Caravan rejection

[IanofMeon]

Hi all

Bit of advice required if you please. I purchased a new caravan in Jan 09 from a reputable dealer who I've had a good relationship with, on getting it home approx 15 miles from my bedroom window I was able to see a small dent in the roof. I reported this to the dealer by phone followed with an email, they replied they didn't know how it could have happened and they hadn't seen it. They agreed to have it repaired which I accepted at the time subject to it being done to my satisfaction.

Everything has been ok until I washed it this last weekend to find the repair has failed, one paint chip approx 5mm plus 5 or 6 other blisters which have cracks across the centre so will obviously flake as well. I have emailed the dealer with my findings and that I am rejecting the van and would like a replacement ordered. Do you think that this is the correct course of action and are the rights on my side even though I accepted a repair initially.

Many thanks for any comments.

Ian

 

[DavidKlyne]

Ian

I don't pretend to have a complete knowledge of the Sale of Goods act. Usually to reject something it has to be un fit for purpose and I suppose any decision by the dealer or a court will be based on whether what appears to be minor damage (in making that comment I may have misunderstood the amount of damage so I apologise in advance if I have) is sufficient to class it as unfit for purpose in order to get a replacement. I am not for one moment saying it is acceptable but they may well insist on another repair attempt although I could understand you being wary of that. Even if they do repair and you are satisfied with the result I would have thought some goodwill payment/reduction in price paid would be the minimum they should offer. I suppose you have to wait and see how the dealer reacts and if you don't like what they say to be prepared take it further which is unlikely to be stress or cost free!

David

 

[Damian]

As I understand the Sale of Goods Act (as amended), to reject a van in entirety it needs to be unfit for purpose.

A dent which has not pierced the skin , and in a place normally unseen (as such)would not fit the criteria for rejection.

The dent has no real adverse effect on the way the van performs, its fixtures or fittings and it does not leak and there is no evidence of damp in the vicinity of the dent.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Ian,

Your is at least 14 Months old.

The Sale of Goods Act (SoGA) relates everything back to the point of sale, so it is difficult to describe your caravan as new, i.e fresh and recently sold for the first time.

The prime criteria for SoGA is that any fault must have been due to either design materials or workmanship, and that the fault must have been present at the point of sale. In some cases the fault may have been present but not detected or apparent at the time of sale, which I suspect is your contention in this case.

SoGA is about being fair, and to that end, a customer can only expect to have a remedy that makes them no better off, than if the fault had not occurred. For this reason a complete replacement of product with a new one is only likely to happen when the product is very very new (or cannot be economically repaired). In some cases and depending on the product, a matter of hours can be enough to preclude complete replacements

For a caravan of 14 months age, I suspect the fault would have to be so severe that it precluded the use of the product, or it endangered life or limb for a complete rejection to be viewed as reasonable solution.

The fact that you agreed to an initial repair may have an adverse bearing on the matter, except, that it seems the repair may not have been satisfactory. We obviously do not know the reason for this, so I cannot offer any prescriptive advice.

However in general terms, to be able to pursue your desired course of action you will need to get an independent engineers report on the damage and the likely causes. The causes would need to confirm it was either a manufacturing fault or that the initial repair was unsatisfactory. This evidence would need to be robust enough to be presented in court and to withstand alternative arguments.

The biggest difficulty with cases like this is the age of the caravan and the fact it has been used, and that means towed, so there is a real chance that the damage that is now seen may have been caused in ways other than the original fault or repair.

Such as;

hitting over hanging trees.

parked under trees, some sap or other excreted substances can affect paintwork.

Washing the caravan you may have damaged the paint surface allowing water through to corrode the metalwork.

There are a plethora of potential ways of damaging a caravan roof, and the older it is the greater the chance of one or more of them occurring.

In all honesty I do not think you have any realistic chance of a total new replacement caravan. Only if there is an undeniable original manufacturing fault, may you have an outside chance of a complete roof replacement, and due to the age of the caravan and the fact that it has not stopped it from being used for its primary purpose that might be only partially funded by the dealer.

Without any doubt, you must seek professional legal advice before moving any further forward.

 

[Surfer]

Both Damien & John are correct. You need to approach the dealer first to get the repair done. Do you have any paper work as proof of the rpevious repair. It sounds to me as if they may have to put on a new roof skin which is expensive. Highly unlikelt the delaer knew about it as they probably never checked the roof. (How many dealer would check the roof?) They probably can't claim it under warranty so are lumbered with the repair costs which si why they are dragging their feet.

Do everythbing in writing to establish a paper trail shoudl the dispute end up in court and insist that they write back to you.

 

[xtrailman]

Ian

I would personally go for a repair again, no way would i have a new roof, you could end up with all manner of problems if the work is not the best.

You don't say where the dent is, or the severity. Is it possible, or feasible to fit a sky light in its place? or fit a status base only over it?

It would be less of a issue for me, having a bungalow, i don't see the roof!

 

[IanofMeon]

Hi all, thanks for the comments, the dent that was repaired was about half way along the roof close to the n/s. Like I said the dent was repaired but now I have several areas of paint flaking in exactly the area where the dent was repaired. The dealer has requested to see it which I will do in about a weeks time but is accepting no responsibilty for the original damage and is saying the repair is out of the 12 month warranty they give on such things. My point is I picked up a new van, at no point during handover did they offer me ladders to inspect the roof and I'm not 9 foot tall so my first opportunity to glance the roof is when I've got it home half an hour later, 15 miles from them. The dent was immediately reported by phone followed by email stating that I will either reject or have repaired by them subject to it being to my satisfaction. They inspected the van and agreed in writing to have the van repaired, again stating they did not know how it could have happened but at no point in that email did they say they were not accepting responsibilty for it. Now in todays conversations they're saying they didn't accept responsibility and they have refused my rejection. My whole point in this is if they repair it again which I am happy for them to do (at no inconvenience to me) but if fails again in 15 months what happens then, hence my rejection letter, loss of faith in the van being in good condition.

I await any further advice/comments.

Thanks

Ian

 

[Damian]

As you are now in dialogue with your Dealer, it would be inappropriate for any more to be written on an open forum.

Publishing what is private correspondence which may form part of a subsequent legal action is not permitted and is certainly not sensible.

Please consider this topic closed until after the problem has been resolved

 

[xtrailman]

Ian

As i see it the dent could have been done on route from the dealer, or at your home?

Some yob maybe chucking a stone, or a jealous neighbour.

I understand why you are pi$$ed, but i think the dealer is being reasonable?

 

[IanofMeon]

Ian

As i see it the dent could have been done on route from the dealer, or at your home?

Some yob maybe chucking a stone, or a jealous neighbour.

I understand why you are pi$$ed, but i think the dealer is being reasonable?

Ray

As it was my father followed me all the way home on the day of collection, no low trees etc and there would have been no time for a 'jealous' neighbour to damage it before I noted the damage.

 

[IanofMeon]

Damian

I have no intention of publishing anything on here that will damage my legal position hence why I haven't even mentioned the make of van let alone the dealer. Once the legal things are sorted I will name/shame or name/praise.

Ian

 

[readcaravans]

mountains out of molehills.

this is a problem being blown out of all proportion. initially you accepted a repair, and after 14mths use it becomes a problem. i see no grounds at all to reject.

the most simple solution is for the dealer to repair again, correctly and free of charge. they have simply either not primed it properly or have used the wrong paint, mixing water based over the top of cellulose or visa versa. i have seen it before.

 

[catherine2]

mountains out of molehills.

this is a problem being blown out of all proportion. initially you accepted a repair, and after 14mths use it becomes a problem. i see no grounds at all to reject.

the most simple solution is for the dealer to repair again, correctly and free of charge. they have simply either not primed it properly or have used the wrong paint, mixing water based over the top of cellulose or visa versa. i have seen it before.

I agree. I know it is upsetting to find a flaw on a new van or car but we should all remember what the purpose of having a van is - to get away from the stresses and strains of everyday life and to have fun!

By worrying over minor issues that do not in practice detract from the purpose of the van, we can spoil our enjoyment of owning such a luxury.

 

[Surfer]

I think that is very insulting for Reed Caravans to post comments like that when soneone has just spent

 

[owenk]

Hi Ian,

Just to help you clarify your legal position.

Your right to reject the caravan only subsists for a relatively short time after purchase - up until what is termed the point of acceptance. This is when one of three things have happened:

1) When you have communicated your acceptance - not something we usually do, but occassionally we are asked to sign an acceptance document,

2) When you do something to the item that is inconsistant with the seller still being the owner - eg drilling a hole in it to fit something, or

3) Just keeping the items for such a period of time that the seller can reasonably assume we have accepted them.

In practice it is usually 3) that applies. The courts have over the years given various interpretations over how long this is, depending on the circumstances - but usually it seems to be 14 to 28 days.

After that period you instead have the right to claim compensation. That would be the cost of repair, replacement or financial compensation. But 18 months after purchase would not be the full amount paid - because you have after all had a years use out of the van - so have used up some of it value.

However in this case - you obviously accepted a repair in the initial instance, and you are entitled to an effective repair, carried out to a reasonable standard.

Your best bet is to try again to negotiate with the dealer, but if they will not play ball, then you are going to need an expert report to establish that it is a fault with the work carried out, rather than just down to "fair wear and tear".

If you cannot get the dealers help, I would suggest you contact Consumer Direct on 08454 040506 who will advise you about th stages in pursuing your complaint further.

I hope that helps, because making decisions based on unreal expectations does not bring resolution very often.

Owen

 

[marlot]

I think that is very insulting for Reed Caravans to post comments like that when soneone has just spent

 

[IanofMeon]

To Owen, thanks for your advice, I am now waiting to visit the dealer a week Sunday.

To Read caravans, the Ian who responded after your last post wasn't me and as you will know you're not my dealer, but I do agree with his comments. You seem to have been very helpful on this forum in the past but I don't think that comment helps any customer or future customer you may have.

To all others, yes I'm going to enjoy my caravan next week away in Somerset and will update all interested parties on my return from the dealer visit.

Ian

 

[Philspadders]

to replace the caravan you would have to show that the unit is not of merchantable quality within a reasonable period after collecting the item( reasonable has to be defined by a court) ,or that the unit is unfit for purpose.. which it clearly is not as you are using it.

Also having accepted a repair in the first instance ,you would have a very difficult time in a court trying to argue that you now want a replacement unit.

accept a repair,and as for Read Caravans comments ,its just pointing pointing out the facts. The orignal repair was possibly not carried out correctly.

 

[Surfer]

The comment which I deemed unnecessary was "mountains out of molehills" which is insulting at the very least.

If I was the other Ian and found out my new

 

[Parksy]

There are two contributors to this topic with the same username.

I suggest that both Ian's amend their profiles to add the first letter of their surname or at least another letter to differentiate between the two so as to avoid confusion.

 

[readcaravans]

i am sorry for using "mountains out of molehills"

everyone needs to put things into perspective now. how the damage occurred, with repsect, is irrelevant now 14mths later and after accepting the original repair. the dealer really needs to look at this situation again sympathetically, and accept the repair was not completed correctly in the first instance. any decent dealer would admit fault and repair correctly free of charge. and in this respect i am in full support of ian in the OP

 

[Surfer]

There are two contributors to this topic with the same username.

I suggest that both Ian's amend their profiles to add the first letter of their surname or at least another letter to differentiate between the two so as to avoid confusion.

Which Ian has been a member of this forum the longest?