Another story that reflects badly on the caravan industry.

[Buckman]

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

I am not sure about that as I did not think awning rails, roof straps etc are not permanently sealed?

Our owner's manual states the following and it si very similar to other manufacturers;

This applies to water ingress through any permanently sealed seam joints.

It was my understanding that this applied, for example, wood bonded together. Surely if awning rails etc were permanently sealed, a lot of damage would occur removing the rail? Definition of "permanent" is "lasting or intended to last or remain unchanged indefinitely".

Happy to be corrected and my thinking amended.

 

[Buckman]

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.

I understand that, but either way surely you are paying Amazon so isn't a contract formed between Amazon and the consumer? I have never had to use CRA 2015 for a faulty article as Amazon have simple changed it, but one day................

 

[otherclive]

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.

The CRA 2015 does not make judgements. It is between the Seller and Buyer and if the Seller refuses action, what does the Buyer do then? Its only if it goes to court that a judgment is made on the case.Not everyone wants to reject or have refund as they then have to go and look for another MH/caravan. Since the Sellers previous repairs were not successful would the Buyer want another offer to Repair? But in this case the Seller refused to countenance another repair. So the Buyer advised them in writing of his decision to carry out a repair under his authority and provide them the necessary independent assessors reports and the report from the intended repair shop, together with their assessment of the damage, and a breakdown of their estimated costs.

I took action years ago via the SCC which predated CRA 2015 and SOGA. The court is there to decide the merits of a claim between the parties in dispute.

 

[ProfJohnL]

...

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.

The CRA may be an act of parliament but its function is in civil law not criminal law.

If an action under the CRA exposes a criminal act, then the accused would have to separately charged under the relevant criminal law, taken to criminal court and tested under its burden of proof.

 

[Buckman]

The CRA 2015 does not make judgements. It is between the Seller and Buyer and if the Seller refuses action, what does the Buyer do then? Its only if it goes to court that a judgment is made on the case.Not everyone wants to reject or have refund as they then have to go and look for another MH/caravan. Since the Sellers previous repairs were not successful would the Buyer want another offer to Repair? But in this case the Seller refused to countenance another repair. So the Buyer advised them in writing of his decision to carry out a repair under his authority and provide them the necessary independent assessors reports and the report from the intended repair shop, together with their assessment of the damage, and a breakdown of their estimated costs.

I took action years ago via the SCC which predated CRA 2015 and SOGA. The court is there to decide the merits of a claim between the parties in dispute.

As your friend paid cash their options were very limited. For a high value item it is always best to buy on HP or use a credit card to pay a deposit. Perhaps they did pay a deposit using a CC and are not aware of S75?

I am guessing that they did not approach CAB or Trading Standards as it is a criminal offence for a seller to ignore CRA 2015. Good luck with their claim as before it goes near court they have to try mediation to resolve the issue.

 

[ProfJohnL]

The CRA 2015 does not make judgements. It is between the Seller and Buyer and if the Seller refuses action, what does the Buyer do then? Its only if it goes to court that a judgment is made on the case.Not everyone wants to reject or have refund as they then have to go and look for another MH/caravan. Since the Sellers previous repairs were not successful would the Buyer want another offer to Repair? But in this case the Seller refused to countenance another repair. So the Buyer advised them in writing of his decision to carry out a repair under his authority and provide them the necessary independent assessors reports and the report from the intended repair shop, together with their assessment of the damage, and a breakdown of their estimated costs.

I took action years ago via the SCC which predated CRA 2015 and SOGA. The court is there to decide the merits of a claim between the parties in dispute.

That is actually what I meant to express, But the uncertainty about being able to reclaim the cost of the third party repairs, would not exist if he had been allowed to get a third party repair with a judgment for the seller to cover the costs, before authorising repairs.

 

[otherclive]

As your friend paid cash their options were very limited. For a high value item it is always best to buy on HP or use a credit card to pay a deposit. Perhaps they did pay a deposit using a CC and are not aware of S75?

I am guessing that they did not approach CAB or Trading Standards as it is a criminal offence for a seller to ignore CRA 2015. Good luck with their claim as before it goes near court they have to try mediation to resolve the issue.

You can take a horse to water but not make it drink. Based on your numerous posts I advised Which Legal Services at the outset, but friend decided to use a legal helpline instead. No finance of any sort, a straight cash purchase. Yes mediation has to be used and at this value it can be provided via the SCC. But it's only a telcos process with an hour to each party, or something equally restrictive. There is no trade association for such issues, as many on this forum realise: and would it be independent anyway?

 

[Dustydog]

A quick check reveals all my Amazon purchases this year specifically mention the seller. Amazon hold my CC details which is used on all purchases.
Amazon’s Ts&Cs are very carefully drafted and easily available for review. Amazon offer certain return or refund terms but this doesn‘t change your rights under CRA 2015 against the seller. Plus as B’man said S75 is also there .

Clive’s friend’s case is extraordinary and I am not sure it has progressed correctly??
I have no wish to question the Legal Advice but will say such advice is also subject to CRA . If such advice is proven to be defective he has another Avenue open for restitution.

 

[otherclive]

A quick check reveals all my Amazon purchases this year specifically mention the seller. Amazon hold my CC details which is used on all purchases.
Amazon’s Ts&Cs are very carefully drafted and easily available for review. Amazon offer certain return or refund terms but this doesn‘t change your rights under CRA 2015 against the seller. Plus as B’man said S75 is also there .

Clive’s friend’s case is extraordinary and I am not sure it has progressed correctly??
I have no wish to question the Legal Advice but will say such advice is also subject to CRA . If such advice is proven to be defective he has another Avenue open for restitution.

After an ongoing saga since October 2021 I don’t think the thought of trying to pursue a Legal Helpline would fill him with joy. He just wants to enjoy the MH and the rest of his retirement. When you pursue these things they start to permeate your life. Fortunately caravans and MHs are discretionary usage, and you can progress it no matter what obstacles are placed in your way. Compared to consumer law wrt motor cars which is a double edged sword especially if you only have one car and no alternative means of transport.

 

[Dustydog]

After an ongoing saga since October 2021 I don’t think the thought of trying to pursue a Legal Helpline would fill him with joy. He just wants to enjoy the MH and the rest of his retirement. When you pursue these things they start to permeate your life. Fortunately caravans and MHs are discretionary usage, and you can progress it no matter what obstacles are placed in your way. Compared to consumer law wrt motor cars which is a double edged sword especially if you only have one car and no alternative means of transport.

Must have deep pockets. £10k is a lot of money for most people on here!

 

[JTQ]

Must have deep pockets. £10k is a lot of money for most people on here!

Yes, but then most here would I suspect be caravanners, whereas the individual referred to is a Motorhomer, & one buying new.

 

[Buckman]

Must have deep pockets. £10k is a lot of money for most people on here!

If we had to pay £10k for a front panel on our caravan, we would not have been able to afford it.