Another story that reflects badly on the caravan industry.

[Dustydog]

Here’s a screenshot from another caravan forum. Very disappointing the build quality is still so poor😥 .

Unfortunately, I've had to reject our brand new Palermo.
There were a litany of faults and issues with it and put simply, neither Bailey nor my retailer were able to give timeframes for when these issues would be fixed.
I wasn't willing to accept open-ended, non committal dates for getting things rectified and unfortunately the caravan was not as described, did not have the expected finish of a new van and with some of the issues, was simply not fit for purpose.
I was within my short term right of rejection period so cut and run as it would have impacted on our use of the van and severely inconvenienced us, as a family.
The quality was so poor (at least on that van) and I hope that our next van will not be built to this standard.
I've no problem with a couple of snagging issues but when the list grows day on day, there comes a point when you just say no.
Anyway, my point here is to say, if you've just picked up your brand new caravan and it's not to the high standard you expected (and lets be honest, it should be with the price of them), don't hesitate to exercise your right to reject. Be fair, be courteous but be firm. If your retailer can be clear on timescales and Bailey prompt with authorising repairs maybe sit it out but if in any doubt, get a template letter (I used Which? Magazine), be clear, up front and transparent and don't give in.
Most of all, to all of that haven't had issues and are happy with your purchase, I'm happy for you

and health to enjoy.
P.S. - I won't name our dealer because although we had to fight to get this done, they were polite, responded to my letters and emails timeously and ultimately, I got there in the end.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Dusty
I could not see any screen shot, and text isn't clear if it was your own experience or someone else's, can you clarify please.

 

[Dustydog]

Dusty
I could not see any screen shot, and text isn't clear if it was your own experience or someone else's, can you clarify please.

Prof,
It’s a screen dump not shot , sorry. Unclear ? I don’t know. Everyone else can see it. A user on another forum.

 

[Parksy]

We should be surprised, but the sad fact is that the poor build quality is no surprise to many of us.
It's good to see that the customer has exercised his statutory rights, it needs to happen more often.

 

[Mr Plodd]

It would be helpful if they had actually listed what the problems were so others could see if they poster was being somewhat "picky" or entirely reasonable. Either of which are possible.

 

[Hutch]

Does it matter if the poster on the other forum is "picky" the Pre delivery check by the dealer should have the caravan immaculate before handing over.
The caravan industry is a disgrace.

 

[Dustydog]

It would be helpful if they had actually listed what the problems were so others could see if they poster was being somewhat "picky" or entirely reasonable. Either of which are possible.

I merely passed this on out of current interest. The fact the original poster was fully reimbursed under CRA 2015 proved the caravan was clearly defective from point of sale onwards

 

[JTQ]

It would be helpful if they had actually listed what the problems were so others could see if they poster was being somewhat "picky" or entirely reasonable. Either of which are possible.

The outcome rather suggests the dealer felt they could not win any resulting challenge that the claims were "picky".

Hutch's last line absolutely hits the nail on the head.
IMO, not only is the product so often not fit for purpose, the industry itself is not fit to provide the product.

 

[ProfJohnL]

...
IMO, not only is the product so often not fit for purpose, the industry itself is not fit to provide the product.

I think some of us have been telling that story for a long time.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Actually, I have some sympathy for the caravan dealers, becasue just like most seasoned caravanners who seem to expect UK built caravans to come with multiple often minor all most not worth mentioning imperfections, they too must have the same concerns drawn from what they find during their pre sale preparations, and from the customers who report faults back to them.

Unfortunately most dealers are tied into a contract with the manufacturer that is designed to protect the manufacturer from being directly exposed to the consequences and full cost of the faults they create in the factory.

It's about time that dealers were given some statutory rights ( like the consumers have) to ensure that ALL manufacturing faults and the costs of repair can be reflected back to the manufacturer so they can feel the real cost their poor quality management causes.

 

[Raywood]

I do agree that the manufacturers should be made responsible for their products although this would make life more difficult for UK manufacturers as they are easier to pursue than foreign companies where there is an importer in the way.
What might also help is that unfair guarantee conditions should be made un enforceable and that he products should be expected to last a reasonable time. This is particularly true of the idea that front and rear panels are not covered after one year amongst other things.

 

[Buckman]

Many caravans these days come with a 10 year water ingress and body integrity warranty. This is advertised on posters and also the brochure. Sounds good!

However once you have bought the caravan and read the owner's manual, the warranty in it states that the 10 year water ingress and body integrity only apply to sealed joints and the chances of a sealed joint having water ingress are extremely low.

As for the body integrity which implies panels etc warranty claims for cracked panels are rejected after year one by the manufacturer and the dealer has to carry the claim.

 

[ProfJohnL]

I do agree that the manufacturers should be made responsible for their products although this would make life more difficult for UK manufacturers as they are easier to pursue than foreign companies where there is an importer in the way.
What might also help is that unfair guarantee conditions should be made un enforceable and that he products should be expected to last a reasonable time. This is particularly true of the idea that front and rear panels are not covered after one year amongst other things.

I suspect the reality of such a system would have to follow the the contracts throughout the supply chain. Whilst I used caravans as the example becasue this is a caravanning forum, the principle could apply to any supply chain, and as such each customer (not necessarily the end user) in the way such a system would have the statutory right to make their supplier (Could be wholesaler, importer or manufacturer) liable for the integrity of the product or service they supply.

In theory this already exists, but some rights to return are curtailed in commercial contracts, and that's the bit that needs to be improved, in favour of the customer in the supply chain. The Grenfell flats situation is an example where curtailment of liability has acted against the end users best interests.

In the case of imported goods, the importer would need to accept the liability as if they were the manufacturer, unless they have negotiated a returns and liability clause in their import contracts.

Its got complications becasue unlike the final retail contract, most commercial contracts link different stages of production where the product may well be modified or included as a subassembly in a larger product.

The last point is highly relevant to the caravan industry where the manufacturer often defers the warranty obligations to their Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) suppliers, and I know from my work experience, most faults are caused during caravans manufacturer where the caravan manufacturer's production personnel and processes poor handling, storage of materials and supplies.

 

[Dustydog]

Fully agree Prof and Ray.
Actually some of the answer is available and is in the public domain.
You can see the British based manufacturers annual audited financial accounts on line .
I suspect the quoted annual turnover is that received from “their “customers , the Dealer. You can soon work out the average unit cost .
The Dealer mark up must be 30%+ to make it worth their while.
Also it is mandatory they show a financial reserve against future warranty claims. This figure is also quoted and often “massaged “ with flowery words to decrease the amount😥.
It’s quite ironic that all the pearls of wisdom on here regarding CRA cannot be covered by PCv for reasons we all know. Without mentioning Dealers and Manufacturers by name I believe PCv should consider writing a detailed account how CRA 2015 can help the caravan purchaser. Rather than just say refer to Which?

 

[Buckman]

With some manufacturers you can buy direct from them or from a store that sells their goods. I am not sure if your contract is with the actual manufacturer i.e. Acme plc or a department within the same unit that could be Acme Ltd?

 

[Dustydog]

With some manufacturers you can buy direct from them or from a store that sells their goods. I am not sure if your contract is with the actual manufacturer i.e. Acme plc or a department within the same unit that could be Acme Ltd?

If it is clearly stated on the purchase invoice the Manufacturer is the seller then yes and CRA applies to them. A certain vacuum cleaner manufacturer near me sells direct to the people. CRA applies .

 

[otherclive]

To summarise a long drawn out saga a friend bought new motorhome in May 2021. Purchased in cash not credit card or finance involved. I advised him to obtain an independent damp check done within six months. He used a MCEA technician ( who advises Black Horse) who found considerable damp in the rear end. His opinion was that it would have been there prior to purchase. The motorhome went back to the dealer for repairs. A subsequent independent damp check picked up high levels again in the repaired area, and the dealer sent it to a repair shop. This happened twice, so a total of three dealer arranged repairs. Yet in early 2023 damp was again found in the area, and the dealer refused further repairs claiming it was new damp. The Owner could not get the dealer to move, so took the MH to a repair shop in Somerset ho after a thorough inspection advised a repair quote of £10000. He notified the dealer that in the absence of any action by them he would authorise the repair and claim costs against the dealership.

The repairs were carried out and the MH returned to a very good standard, and he is now ready to submit his claim via the Small Claims Court. However, I am not sure CRA 2015 covers his situation as he is not looking for a Repair, Refund or Replacement from the Seller.. So I assume it falls within another area of consumer or contract law, or even just a commercial dispute claim. But to my mind it again reflects badly on the industry.

 

[ProfJohnL]

With some manufacturers you can buy direct from them or from a store that sells their goods. I am not sure if your contract is with the actual manufacturer i.e. Acme plc or a department within the same unit that could be Acme Ltd?

The contract is with the seller ergo the name of the organisation you make your payment too, they are the legal seller, and their name should as Dusty says be on the bill and/or receipt.

 

[Buckman]

OC when we had an issue with a caravan at the time MCEA were not involved with BH and linked to the CC. tThe threat of using them to report on the caravan helped swing their decision in our favour.

However recently when we had an issue with a crack on the front panel, BH wanted to use MCEA to evaluate the damage. As they were being paid by BH we were very dubious about any report as thought it would not be an independent third party report. We declined their kind invitation and got a report from a specialist assessor in body panels. They had to rule in our favour.

As your friend paid upfront unless they have the rejection in writing from the dealership they may struggle. They will need an intimate knowledge of the law to be successful with their claim, but lets hope it goes well for them.

I am not sure if they could use CRA 2015, but if hopefully they can and the dealer loses in court, the dealer could end up with a criminal charge against them.

 

[Buckman]

The contract is with the seller ergo the name of the organisation you make your payment too, they are the legal seller, and their name should as Dusty says be on the bill and/or receipt.

Not sure about that? If you buy something on Amazon you are paying Amazon and if something goes wrong after the initial 30 days you are referred to the seller.

 

[Mr Plodd]

However once you have bought the caravan and read the owner's manual, the warranty in it states that the 10 year water ingress and body integrity only apply to sealed joints and the chances of a sealed joint having water ingress are extremely low.

I beg to differ on that. Most water ingress issues that are raised on forums such as this relate to awning rails, roof straps, window/door/rooflight frames etc. All of which are permanent sealed from new. Difficult to see where else a leak could occur other than the seal between any opening window/door and its frame

Damp in the floor usually isn't covered unless the water causing it has come through a "permanently sealed" joint. It could prove an interesting discussion in a court as to whether the floor/ sidewall joint is the same (I.e. sealed) as the roof to sidewall joint is. To my mind it should be, but I'm not the one providing the warranty am I?

 

[Mr Plodd]

Not sure about that? If you buy something on Amazon you are paying Amazon and if something goes wrong after the initial 30 days you are referred to the seller.

That all depends on whether the item is actually sold by Amazon or Amazon are merely acting as delivery service for another independant seller, which is often the case.

 

[otherclive]

OC when we had an issue with a caravan at the time MCEA were not involved with BH and linked to the CC. tThe threat of using them to report on the caravan helped swing their decision in our favour.

However recently when we had an issue with a crack on the front panel, BH wanted to use MCEA to evaluate the damage. As they were being paid by BH we were very dubious about any report as thought it would not be an independent third party report. We declined their kind invitation and got a report from a specialist assessor in body panels. They had to rule in our favour.

As your friend paid upfront unless they have the rejection in writing from the dealership they may struggle. They will need an intimate knowledge of the law to be successful with their claim, but lets hope it goes well for them.

I am not sure if they could use CRA 2015, but if hopefully they can and the dealer loses in court, the dealer could end up with a criminal charge against them.

Yes they have a written document from the dealership advising that no further work would be accepted, as their view was that the damp came from a different source, albeit in the same area that had been subject to repairs. He also formally advised the dealership of his intent to pursue a repair and would take SCC action to recover costs.

 

[ProfJohnL]

To summarise a long drawn out saga a friend bought new motorhome in May 2021. Purchased in cash not credit card or finance involved. I advised him to obtain an independent damp check done within six months. He used a MCEA technician ( who advises Black Horse) who found considerable damp in the rear end. His opinion was that it would have been there prior to purchase. The motorhome went back to the dealer for repairs. A subsequent independent damp check picked up high levels again in the repaired area, and the dealer sent it to a repair shop. This happened twice, so a total of three dealer arranged repairs. Yet in early 2023 damp was again found in the area, and the dealer refused further repairs claiming it was new damp. The Owner could not get the dealer to move, so took the MH to a repair shop in Somerset ho after a thorough inspection advised a repair quote of £10000. He notified the dealer that in the absence of any action by them he would authorise the repair and claim costs against the dealership.

The repairs were carried out and the MH returned to a very good standard, and he is now ready to submit his claim via the Small Claims Court. However, I am not sure CRA 2015 covers his situation as he is not looking for a Repair, Refund or Replacement from the Seller.. So I assume it falls within another area of consumer or contract law, or even just a commercial dispute claim. But to my mind it again reflects badly on the industry.

I'm not sure he has followed the best course of action, by having the latest repairs undertaken before the CRA had made any judgment about legal liability, which may have let the seller off the hook.

What would also be critical in all of this would be to be able to prove the damp at each detection had the exact or clearly related cause. as remote commentators we are not able to know if this is the truth or not.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Not sure about that? If you buy something on Amazon you are paying Amazon and if something goes wrong after the initial 30 days you are referred to the seller.

As Mr Plod has pointed out, Amazon do use certain wording in their pages that relates to the the liability under statutory regulations that defines if its an Amazon sale or a sale for an associate.

The name of the sell should be on the relevant paperwork.