42% Damp @ 11 Months old!

[Volly]

First service and 42% damp found in the rear floor of my 2014 Bailey Cartagina, to say that I am shocked to the core would be an understatemen.

Would I be correct in assuming that I can allow them a repair under SOGA, and if that fails I can reject the caravan? Any help or advice from members that have been in a similar situation would be much appreciated .

 

[Volly]

Gets better, just checked the service report and it's 44% not 42%. (Should have gone to spec savers!)

 

[Volly]

A bit more info, the readings were taken from the rear o/s floor, up as far as the wheel arch, apparently it has come in from the rear o/s end cap at roof level, there is a void in the alutech construction, the water runs down the void and on to the floor beneath, then it's capilery action along the floor.

To effect a repair the whole of the rear end has to be stripped out, toilet, vanity unit, rear internal wall, fixed bed,etc, hard to believe this is all down to sloppy workmanship where an individual has failed to apply the corect amount of sealant.
Will drying the floor out leave no permanent damage, or could it have a detrimental effect in time to come?
Can I reject the van, or is it to late as it is beyond 6 months, any help would be greatly appreciated. And to be honest I would rather not have a van that has had 44% damp in the floor from the back end up to the second axle.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Volly

I suggest you read this carefully

http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/sale-of-goods-act
My interpretation of this suggests you are too late to reject the caravan, but you are entitled to a full repair or replacement from your seller.

A good quality repair may be virtually undetectable and restore the value of your caravan so its not such a negative as it might be, But if the repair has reduced the value of the caravan, then you would be entitled to redress.

 

[Volly]

Thank you John for the sound advice.

 

[Dustydog]

Hi Volly.
Don't panic, it could be worse"

A decent Bailey dealer will have no problem fixing your leak.

Demand they give you a full water ingress warranty on the repair in line with what you already have.
Did you stay with the 6year warranty or pay extra for 10'years?

If you ever sell,privately you may have to disclose the problem. Ask the dealer to give you a written promise any depreciation in market value will not be at your expense.

 

[RogerL]

Hi Volly.
get the dealer to give you a full water ingress warranty on the repair.

It's an 11-MONTH old caravan being repaired under warranty - so it gets 5 years 1 month under the original warranty - so what's with "get the dealer to give you" ?

 

[Dustydog]

Hi Volly.
get the dealer to give you a full water ingress warranty on the repair.

It's an 11-MONTH old caravan being repaired under warranty - so it gets 5 years 1 month under the original warranty - so what's with "get the dealer to give you" ?

Ah
But at original purchase Bailey would have offered him the optional 10 year water ingress guarantee. He didn't say what he has. Agreed though the clock starts from date of original purchase.
But he shouldn't end up in a future position where his residual value is less because of the leak.

 

[RogerL]

Hi Volly.
get the dealer to give you a full water ingress warranty on the repair.

It's an 11-MONTH old caravan being repaired under warranty - so it gets 5 years 1 month under the original warranty - so what's with "get the dealer to give you" ?

Ah
But at original purchase Bailey would have offered him the optional 10 year water ingress guarantee. He didn't say what he has. Agreed though the clock starts from date of original purchase.
But he shouldn't end up in a future position where his residual value is less because of the leak.

6 years / 10 years is irelevant so early after original purchase.

 

[Volly]

Thanks for all the helpful advice, the van has the standard 6 year warranty, my bigest concern is, has the 44% water already caused damage to the floor? And another concern is that the van is not due to go back to the Bailey factory until mid Jan 2015, so that's another 2 months of water entering the van!

 

[RogerL]

Get it covered with a tarpaulin and send the bill to the dealer.

 

[Dustydog]

Hi Volly.
get the dealer to give you a full water ingress warranty on the repair.

It's an 11-MONTH old caravan being repaired under warranty - so it gets 5 years 1 month under the original warranty - so what's with "get the dealer to give you" ?

Ah
But at original purchase Bailey would have offered him the optional 10 year water ingress guarantee. He didn't say what he has. Agreed though the clock starts from date of original purchase.
But he shouldn't end up in a future position where his residual value is less because of the leak.

6 years / 10 years is irelevant so early after original purchase.

Roger
Do you believe he should be given a new caravan?
A slightly rhetorical question as I have been there before.
The sad fact is neither Soga nor the credit consumer act are user friendly.
We buy our new caravans on the basis they may leak. The makers water ingress guarantee gives them the right to repair.
Soga with the dealer or Credit consumer act may be long drawn out.
I' d like to see a positive , unambiguous, warranty / guarantee from both the manufacturer and dealer that a leaking caravan under 12 months old is replaced immediately with brand new no quibble.
NB. There are pretty winged young ladies at the bottom of my garden

 

[RogerL]

I don't think your fairies can afford to give Volly a new caravan! I think he deserves one but that means staying with the brand!

Although SoGA has some strength, we could do with "Lemon Laws" as they have in some states in America but I can't see the UK or the EU doing that.

I've believed in "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" for many years, not just caravans but cars and appliances - if more people did this with caravans they would soon improve - my first two caravans lasted 29 years in total so none of this change ever 3 years for me!

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Dusty,

Guaranteed replacement if a caravan leaks within 12 months ain't gonna happen.

It would be beset with all sorts of problems such as what is the definition of a leak, how much water? Over how long? How has the water gained entry? Has there been any damage caused by the customer that might have contributed or caused the ingress, ect, ect, ect.

No one wants a leak not even the caravan manufacturers (Even though sometimes they don't seem to try very hard to prevent them). And as a general point forum members recommend walking away from S/H caravans with a history of leaks, but a properly repaired caravan is capable of performing as if no leak had occurred. As long as repairs can resolve damp issues and loss of value, there will no guaranteed replacement with new.

I agree the current situation is often seen as imperfect, but the legislation is not there to provide any sort of unfair advantage to any party. You are only entitled to expect a remedy that puts you back to the state the product would be in if the defect had not occurred. So it would not be fair to expect a brand new replacement for a caravan that could be virtually 12 months old and had some use.

What I think is needed is some new easier consumer legislation that allows consumers who suffer a common failure of a product to bring the manufacturers to account in some way. Or for the rights afforded to consumers under SoGA to be similarly made a statutory part of all commercial contracts so dealers can more easily return faulty product back up the supply line.

 

[Dustydog]

Absolutely yes Prof. Even the fairies in my garden agree B)
1

 

[RogerL]

Or for the rights afforded to consumers under SoGA to be similarly made a statutory part of all commercial contracts so dealers can more easily return faulty product back up the supply line.

That exists already - they're called solicitors. Many supply contracts are in place which specify what % is an acceptable rate of failure - recognising the fact that nothing has a zero failure rate.

I don't know what the % is, but part of the purchase price for any caravan, or anything else, is meant to collectively cover the cost of faults - get that wrong one way means less profit, a loss or bankrupcy - get it wrong the other way just means extra profit - it's a standard business model.

 

[emmerson]

But what does Volly use in the meantime? He may want a winter holiday, or he may, like me, be a year-round user of his very expensive, now useless, caravan. He appears to be losing the use of his van for two months, plus the time taken to repair it. Who pays for this?
This whole fiasco has become the norm in the British caravan industry, and yet people still buy the d*mned things!
Volly, I hope you can come a happy conclusion, and soon.

 

[RogerL]

But what does Volly use in the meantime?

That's where the caravan industry needs to get it's act together - whether I buy a £70,000 Range Rover or a £7,000 Hyundai, I get a FOC courtesy car of the same brand if my car needs any warranty work, probably not the top-of-the-range model I might own but an effective replacement nevertheless. So why no similar arrangement for caravans costing £10,000-25,000?

Too many holidays are being lost by caravanners because of both the number of faults and the time taken to rectify them,

 

[RayS]

A sad story and my condolences to the OP. The legal route is not as easy as some have made out. As i have reported elsewhere, I have approached 7 or 8 local solicitors found through the Law Society website as having expertise in consumer matters and NOT ONE replied to my email and telephone approach. The case was much more straightforward - a construction fault identified and reported well within 6 months of date of purchase and Subject to 'repair' first by the dealer and secondly by the factory.

If the caravan makers are not all their publicity claims then they must be first cousins to the solicitors.

 

[Volly]

A sad story and my condolences to the OP. The legal route is not as easy as some have made out. As i have reported elsewhere, I have approached 7 or 8 local solicitors found through the Law Society website as having expertise in consumer matters and NOT ONE replied to my email and telephone approach. The case was much more straightforward - a construction fault identified and reported well within 6 months of date of purchase and Subject to 'repair' first by the dealer and secondly by the factory.

If the caravan makers are not all their publicity claims then they must be first cousins to the solicitors.

"If the caravan makers are not all their publicity claims then they must be first cousins to the solicitors."

Very well put Ray.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Or for the rights afforded to consumers under SoGA to be similarly made a statutory part of all commercial contracts so dealers can more easily return faulty product back up the supply line.

That exists already - they're called solicitors. Many supply contracts are in place which specify what % is an acceptable rate of failure - recognising the fact that nothing has a zero failure rate.

I don't know what the % is, but part of the purchase price for any caravan, or anything else, is meant to collectively cover the cost of faults - get that wrong one way means less profit, a loss or bankrupcy - get it wrong the other way just means extra profit - it's a standard business model.

Sorry Roger but no! its not an automatic right!
There is no automatic right to return goods in commercial contracts, Yes it can be written in during negotiations to set up the contract and certainly as you mention failure rates are often negotiated especially for small low cost components, but for low volume or large assemblies the manufacturer or supplier often has limited liability clauses which prevents automatic rejection or return of most defective products. This is one reason why caravan dealers are often reluctant to pursue manufacturers with the same impetus as consumers who have SoGA to help fight their corner when dealing with whole caravan issues.

 

[RogerL]

Commercial contracts operate under the terms of that contract - businesses entering contracts are expected to understand contract law, by employing solicitors, and only agree to appropriate contracts - it's nonsense to suggest that business-to-business needs statutory clauses in addition to their mutually agreed contracts.

SoGA exists because consumers, ie the general public, aren't expected to understand contract law but need reasonable safeguards.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Plenty of businesses do not use solicitors to set up most commercial contracts, for example when purchasing stationary or janitorial supplies, the terms of business are not usually ratified through solicitors, but more often than not by pre-printed order or invoices with T&C.

Caravan dealers will normally be aligned with a caravan manufacture, and here again the T&C will more often than not be a standard set dictated by the manufacturer and its these which are often very restrictive in relation to a dealers permissions to reject defective goods back to the manufacturer. A solicitor may well be involved in the checking the T&C but it's very unlikely a dealer will be able to negotiate on a variance the the manufacturers returns clauses.

Its for situations like this that a set of statutory clauses should be created that sets in stone, the right of any customer (trade or Retail) to reject defective goods back to their supplier with guarantees of a standard of service from the supplier to deal with any returned products.

This would force suppliers at all stages in the supply chain to take more responsibility for the quality and reliability of the products they manufacture, factor or retail.

 

[RogerL]

Component specification, including quality, is down to the end manufacturers' specification - so often these days, price is everything even if component quality suffers.

Getting component quality right within a specific supply chain is down to the end manufacturer to set the correct specification for the product in hand.

Stick to consumer protection John!

 

[ProfJohnL]

Component specification, including quality, is down to the end manufacturers' specification - so often these days, price is everything even if component quality suffers.

Getting component quality right within a specific supply chain is down to the end manufacturer to set the correct specification for the product in hand.

Stick to consumer protection John!

Roger,
I will feel free to comment and debate where I have relevant expertise, experience, knowledge or interest.

You are correct the ultimate quality is defined by the design and manufacturer, but a customer at any stage in the supply chain should expect the products they receive from their supplier to have the same characteristics of being as per contract fit for purpose, durable, and free from defects. Except for the retail customer, such expectations are not a matter of statute, nor is the right to return.

At every stage in a supply chain, each seller should be held responsible for what they sell or transact. Using this concept if at any stage a non conformance becomes apparent,. the current owner of that product should have the AUTOMATIC right to reject it back to the last seller with a defined minimum level of expected service from the seller. This right should be established as a statutory contractual term in all commercial contracts. I realise it won't be easy to set this up because in many industrial situations a product can be substantially changed as part of a manufacturing or assembly process, but the principle of supplier responsibility for what they trade in should be firmly established.

Currently the right of a commercial or trade customer to return non conforming goods is often set out with restrictions in the sellers T&C's. These T&C are not always consistent with the criteria noted above.