AL-KO IRS axle failure on 9 month old Swift Sprite Alpine 4 caravan

[KJF400]

I bought a brand new Swift Sprite Alpine 4 caravan from Glossop Caravans in October 2022

I have used it twice once in May to go down to Corfu where we have some apartment's and stay for the summer and once when we returned at the end of September .

We only need to take the basics for the trip as we have all we need in Corfu .

We had the caravan serviced in November 2023 by an approved swift engineer.

He noticed that the van was lower on the off side and advised us to get it checked .

We took it into Glossop on the 2nd January , their earliest available appointment, for an assessment.


Some measurements were requested and sent to AL-KO .

AL-KO came back saying the measurements were outside their tolerance and that the van had been overloaded as the axle had failed.

As a result they rejected a warranty claim effectively invalidating my insurance.

The claim was sent to Swift who based on AL-KOs comment stood by the decision and also rejected the claim.


Despite me contacting them both and advising them that I had not overloaded the van and giving them information on my background the claim was rejected again twice by both company’s.

I had to obtain legal advice and consequently served a notice on Glossop caravans advising them that I was instigating court proceedings and that they had 28 days to respond . I did not want to do this as all the staff at Glossop had been very understanding and helpful but as the contract was with them and not the others I had to make the claim against them.

I was then advised that AL-KO had agreed to physically examine my van , something they had not yet done .

This examination is to take place on the 21st February .

I’m not holding my breath and have to proceed as if the rejection will be upheld.


I am compiling information for a possible court appearance and wanted to know if we have another Bailey type problem developing .

For those who are not aware of this several owners of mainly Bailey caravans suffered axle failure which were written off by AL-KO as being overload incidents.


This was later found to be false and the axles were in fact faulty .


I am posting this here to see if anyone has had a similar problem and how it has been dealt with .


This may be an isolated incident and hopefully they will accept that this is not a case of overloading and honour the warranty when they examine it next week .

 

[otherclive]

In the Bailey issue one owner stuck to his guns and via a lot of effort did manage to succeed and get the maker to accept responsibility and that the caravan had not been overloaded.

I had a Sprite Musketeer TD 2012 model registered spring 2013. The offside suspension dropped in 2018 leaving limited clearance. I had to bite the bullet and pay for a new axle. It was a real hassle getting Alko to supply a replacement axle even though the failed axle had a part number and bar code label affixed. Could have tried buying an axle from a towing specialist but they would not fit it. So the dealer was prepared to fit it but not accept responsibility for its configuration or warranty it.

So in the end I asked the dealer to take on the whole job. Cost around £1300-1400 as Alko no longer refurbished axles. I put my failure down to potholes in Shropshire.

I have a "Relaxed Axle"

According to the quaint phraseology used to describe a suspension fault, I have what is called "relaxed axle" This basically means that the offside is 25mm lower than the near side, and accordingly tyre -wheel arch clearance is reduced. Alko no longer recondition or repair axles so its a whole...

forums.practicalcaravan.com

Al-Ko axle failures per PCv magazine

Catching up on my reading PCv say Bailey’s suffered axle failures . Be careful! Their words. Was it only Bailey? Where have Al-Ko been? So my axle fails at five years? Do we caravanners have any recourse against anyone? Car manufacturers go back years. Kia is a good example with Sorento...

forums.practicalcaravan.com

 

[ProfJohnL]

I am making an assumption here that something on the chassis has broken or deformed which has caused the affected side of the caravan to drop. From an engineering perspective, a bent or broken component is a clear indication that it has been stressed beyond its limits.

The question has to be asked was the component manufactured to its designed specifications or is it defective which could lead to deformation at a smaller than expected load?

If its failure of welded or glued joint, was the welding or the gluing process up to specification ?

In the case of suspension, most Alko trailers use rubber in torsion shear loading. Perhaps the components were the wrong specification of rubber, or they may have been damaged before or during the assembly fitting.

Unfortunately these are points where the ordinary customer has no way of testing, and you are reliant on the manufacturer to both investigate (if they choose to) and decide on the possibility of their production being faulty . Or they could simply choose the easy way out and blame the owner for overloading and wash their hands of the problem.

You have received the correct advice regarding the sellers liability, as it follows the contract, and whilst I sympathise with the moral position of having to challenge the dealer, the fact is that is one of the known risks of being a retailer.

 

[GaryB]

I can’t offer any advice that hasn’t already been stated other than genuine sympathy. After spending so much money only to have a major component fail is awful.

 

[Jcloughie]

I think you are taking appropriate action, very best of luck to you. If it gets to court I do not think they will be supportive of Alko and Glossop making assumptions regarding loading, particularly without a physical investigation.

I will follow with interest.


John

 

[Buckman]

You are going about it the correct way by contacting the dealer an d passing responsibility to the dealer. Did you use a credit card to make a part payment i.e. deposit or perhaps even Hire purchase. See https://worldwidewalkies.blog/2018/02/10/bailey-alko-axle-problem/

 

[Dustydog]

A very sad story for such a new caravan. The link below will clearly demonstrate failures do arise. So easy for Al -ko to use the “ overloaded” excuse. I wonder how that would stack up in Court? Al-ko may say you are the only one . Like the Post Office Scandal😉.
Agree with all other advice.

Al-Ko Axle suspension failure (Bailey)

I have my 'worry hat' on again after reading issues on caravan blogs around the longevity and quality of the rubber suspension in Al-ko axles. The complaints raised discuss the need to replace rubber triangular suspension bits due to 'lop-sided' vans, some that bad that the tyres are...

www.caravanclub.co.uk

 

[Raywood]

It is simply wrong for a claim to be re3jected without them even looking at the unit. You cannot possibly say if a failure is due to overloading or just faulty without this and the attitude of both ALKO and Swift is simply appalling. If they continue to repudiate the claim after examining it then you will need an engineer to examine and report on it to establish if you have a case. Good luck.

 

[Buckman]

It is simply wrong for a claim to be re3jected without them even looking at the unit. You cannot possibly say if a failure is due to overloading or just faulty without this and the attitude of both ALKO and Swift is simply appalling. If they continue to repudiate the claim after examining it then you will need an engineer to examine and report on it to establish if you have a case. Good luck.

However there is no necessity to involve ALKO or Swift as the contract is with the dealer! Not the consumer problem if claim is rejected as ultimately the problem lies with the dealership.

 

[Raywood]

I take the point, and yes your rights under the CRA are against the dealer. At the end of the day they are being told to defend by Swift and ALKO, financially they have to go along with the decisions ALKO and Swift make.

 

[Buckman]

I take the point, and yes your rights under the CRA are against the dealer. At the end of the day they are being told to defend by Swift and ALKO, financially they have to go along with the decisions ALKO and Swift make.

Apologies for being pedantic, but the dealer needs to comply with the law and not what they are told by Alko or Swift. at the end of the day it is the responsibility of the dealer to resolve the issue.

 

[RogerL]

Apologies for being pedantic, but the dealer needs to comply with the law and not what they are told by Alko or Swift. at the end of the day it is the responsibility of the dealer to resolve the issue.

The dealer will rely on the caravan maker and component maker for expert advice, despite them not having examined it yet.

 

[Dustydog]

The Dealer cannot just take the Manufacturer’s word for it. How does the Court know the Manufacturer is correct?
The CRA claim here is solely against the Dealer.
If one of these axle failures ever reached the Courts then without doubt under the rules of disclosure the Dealer will have to provide audited approved technical data showing weights at which the axle will fail. Whether he gets that from Al-ko is another matter. Arguably that evidence may not be classed as independent.

What is the axle load safety margin?
How do they prove an “overload” caused the collapse?
Why only one side and not both suspension units?

Whilst we may all think the onus is on the individual to prove his claim , as I said above the rules of disclosure may well help.
I wonder how many failures have actually been reported?
I hear talk of pot holes but how is that ever proven unless a tyre or wheel was damaged?

 

[Buckman]

The OP could send off a "Subject Access Request" for a copy of all the info regarding caravan and consumer and then the dealer is obliged to supply all the documentation regarding the consumer and also the caravan. It is free of charge. It is amazing what is revealed! If the dealer omits anything even if it is a derogatory comment about the consumer, the dealer could face a very stiff fine.

 

[ProfJohnL]

As Buckman has suggested, the retailers response to a CRA claim has to be their own. They cannot simply follow an opinionated lead by a third party such as the manufacturer. they have to provide enough information for the decision to made on the balance of probabilities.

 

[RogerL]

The Dealer cannot just take the Manufacturer’s word for it. How does the Court know the Manufacturer is correct?
The CRA claim here is solely against the Dealer.
If one of these axle failures ever reached the Courts then without doubt under the rules of disclosure the Dealer will have to provide audited approved technical data showing weights at which the axle will fail. Whether he gets that from Al-ko is another matter. Arguably that evidence may not be classed as independent.

What is the axle load safety margin?
How do they prove an “overload” caused the collapse?
Why only one side and not both suspension units?

Whilst we may all think the onus is on the individual to prove his claim , as I said above the rules of disclosure may well help.
I wonder how many failures have actually been reported?
I hear talk of pot holes but how is that ever proven unless a tyre or wheel was damaged?

The court doesn't know initially, that's why there's a process of presenting evidence and then the court deciding where the balance of probability lies.

At this stage in the process, where the OP is effectively negotiating with the selling dealer, the component manufacturer is the only expert to have given an opinion - the OP can (and should IMO) refuse to accept that and seek their own expert opinion from a qualified engineer and add that to the negotiation - and then use it in Small Claims Court if agreement can't be reached.

The reality is that the dealer won't accept primary liability unless the manufacturer agrees - hence the OP's present negotiation phase and potentially court proceedings phase.

 

[Jcloughie]

The OP could send off a "Subject Access Request" for a copy of all the info regarding caravan and consumer and then the dealer is obliged to supply all the documentation regarding the consumer and also the caravan. It is free of charge. It is amazing what is revealed! If the dealer omits anything even if it is a derogatory comment about the consumer, the dealer could face a very stiff fine.

Interesting. I was aware of being able to demand personal data held by a company. But not that that included transactional information.

John

 

[Dustydog]

The court doesn't know initially, that's why there's a process of presenting evidence and then the court deciding where the balance of probability lies.

At this stage in the process, where the OP is effectively negotiating with the selling dealer, the component manufacturer is the only expert to have given an opinion - the OP can (and should IMO) refuse to accept that and seek their own expert opinion from a qualified engineer and add that to the negotiation - and then use it in Small Claims Court if agreement can't be reached.

The reality is that the dealer won't accept primary liability unless the manufacturer agrees - hence the OP's present negotiation phase and potentially court proceedings phase.

As far as I know the Courts expect due disclosure and provision of requested documents before any Hearing date.
It would be a foolish Dealer who took a Third Party word .
There’s a specialist Al-ko axle refurbishment company . Clive mentioned them some time ago. I wonder how many refurbs they have done? Do they have any comments on causation of the failures?

 

[otherclive]

As far as I know the Courts expect due disclosure and provision of requested documents before and Hearing date.
It would be a foolish Dealer who took a Third Party word .
There’s a specialist Al-ko axle refurbishment company . Clive mentioned them some time ago. I wonder how many refurbs the6 have done? Do they have any comments on causation of the failures?

When my axle went Fraser Brown was an option but the hassle of setting the van up on.blocks and removing the axle for shipping to Scotland wasn’t that attractive. But in discussions with them they told me that Alko had suffered some problems with the suspension bush compound. FB had their rubber bushes developed and certified by by a national laboratory near Shrewsbury (RAPRA) but I can’t belief Alko haven’t remedied that issue if in fact FB were correct.

 

[RogerL]

As far as I know the Courts expect due disclosure and provision of requested documents before and Hearing date.
It would be a foolish Dealer who took a Third Party word .
There’s a specialist Al-ko axle refurbishment company . Clive mentioned them some time ago. I wonder how many refurbs the6 have done? Do they have any comments on causation of the failures?

I had cause to contact Frazer Brown about refurbishing my caravan's axle although in the end decided not to, not yet any way - but interestingly they would refurbish a 1500 kg axle with 1800 kg rubbers which begs the question whether Alko have been fitting rubbers with no extra load margin, thus causing collapse in sufficient numbers for Frazer Brown to do a roaring trade in refurbishment !

 

[ProfJohnL]

...

The reality is that the dealer won't accept primary liability unless the manufacturer agrees - hence the OP's present negotiation phase and potentially court proceedings phase.

The CRA is about the fact the contract has been breached. It does not take into account the cause of that breach.

A CRA case does not allow the retailer to shift any of the "primary liability" to the manufacturer as the manufacture is not a party to the the contract.

It is entirely possible that CRA case may found in favour of claimant against the seller, but the sellers supplier does not want to cover the costs. The court's judgment has to stand and the seller remains totally liable for the entire cost of the remedy. That is a recognised retail business risk.

 

[RogerL]

The CRA is about the fact the contract has been breached. It does not take into account the cause of that breach.

A CRA case does not allow the retailer to shift any of the "primary liability" to the manufacturer as the manufacture is not a party to the the contract.

It is entirely possible that CRA case may found in favour of claimant against the seller, but the sellers supplier does not want to cover the costs. The court's judgment has to stand and the seller remains totally liable for the entire cost of the remedy. That is a recognised retail business risk.

The OP isn't at that stage yet - at present the component manufacturer is citing overload as the cause for which the selling dealer wouldn't be liable - only when it gets to court with evidence from independent engineers which overturn the manufacturer's position, will the provisions of CRA take effect.

 

[Buckman]

The OP isn't at that stage yet - at present the component manufacturer is citing overload as the cause for which the selling dealer wouldn't be liable - only when it gets to court with evidence from independent engineers which overturn the manufacturer's position, will the provisions of CRA take effect.

It does not matter who is citing the cause as overloading as it is still the responsibility of the dealer to resolve the issue. I am beginning to think that perhaps there is a misunderstanding of CRA 2015 S9 as this caravan is not even 2 years old?

 

[Dustydog]

It does not matter who is citing the cause as overloading as it is still the responsibility of the dealer to resolve the issue. I am beginning to think that perhaps there is a misunderstanding of CRA 2015 S9 as this caravan is not even 2 years old?

Absolutely!
Burden of proof is important , crucial. But this caravan is more than 6 months old but nevertheless still comes within the CRA time frame. Can it still be rejected on the grounds the damaged axle was faulty at inception?
Al-ko are inspecting the OPs van on 21.2.24. Will their engineer take a sample of the rubber for testing in the laboratory? I’d insist on knowing exactly what the inspection involves including lab tests..Will he also test the unfailed side for comparison purposes?

Meanwhile the Dealer cannot wriggle for ever. Roger’s last post is very important and something that should be followed up.
Will the OPs caravan Insurance policy offer him Legal Expenses cover giving him access to Solicitors for pursuance via the Courts?

Finally this is well worth a read

Bailey ALKO Axle Problem

UPDATE A copy of an email was published on Bailey UK Owners Facebook page on 9th March 2018. It seems to suggest that Bailey are now addressing the axle problem IF REPORTED, however I am not sure o…

worldwidewalkies.blog

 

[Buckman]

Absolutely!
Burden of proof is important , crucial. But this caravan is more than 6 months old but nevertheless still comes within the CRA time frame. Can it still be rejected on the grounds the damaged axle was faulty at inception?
Al-ko are inspecting the OPs van on 21.2.24. Will their engineer take a sample of the rubber for testing in the laboratory? I’d insist on knowing exactly what the inspection involves including lab tests..Will he also test the unfailed side for comparison purposes?

Meanwhile the Dealer cannot wriggle for ever. Roger’s last post is very important and something that should be followed up.
Will the OPs caravan Insurance policy offer him Legal Expenses cover giving him access to Solicitors for pursuance via the Courts?

Finally this is well worth a read

Bailey ALKO Axle Problem

UPDATE A copy of an email was published on Bailey UK Owners Facebook page on 9th March 2018. It seems to suggest that Bailey are now addressing the axle problem IF REPORTED, however I am not sure o…

worldwidewalkies.blog

As per S9 of the CRA 2015 it can be rejected as the fault was there before purchase. By the way the dealer would need to prove that the caravan was overloaded and as a result of overloading the failure occurred. That could be difficult!