. We will be looking very seriously at suing John and Jean for libel, as libel is exactly what we believe it is and such libel has the ability to cost us a loss of many thousands of dollars.

There is NO SUBSTANCE to John and Jean's lies and we have the FULL support of the other 26 HAPPY CAMPERS that are here with us.

To all members of this forum we invite you to inspect our facilities and sites at any time. We have facilities second-to-none and are recognised as the world leader in dog-friendly caravan and camping, Our reputation for our hospitality is extremely high and of which we are justly proud.

Photos of our facilities are on our website www.bestfriend.net.au

Wishing you all the very best of festive seasons and for a bright, and prosperous New Year,

With kind regards,
Ralph Cooper
(Owner operator / Manager )







AnswerID: 278381

Follow Up By: Atropos - Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 18:01

Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 18:01
I'm sorry Ralph but We have to differ...

The Site was Muddy, our annex has had to be disgarded due to mud stains, it was not new but was usable.

We are aware of what is offered at Best Friend over Christmas and New year, we had a very happy Hoilday there two years ago,.. this year was a totally different experance for us...


Anyway Ralph has e-mailed me that he will sue me fro libel if I continue to describe the way I experanced his site ....

Why would I lie Ralph, what have I got to gain?? I missed out on my holiday something I can ill afford to do, ....


0
FollowupID: 542410

Follow Up By: Atropos - Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 18:41

Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 18:41
Ok I just refuse to be called a liar, if you want to sue me Ralph go ahead! I dont have any money so it wont do you a bit of good.

If we look at the two pictures of the site that Ralph has linked to his message its quite plain that the bulk of the site which has been "nicely" photographed is alongside the static caravan , and if we could see that site looking straight into it we would see that the bulk of the camping area is as I stated bare earth (which Ralph was well aware that I did not like as I had e-mailed him prior to our first trip to enquire about grassed sites) , the area of grass on the corner is not large enough for me to place my camper trailer and annex on it , not only that its not possible to erect it in that location due to overhanging trees.

The two tatty static caravans I refer to are on the right hand side of the site looking in to it and to the rear and slightly to the left of the rear of the site.

Directly oppsite the site is a pile of rubble and the remains of a fire, standing on the roadway with the site on the right the view is of the large heap of firewood for campers to purchase

I agree with Ralph that the VAST part of this park is very nice, but the little bit allocated to me as "the best site in the park" was certainly not what I expected----

I wonder if I should link a picture to my mud splattered annex which is now in my wheelie bin??



0
FollowupID: 542416

Follow Up By: Atropos - Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 19:07

Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 19:07
Some maths folks


Sat December 22 --- Wednesday 2nd Jan is TEN Nights $500.00 paid for this period =$50 per night...

The Published tarrif at Best Friend resort is $45-00 per night
0
FollowupID: 542418

Follow Up By: Atropos - Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 19:41

Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 19:41
Why should I want to defame and libel you Ralph?

We had a wonderfull time on our previous trip . and published that fact, have a search in the archives of this website, we recomended that our friends join us on Boxing day at best friend, and subsquently they made a booking with you, we arrived as friends I believe , we made some substantial purchases from your on-site dog shop ....

Why dont you ask yourself why we felt compelled to pack up and abort our holiday, its cost us plenty, we did not ask for a refund when we left, we are well aware of the terms and conditions.
and I'll give you a little clue, it was not a couple of rainy days

We wrote an e-mail to you trying to expain what the problem was and wished you the best for the Chistmas season..

We are both is a state of shock Ralph , and your response is to threaten to sue??
0
FollowupID: 542420

Follow Up By: Atropos - Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 08:51

Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 08:51
I admit I have made an error in the costings , Ralph is correct .

The cost is as he states and not $50-00 as I mistakenely wrote
0
FollowupID: 542445

Follow Up By: crwinn - Thursday, Jan 10, 2008 at 08:38

Thursday, Jan 10, 2008 at 08:38
Ralph,
Was the site re let and if so has a refund been given?

Ros
0
FollowupID: 545034

Reply By: fozzy - Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 18:08

Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 18:08
Atropos
i really really really find it hard to believe your side of the story.
i have no affiliation with Best friend however have been there twice and found the owners unbelievably friendly and helpul.

the place has to be seen to be believed-absolutely fantastic premises with every thing you could think of provided to cater for holidaying with dogs.

anyone reading my comments-disregard this one complaint and go and stay there for yourselves-you will not regret it.

fenced off leash areas are available,fenced caravan or camping sites-at least twice the size of normal caravan parks(im not big on caravan parks as im used to bush camping-however would stay at this place anytime. full camp kitchen facilities and on certain weekends full cooked breakfast provided. there is so much more to this place that you need to experience for yourself.

i for one advise others to see for themselves and experience a fantastic place to stay with many other fantastic travellers and the exceptional friendly owners.
cheers
fozzy
AnswerID: 278382

Follow Up By: Atropos - Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 18:15

Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 18:15
Hi Fozzy

Frankly I find it hard to belive myself.. but if something was not very wrong would I walk out on "paradise" ...??

I had a great holiday there the last time.. I say again a great holiday.. I knew what to expect...

I have NOTHING to gain by not telling the truth and in truth I had the best part of tree days trying to convince myself I was missing something and was wrong....
0
FollowupID: 542412

Reply By: Sand Man (SA) - Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 19:14

Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 19:14
Without getting into a bun fight over who is right or wrong, I find the mud splattered Annex being consigned to the wheely bin a little perplexing.

Mud can be washed off, canvas can be cleaned and even re-waterproofed if neccessary.

Something doesn't gell here!


Bill


I'm diagonally parked in a parallel Universe!

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

AnswerID: 278383

Follow Up By: Atropos - Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 19:22

Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 19:22
Hi Sand Man

The annex I bought when I bought the camper trailer.. I bought it as a wreck and refurbished the trailer and re-canvased it .. the annex I thought I would try to use for a little longer before replacing it, the annex suffered some damage from strong winds and blown sand at Phillip Island last year and the mud stains an spatter caused by the heavy rain on saturday and Sunday just about finished it off, its not worth the effort....cheaper to buy a nice screen dome or similar to replace it with

Hope that explains it
0
FollowupID: 542419

Follow Up By: On Patrol (East Coast) - Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 19:51

Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 19:51
Yes my thoughts exactly Sand Man.

Atropos, if this is so, re the old canvas, then the awning is a side issue and is a bit of smoke and mirrors regarding the whole issue, in my humble opinion.

I have dealt with Ralph & Corelee (excuse me if mis spelt) and found them to be fair & honest people to deal with.

While I sympathise with what you believe is a spoilt holiday, I am not sure that here is the right place to air it. The dept of fair trading is IMHO the place to take this if you feel strongly enough about it, and they can make a fair balanced judgement on the issues and rule accordingly without the need for expensive court costs of libel and suing. In NSW you can lodge a claim for around $30 deposit and have the case looked at reasonably quickly and on line to make it easier for all concerned, not sure about Victoria.

Hope you both resolve it soon.
Colin.
0
FollowupID: 542421

Follow Up By: Sand Man (SA) - Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 20:02

Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 20:02
Atropos,

Yes, you have now explained the real reason why you have ditched the annex.
But in your original Post you "inferred" that the reason it was "binned" was because it got muddy.


Bill


I'm diagonally parked in a parallel Universe!

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 542423

Follow Up By: Atropos - Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 20:06

Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 20:06
I have no intention of taking ANYONE to court over such a trivial issue, my intention in my original post was to point out that thing are not always as one expects them to be.

The mention of the annex was only ment to show that yes we had some problems with mud spatter on a site which was bare earth (and I stand by that statement)


I as I stated right at the start of my posting have enjoyed a great holiday two years ago, at best friend and Ralph could confirm that I told him that I was upset due to having to go to New Zealand last year and not being able to partake of Christmas at Best Friend.. Christmases and New Year at Best friend are indeed stuff of ledgend... so why should we walk out on this???

does this sound like someone who was not looking for another great holiday with Ralph and Coralie????

0
FollowupID: 542425

Follow Up By: Atropos - Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 20:18

Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 20:18
The reason the annex got binned was because it got muddy, if it had not gotten so I might have squeezed a few more holidays out of it, the mud spatters finished it off...
0
FollowupID: 542427

Reply By: Member - Olcoolone (S.A) - Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 12:10

Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 12:10
I don't think this is a fighting match of who is right and who is wrong, both parties have valid stories and should both be accpted as the truth.

There was a customer who wasn't happy whereby the manager of the park should of made every effort within REASON to keep them happy.

The customer who wasn't happy with the outcome should of taken it further off of the forum or were they asking for or expecting too much.

Both parties should of came to a happy out come.

I belive any accomidation that is prepaid is still entitled to a refund set at a percentage of the fee for the remainig nights.

So please get in contact with each other and sort it out of the forum and shake hands.

We see it both ways were as a consumer we arn't happy with a service provider and as a service provider we have to deal with customers who are wrong or are asking to much or being unreasonable.

We always bring in a third party to resolve the issue with customer.

Regards Richard

AnswerID: 278454

Follow Up By: Atropos - Thursday, Dec 27, 2007 at 10:07

Thursday, Dec 27, 2007 at 10:07
Hi Richard

I agree with you that it is regreatable that this developed into a "Bun fight"..

You have correctly picked up the issue that this is about customer service.

I wrote a private e-mail to Ralph and Coralie shortly after my return home detailing some of the points that I was not happy with and some of the reasons why we felt compelled to return home and abort our holiday, it was not an easy decision to return home as we had friends joining us (on our recomendation) on boxing day and we would return home after the new year togeather.


Frankly I expected a prompt reply to my e-mail ...but nothing arrived , and I suppose to be fair it must have been a very busy time for Ralph and Coralie so perhaps my expectation of a prompt reply to my e-mail was out of order.


However my original posting on this blog was if one reads it correctly a warning to others to not make the same mistakes as I did.
It was my error that I did not make Ralph aware from the outset that the site was not acceptable , it was my error that to tried to cope with the situation, we should have refused the site on arrival, which would have been our normal policy at any other caravan park.

The reason we did not do so this time has us both shaking our heads


We have stayed at eight caravan parks this year and have found them to have been great, perhaps our "guard was down"

If you read what I have written I have repeatedly stated that I am aware of the value offered at Best Friend Resort over the Christmas and New Year period, I have praised and complemented the place and recomended it to my friends, I made a booking for an extended holiday , One I think of the longest duration stays for campers at the site this Holiday season

Before we left we called in at the office to explain why we were going and were very supprised with the manner in which this was received...

Yes I may have been a bit over the top in posting some of my comments here but to be public threatened with litigation is not IMHO the best way to resolve anything and of course got my hot blood flowing


Oh well... water under the bridge.. have a happy time for the remainder of the Christmas season and new year


0
FollowupID: 542611

Follow Up By: Atropos - Thursday, Dec 27, 2007 at 15:28

Thursday, Dec 27, 2007 at 15:28
Hi Folks in reply to the quote below from Member - Olcoolone (S.A)

"So please get in contact with each other and sort it out of the forum and shake hands."

I have and remain willing to do this, all I'm asking for is a nicely grassed powered site and an invitation to return on a friendly basis

I would be only too happy to post the result of such an offer here and in other places where I have written of my holiday


Have a happy christmas and a great new year
0
FollowupID: 542629

Reply By: Motherhen - Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 15:23

Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 15:23
Before this thread became a very public slanging match (at least the balance of both viewpoints have been aired), the original posting was basically to warn

"always check the site before paying your money"

We don't go to CPs very often (or on holidays very often), and the usual procedure is to pay at office then be shown the site. John and Jean's advice on this point is wise.

Motherhen
Motherhen

Red desert dreaming

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

AnswerID: 278478

Follow Up By: Atropos - Thursday, Dec 27, 2007 at 10:11

Thursday, Dec 27, 2007 at 10:11
Hi Mother Hen

That exactly the point I was raising, everything else has been a side issue, and I regret the "slanging match" But I take umbridge at being called a liar in public

We will never again pay for a site that we have not inspected first.

And I think we will have to have this printed on a laminated card and stuck up in our car so we dont forget our own policy.

We only have ourselfs to blame for accepting a situation that was in truth not acceptable to us... (if that makes sense)

Happy Christmas)
0
FollowupID: 542612

Reply By: Member - Davoe (Yalgoo) - Thursday, Dec 27, 2007 at 10:26

Thursday, Dec 27, 2007 at 10:26
I assume the picture of the site was taken in reply?
If so 2 years is enough time for grass to grow
............................................
Which brings me to my point
2 YEARS AGO?????
WTF??

some things ya just gota let go
2 years is an acceptable amount of time to still be hunting the sexual predator that interferred with your daughter
an aledgedly dodgey site is not
AnswerID: 278586

Follow Up By: Member - Davoe (Yalgoo) - Thursday, Dec 27, 2007 at 10:29

Thursday, Dec 27, 2007 at 10:29
hang on reading it closer i gather 2 years ago all was fine
ah well i guess i will concentrate on work then
0
FollowupID: 542613

Sponsored Links

Popular Products (9)