Bailey problems

[Anseo]

... Our first starter caravan was a Bailey's , wasn't quite 20K but just short of 15 , yes it had a few problems which were rectified as soon as recognised by the dealer with no problems at all . All have their own problems as we have a different one now which has also had problems but have been rectified by the dealer with no problems .

Hello Craig,
I am pleased or dealer managed to placate you. If they had not put right what should have been right in the first place, would you still hold the same point of view?

The point is you are spending money for brand new goods, which should be perfect. The amount you spend makes no difference, A caravan is not a vastly complex product (despite the protestations of the manufacturers) and it does not require rocket class engineering to assemble them, so if faults continue to arise, which they do, then the manufacturers aren't trying hard enough to make sure the job is done correctly.

Dealers are not the innocent parties either, Firstly they should reject faulty products back to the caravan manufacturer. But secondly they charge the final customer for a PDI, That should find the faults and rectify them before the customer receives the goods. Faulty goods simply should not reach the customer, and that is the job of the dealer on both counts.

Not all customers have the desire or ability to apply corrective actions when a fault arise, and the law takes the same view through the requirements of the CRA.

The OP is right to indignant about the problems he has with his caravan, but legally he should be directing his plight to his seller, but morally the caravan manufacturers should be taking a far more proactive role in both reducing manufacturing mistakes, and supporting customers through the dealerships when things might go wrong, rather than the blank don't care attitude we see all to often.

I have a lot of time for much the Prof says on here (not 100% Prof :lol: ).

But this post sums it all up just really well.

Ta Prof

 

[Dustydog]

... Our first starter caravan was a Bailey's , wasn't quite 20K but just short of 15 , yes it had a few problems which were rectified as soon as recognised by the dealer with no problems at all . All have their own problems as we have a different one now which has also had problems but have been rectified by the dealer with no problems .

Hello Craig,
I am pleased or dealer managed to placate you. If they had not put right what should have been right in the first place, would you still hold the same point of view?

The point is you are spending money for brand new goods, which should be perfect. The amount you spend makes no difference, A caravan is not a vastly complex product (despite the protestations of the manufacturers) and it does not require rocket class engineering to assemble them, so if faults continue to arise, which they do, then the manufacturers aren't trying hard enough to make sure the job is done correctly.

Dealers are not the innocent parties either, Firstly they should reject faulty products back to the caravan manufacturer. But secondly they charge the final customer for a PDI, That should find the faults and rectify them before the customer receives the goods. Faulty goods simply should not reach the customer, and that is the job of the dealer on both counts.

Not all customers have the desire or ability to apply corrective actions when a fault arise, and the law takes the same view through the requirements of the CRA.

The OP is right to indignant about the problems he has with his caravan, but legally he should be directing his plight to his seller, but morally the caravan manufacturers should be taking a far more proactive role in both reducing manufacturing mistakes, and supporting customers through the dealerships when things might go wrong, rather than the blank don't care attitude we see all to often.

I have a lot of time for much the Prof says on here (not 100% Prof :lol: ).

But this post sums it all up just really well.

Ta Prof

This is another excellent thread which cogently sets out the poor purchasers Rights.
Some years back a Slough County Court Judge found in favour of the Plaintiff. The Defendants argued they only guaranteed products for 12 months. The Judge asked if the Defendants, a Dealer, had signs displayed in their showroom saying their products only last one year!

 

[ProfJohnL]

...This is another excellent thread which cogently sets out the poor purchasers Rights.
Some years back a Slough County Court Judge found in favour of the Plaintiff. The Defendants argued they only guaranteed products for 12 months. The Judge asked if the Defendants, a Dealer, had signs displayed in their showroom saying their products only last one year!

Thank you dusty for your support even if its not 100% - but we are all allowed to have personal views on matters.

with regard to the subject of the thread which has made the case for the CRA, it should be clarified to point out it applies in only RETAIL purchases to the end user regardless of the value or who is selling it. It applies to the most expensive house to the single grape and beyond. But the CRA will only provide cover for up to a maximum of 6 years or to the extent of of the reasonable life expectancy of the product up to a maximum of 6 years in England and Wales, or 5 Years in Scotland.

A punnet of grapes are still subject to the CRA but of course its life expectancy would be measured in days not years. By comparison the vast majority of caravans are still being used for 10 years or more, so the CRA's time limit should be the maximum allowed by the CRA.

Retailers seem to make an automatic assumption that when a customer discovers a fault with a product, the customer will want it managed through the manufacturers guarantee, rather than the CRA. Commercially it is understandable as it reduces the retailers exposure to financial risk, but conversely this assumption places the customer at greater financial risk as the recovery of consequential losses is limited by the terms and conditions of the guarantee. Consumers are being taken for a ride, and i'd guess nationally they are losing millions of pounds being for the inconvenience that faults produce and being charged for return costs for faulty goods which the CRA makes the responsibility of the seller.

I believe the law should be changed to make it a legal duty for sellers to ask customers with faulty products how they want the problem to be handled with the automatic assumption emphasis put on the CRA rather than the manufacturers warranty. This will expose the retailer to the same financial jeopardy that customers face when they are sold faulty goods.

There is nothing more salutatory than to see a profit margin put in jeopardy caused by poor buying decisions, or failing to do a proper job before selling on. Empowered dealers will renegotiate trading relations with the caravan manufacturers such that poor quality delivered to dealerships will not be accepted and will be returned to the manufacture for them to put right. And again this action would start to impact the manufacturers profits, and that would make them realise they need to pull their socks up.

If consumers were more aware of their rights and took full advantage of them, retailers would have no choice but to be more proactive and circumspect about which suppliers they use. Poor suppliers (and manufacturers) would be put under financial pressure through lack of sales to put their own houses in order when their competitors start to be known for better quality products.

...I can dream can't I ?

 

[Mel]

I appreciate the fact that the dealer cannot be named, but are they a 'Reputable Dealership' or just someone who sells second hand caravans? If the latter, then this would be the main cause of the drawn out saga of having repairs rectified.
Regards,

Not sure you can generalise Lappy. We had a brand new Bailey from a reputable dealership. The hand over was awful. Fortunately no faults with the van because given the attitude I would not want to have had to test their after sales service. We also have had a 3 year old van from a company that only sells second hand vans. The handover was brilliant. Showed us everything working, spotted and changed a non working bulb on hitch up, gave us a new pump because they “ weren’t happy” with how the old one was performing. It came with a no quibble 6 months guarantee. We had one minor issue in those 6 months, took it back and it was fixed the same day. No issues since.
I think there are plenty of folks who have had good and bad experiences of both sorts of dealers.
Mel