Baileys apology

[goodoldmrfenwick]

Stuart Rudd makes a retraction and an apology to Jonathan Smith at Fenwicks.

"In my last message I felt I presented Fenwick's in an unfair light, through not quite grasping Bailey's position to the full. I have written to Jonathan Smith of Fenwick's along the following lines: I have spoken to Bailey Caravans and it appears that I have misunderstood the exact position . Baileys have clarified that what I should have comprehended is that their panel suppliers are developing an approved list of products for use on their products.A number of cleaning products have been tested but so far only two have passed the compatibility tests and are approved for use on Bailey Caravans. The two products so far approved are Care-avan Hi-Tech Shampoo and Care-avan Caravan Polish. Fenwick's is not yet on the approved list and as they occupy a position of significance in the market, in what I perceived as a duty of care to members, I mentioned Fenwick's by name instead of generalising.

I therefore take this opportunity of apologising to Jonathan Smith and his team for singling out Fenwicks and I make the essence of my e-mail to him public".

 

[goodoldmrfenwick]

I suppose thats as much as i can expect, given the circumstances.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello James,

Your postings here do not make a great deal of sense, they are without context, and I for one am not sure who is supposed to have said what and to whom.

Who and what is Stuart Rudd?

Who is being quoted? and where does it come from?

What is your role in all of this?

What had you hoped to receive from this forum that would have met your expectations?

Can you please clarify?

 

[marlot]

James - why don't you use the renewed fuss to get your cleaners tested by the Bailey suppliers [paid for by Bailey and the Bailey Club]? I for one would use overwintering if I knew it had been tested.

 

[goodoldmrfenwick]

As a supplier, I will add the following comments and do my very best to be impartial.

Regarding Baileys offer to have Fenwick's products tested and members emails directly to Fenwick's asking them to submit product. The responsible person at Fenwick's is on a well earned holiday at present, so (we are sure) responses will be made after they return later this month. No assumptions should be made as to the "lack of response" by Fenwick's to this offer to date, please don't jump the gun.

Regarding warrantee work on front and back panels carried out by Baileys. As a serious manufacturer of high quality caravans, Baileys have honoured warrantee claims for damaged front and / or back panels. To our knowledge, none of this damage has been blamed on any make of dedicated caravan cleaner, polish etc. used on the van and none of these claims have been passed on to any manufacturer of any dedicated caravan cleaner, polish etc.

Regarding invalidation of manufacturers warrantee. The simple fact is that, there are no statements in any official Bailey documents supplied with their units or in supplimental documents advising that the use of any specific make of dedicated caravan cleaner, polishes, etc. invalidate their manufacturers warrantee.

Have Baileys refused to honour their manufacturers warrentee because a customer has used a specific dedictaed caravan cleaner, polish etc.? NO.

Would Baileys make an official statement directly to their customers if the use of a specific dedicated caravan cleaner, polish etc. invalidated the manufacturers warrantee? YES

Regarding recommended products. In our opinion this is exactly "what it says on the can", they are "recommended" products (you can use whatever dedicated products you like, but these ones are tested and recommended), not "exclusive" products (you must use these products to the exclusion of all others).

Regarding definative lists of individual products "suitable for the job". As there are literally thousands of cleaning products (dedicated, general, generic, etc. etc) on the world market today, it is unrealistic to expect a manufacturer, such as Baileys, to prepare a lists of specific "suitable" and "will invalidate the warrantee" products. There are those who will say, but we are only asking about Fenwick's, but the next will only be asking about e.g. Turtlewax, the next about Fairy Liquid, the next about xxx etc, etc. hope you see the point. Manufacturers can only be expected to make general statements, "Dont' clean your unit with paint stripper", rather than list every make and type of paint stripper, extream, but again, hope it makes the point.

Having said all the above, the simple fact is, using Fenwick's products on your Bailey unit will not cause damage and it will not invalidate the manufacturers warrantee. Ditto for all other makes and models of caravan, motorhome, RV.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello James , You did not answer my earlier questions.

The statement you have given does not define who you represent. Without knowing who said what and to whom.

Please clarify.

 

[Icemaker]

i remember bailey making the accusation well john, the thread at the time was quite long as people where led to believe that fenwicks was damaging the front and rear panels on bailey vans.

it seems from james roger's posting that it has taken bailey allmost a year to appologise to fenwicks for the false accusations whether intended or not.

At the time of the accusations i remember standing up for fenwicks as i have used the products whith out problems for many years infact i have allways had superb results from both the cleaner and bobby dazzler finnisher.

the way i read james's post is bailey have now appologised for something that happened a good while ago, probably after a legal challenge.

 

[caravanoracle]

removed

 

[ProfJohnL]

I am not trying to prolong this thread, but I am trying to make sense of these postings that just seem to be unrelated statements, but without knowing who they are from and which organisations are involved they make no sense.

If you are going to quote, please make sure you include the name and the source of their authority.

Just using a name does not help.

Please accuse me of being dumb,

but it is still not clear to me who James Roger is , who is he employed by or who does he represent?

Who is Stuart Rudd, and who does he represent?

It is fairly clear that Jonathan Smith is connected to Fenwicks.

I ask again can someone identify the names mentioned with a particular organisation please.

 

[Dustydog]

John

As far as I know Stuart Rudd is the Chairman of the Bailey Owners Caravan Club,.

"James Roger" is the founder of the Fenwicks group of companies . He's better known as "Old Mr Fenwick".

Cheers

Dustydog

 

[goodoldmrfenwick]

I am not trying to prolong this thread, but I am trying to make sense of these postings that just seem to be unrelated statements, but without knowing who they are from and which organisations are involved they make no sense.

If you are going to quote, please make sure you include the name and the source of their authority.

Just using a name does not help.

Please accuse me of being dumb,

but it is still not clear to me who James Roger is , who is he employed by or who does he represent?

Who is Stuart Rudd, and who does he represent?

It is fairly clear that Jonathan Smith is connected to Fenwicks.

I ask again can someone identify the names mentioned with a particular organisation please.

HI, THANKS CRUSTY BOG

 

[ProfJohnL]

Thank you Dusty,

It seems to make more sense now.

However I am not happy with Mr Roger for not taking the courtesy to clarify himself, and an I am quite disturbed by his most recent comment, in fact I find his last posting to be very childish.

This rather devalues his postings.

This is a matter that is clearly commercially sensitive and where the statements should be made in good faith, and with properly noted authorities and associations.

I shall not post any further on this thread.

 

[goodoldmrfenwick]

Thank you Dusty,

It seems to make more sense now.

However I am not happy with Mr Roger for not taking the courtesy to clarify himself, and an I am quite disturbed by his most recent comment, in fact I find his last posting to be very childish.

This rather devalues his postings.

This is a matter that is clearly commercially sensitive and where the statements should be made in good faith, and with properly noted authorities and associations.

I shall not post any further on this thread.

Thank christ for that