Bad experience Lancaster KOA

[two_travelers]

Recently stayed at this KOA. Wife has mobility issues & uses cane/ walker. Asked if our friends could come to pick us up without paying $18 fee- NO. Could you take her in golf cart to gate - NO, it's for work. Can you please make an exception. NO. So, we walked. Will never stay there again.

[quiltlady]

We have been coming to the Lancaster area every other year or so for about 10 years.As a matter of fact we are here now. Several years ago we decided to try this CG. The scenic views were spectacular, but they didn't offer anything outstanding as a CG. In checking RVpark reviews there were numerous negative remarks about the owners attitude, but we decided to try it anyway. When checking in we waited while another couple ahead of us was read the rules by the owner in a very rude and short manner making sure they knew not to get on "HER" grass and other RULES. No pleasantries at all, no welcome not even a smile. She told us, "well you heard my rules, so I don;t need to repeat them ALL", but still continued with most of them,She made you feel very uncomfortable, like an intruder and not a customer.We tried to chat nicely with her, but she wasn't friendly and didn't ever respond. We could not wait to check out. She was always watching the RVers. It was like she was waiting for us and others to step on a blade of grass. Needless to say, we never stayed there again. There are many other nice RV CGs in this area with very nice hosts. I was quite surprised to hear they were still in business and a KOA.

[GeoBoy]

Moderator, please shoot this dead horse!!

[Bumpyroad]

Rice wrote:
The OP's wife ended up walking to the gate to be picked up, and presumably was dropped off at the gate later and walked back to the RV, apparently to avoid paying a fee.

I think this is a different situation from making exceptions or accommodations for a disabled person who literally could not walk to the gate. Even then, I'm not sure that's the campground's problem--but in the lesser case that the OP presented, where the person was able to make the choice to walk, apparently to avoid paying, I'm very sure it's not the campground's problem.

and the husband didn't need to drive her to the gate?
bumpy

[Rice]

The OP's wife ended up walking to the gate to be picked up, and presumably was dropped off at the gate later and walked back to the RV, apparently to avoid paying a fee.

I think this is a different situation from making exceptions or accommodations for a disabled person who literally could not walk to the gate. Even then, I'm not sure that's the campground's problem--but in the lesser case that the OP presented, where the person was able to make the choice to walk, apparently to avoid paying, I'm very sure it's not the campground's problem.

[Bumpyroad]

tpi wrote:
According to the reviews this particular park offered little in the way of amenities.

from 2012coleman's post it seems like most of those who reported were highly satisfied.
bumpy

[tpi]

westernrvparkowner wrote:
Request shuttle ride to gate, be provided that shuttle ride and then file ADA claim that shuttle service at the park is not ADA compliant.
Fact is, if you don't provide a service, you can't be sued because it is somehow a violation of some obscure code.

OK, if that is a concern, just allow the ride to go to the campsite and pick up the individual. Monitoring this (if they felt it was necessary) would take no more manpower than providing a ride-even if they followed in a cart. I cannot think of a campground I stayed at that wouldn't have allowed it. I could see a resort with many amenities being concerned about visitors. But with a friendly explanation in the office about the circumstances, this should be an option for the park if truly concerned about ADA law. According to the reviews this particular park offered little in the way of amenities. As far as I'm concerned it doesn't cut it as a place to do business-too tight and stingy for my taste.

[westernrvparkow]

tpi wrote:

westernrvparkowner wrote:
You may wish to research "ADA Testers" . That is what has become the common name for disabled persons who go from establishment to establishment looking for minor ADA violations. These can be things as minor as the mirror over the ADA accessible sink is 1" too high. They threaten lawsuits unless they are paid a "consulting fee", in the low 5 figure range. Standard insurance policies do not cover these types of situations. Any attorney will tell the establishment to pay, it is cheaper than going to court. This money has to come out of the owners pocket.
If an establishment wanted to fight, they would have to have lots of documentation regarding exactly when each particular item was installed, replaced, repaired etc. Simply hanging the mirror an inch lower doesn't remedy the situation, the business can be liable for negligence in adherence to the ADA. There are examples from California of a disabled person filing 50+ complaints in a single year. Some call such a person an activist, I call them an extortionist.

I can agree with this problem. But it really doesn't have anything to do with the scenario here. Besides a good business would at least try to insure to be compliant. Whether ADA testers come into the park have nothing to do with the owner's helpfulness in this situation.

Request shuttle ride to gate, be provided that shuttle ride and then file ADA claim that shuttle service at the park is not ADA compliant.
Fact is, if you don't provide a service, you can't be sued because it is somehow a violation of some obscure code.

[ryegatevt]

We've stayed at this campground many times. Sure, the owners sometimes have an attitude, but because of this it's a quiet well-kept campground with beautiful scenery right in the middle of scenic Amish farms. We would return in a heartbeat!

[tpi]

westernrvparkowner wrote:
You may wish to research "ADA Testers" . That is what has become the common name for disabled persons who go from establishment to establishment looking for minor ADA violations. These can be things as minor as the mirror over the ADA accessible sink is 1" too high. They threaten lawsuits unless they are paid a "consulting fee", in the low 5 figure range. Standard insurance policies do not cover these types of situations. Any attorney will tell the establishment to pay, it is cheaper than going to court. This money has to come out of the owners pocket.
If an establishment wanted to fight, they would have to have lots of documentation regarding exactly when each particular item was installed, replaced, repaired etc. Simply hanging the mirror an inch lower doesn't remedy the situation, the business can be liable for negligence in adherence to the ADA. There are examples from California of a disabled person filing 50+ complaints in a single year. Some call such a person an activist, I call them an extortionist.

I can agree with this problem. But it really doesn't have anything to do with the scenario here. Besides a good business would at least try to insure to be compliant. Whether ADA testers come into the park have nothing to do with the owner's helpfulness in this situation.

[tpi]

After reading reviews and couple comments here of people who stayed there, I would just stay somewhere else. Not with any judge or jury accuracy, just a hunch and simple business decision to stay elsewhere. I'm sure there's lots of nice campgrounds in the area.

Did anyone here see movie LA story? There was a restaurant featured called l'idiot. Tiny crummy portions of food, haughty attitude. People lined up to get in. I'm not in for a tough love environment when traveling. I am not a paranoid or stingy person and don't want to be around paranoid and stingy people. If the campground has and needs a locked gate, I have other concerns about the area. If the owner won't allow someone to quickly pick up and drop off at my campsite (with no charge and no hassle), this is just not my thing.

[Walaby]

Let's face it, there are folks who will take advantage of every situation. As pointed out by WRVPO, there are folks who will do exactly what is described. Doesn't mean all handicapped people are that way, but there are enough to warrant some level of concern/suspicion.

There are panhandlers that take advantage of situations, there are folks who look for anything to complain about at a restaurant so they can get their meal comped.... My wife actually knows one.

There are even folks out there that take advantage of that new Pokemon game to lie in wait and rob folks.

Bottom line - there are dishonest people of all walks of life. Certainly not saying that the OP is one of those, but you have to at least acknowledge that predatory type folks who threaten to sue, in order to receive a payout, are out there, and it certainly damages a business. I've seen it as well and experienced it first hand with my niece's business. Unfortunately for her (us), she tried to fight, and it cost way more than it would have to settle.

Having said all that, it would have been nice, if the campground would have tried to make some accommodations, but it certainly doesn't rise to the level of an ADA complaint. And, as I pointed out earlier, we don't know if the person the OP talked to was even empowered to waive a policy. If he/she was NOT authorized to do so, to criticize him or her for not waiving it is totally unfair.

Mike

[westernrvparkow]

tpi wrote:
Lets put it this way, if I was in the area after reading this thread and numerous reviews, I'd go elsewhere. I don't agree with the philosophy of the place if nothing else. And trust me I'm not a complainer, never in my life have I complained about anything at a campground I stayed at except stuff which was totally inoperative and important such as power or water. I personally feel at least some extra effort should be made to accommodate handicapped people after taking care of one. I personally do not like some of the attitudes expressed here at all.

And for those concerned about lawsuits, do check into where the payouts for injuries really occur. It is for children, wage earners, people who have lots of remaining earnings potential and responsibilities. As rough as it sounds, older handicapped retirees are more depreciated in this regard. I'm sure any well run RV park would have liability insurance that would cover any ordinary practice of accommodating a handicapped individual. The danger of a high payout would far more likely be a child injured or a younger wage earner with good earning potential.

You may wish to research "ADA Testers" . That is what has become the common name for disabled persons who go from establishment to establishment looking for minor ADA violations. These can be things as minor as the mirror over the ADA accessible sink is 1" too high. They threaten lawsuits unless they are paid a "consulting fee", in the low 5 figure range. Standard insurance policies do not cover these types of situations. Any attorney will tell the establishment to pay, it is cheaper than going to court. This money has to come out of the owners pocket.
If an establishment wanted to fight, they would have to have lots of documentation regarding exactly when each particular item was installed, replaced, repaired etc. Simply hanging the mirror an inch lower doesn't remedy the situation, the business can be liable for negligence in adherence to the ADA. There are examples from California of a disabled person filing 50+ complaints in a single year. Some call such a person an activist, I call them an extortionist.

[Lantley]

tpi wrote:
Lets put it this way, if I was in the area after reading this thread and numerous reviews, I'd go elsewhere. I don't agree with the philosophy of the place if nothing else. And trust me I'm not a complainer, never in my life have I complained about anything at a campground I stayed at except stuff which was totally inoperative and important such as power or water. I personally feel at least some extra effort should be made to accommodate handicapped people after taking care of one. I personally do not like some of the attitudes expressed here at all.

And for those concerned about lawsuits, do check into where the payouts for injuries really occur. It is for children, wage earners, people who have lots of remaining earnings potential and responsibilities. As rough as it sounds, older handicapped retirees are more depreciated in this regard. I'm sure any well run RV park would have liability insurance that would cover any ordinary practice of accommodating a handicapped individual. The danger of a high payout would far more likely be a child injured or a younger wage earner with good earning potential.

Funny I did not get the same vibe. KOA's are generally not my first choice. Nevertheless I would not eliminate the CG based solely on this post. There are 2 sides to every story.

[tpi]

Lets put it this way, if I was in the area after reading this thread and numerous reviews, I'd go elsewhere. I don't agree with the philosophy of the place if nothing else. And trust me I'm not a complainer, never in my life have I complained about anything at a campground I stayed at except stuff which was totally inoperative and important such as power or water. I personally feel at least some extra effort should be made to accommodate handicapped people after taking care of one. I personally do not like some of the attitudes expressed here at all.

And for those concerned about lawsuits, do check into where the payouts for injuries really occur. It is for children, wage earners, people who have lots of remaining earnings potential and responsibilities. As rough as it sounds, older handicapped retirees are more depreciated in this regard. I'm sure any well run RV park would have liability insurance that would cover any ordinary practice of accommodating a handicapped individual. The danger of a high payout would far more likely be a child injured or a younger wage earner with good earning potential.