Damper Fault

[Dustydog]

Gafferbill raises a very valid point regarding the head damper pads. Let’s hope they don’t get greased🙉.
I hear all the alarm bells ringing from all the excellent posts on here.
This imo is a classic case where invokation of CRA 2015 is the only language the Dealer will understand. Al-ko and Swift are not interested and why should they be? This is the Dealers problem. And who did the PDI?? What other faults lie within🤔
A rejection today will soon wake them up👍

 

[Jcloughie]

It’s not rocket science. Alkos advice is grease it then use it and see if it then quietens down. The dealer isn’t being particularly helpful and should be more proactive in helping the OP resolve the issue. But noises can come from elsewhere such as the stabiliser pads, towball as well as the hitch assembly.

I agree that the noise might be the stabiliser pads. I was focusing on the non, extending damper. If this is restricting the drawbar movement correction is imperative. But as the damper itself is not greased therefore I feel it is more likely the drawbar itself thats binding.

I don’t think a non extending damper would be noticeable as when my suspension went on one side I fitted Alko dampers on the new axle. Their movement is quite restricted and if one wasn’t functioning correctly I’d expect the axle suspension bushes to take up the small degree of extra load and movement.

If a damper/shock absorber, on any type of suspension has restricted travel. The suspension travel has to be restricted accordingly. The movement within the fitting bushes is tiny.

But if your referring to the rubberised suspension. If the damper stops movement how can this take up any movement?

It is the greasing instruction which leads to confusion. Grease what?

John

 

[Buckman]

It does seem fairly obvious that this is a not a case of whether to grease or not as I am sure any respectable dealer would have already tried these and other options . It does seem to indicate an issue of a more serious nature that may affect safety? I agree with #20 by Prof as again this is a brand new caravan with hardly any use.

 

[Beardy]

Al-ko and Swift are not interested and why should they be?

Legally or morally?
Legally @BladeriderUK has a contract with the dealer, not Alko or Swift. If we accept that the dealer admitted that there was a problem then they should have corrected it in a reasonable time, not submitted a warranty claim to Alko and wait a month for it to be rejected.
Morally, I'm not sure. Should the hitch / drawbar have been greased when it was manufactured / assembled? If so Alko are at fault. Was the hitch / drawbar supplied 'dry' with instructions to grease it when installed? If so Swift may be at fault. I very much doubt that it's left for the dealer to grease on the PDI but I guess that's possible.
The dealer wouldn't have been able to see whether it had been greased without taking it to bits, but I would expect the PDI to include some sort of brake test which may have highlighted the issue assuming it was there at the time.

 

[otherclive]

So much talk and conjecture without any further knowledge about whether things have moved on. By now the hitch may have been greased and operates quietly. If not the stabiliser pads might have been cleaned and checked.

If greasing the hitch doesn’t solve the problem then it’s not that difficult to install a new one, and I would be surprised if the dealer didn’t take that course of action, after all costs would presumably be recovered from Swift. Rejection or refund leaves the OP without a new caravan.

Cannot understand why there’s always this rapid resort to the nuclear option (CRA 2015) rather than as Plodd advises pleasant and forceful discussion to resolve matters.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the OP has been put off using the Forum. Which is a pity as I would have liked an update on the problem.

 

[Mr Plodd]

A PDI does NOT check every single nut bolt and washer, and it's ridiculous to suggest this sort of issue should show up on a PDI.
My advice is about the third post into this thread, and I stand by it.
To talk about rejecting the caravan for what is, in the scale of things, an easily rectified fault is just plain daft.

 

[RogerL]

.....the overun braking mechanism in the hitch won't be responsible for any noises that the towing driver can hear.
Any noise is almost certainly the hitch head damper pads there to dampen down a swaying caravan.
The dealer has identified that the overrun braking mechanism is not extending fully to it's idle position.
Greasing the mechanism is essential and should have been done by alko or the dealer before delivery.
If the caravan brakes are working correctly then I agree with the advice of the dealer and alko.

If the hitch damper can't be fully extended then the brakes can't be properly adjusted

 

[Beardy]

If greasing the hitch doesn’t solve the problem then it’s not that difficult to install a new one, and I would be surprised if the dealer didn’t take that course of action, after all costs would presumably be recovered from Swift.

Not difficult at all but it would take a chunk out of the dealers profit margin. The dealer doesn't have the same level of protection as you or I do under the CRA so they may struggle to get the costs back from Swift.

Cannot understand why there’s always this rapid resort to the nuclear option (CRA 2015) rather than as Plodd advises pleasant and forceful discussion to resolve matters.

I don't think it's a case of 'resorting' to the CRA, but I've found that dropping it into a forceful discussion often puts the retailer 'on the back foot'

In this instance, assuming that greasing the hitch doesn't solve the problem, I'd be pointing out to the dealer that I'd allowed him an attempt to repair which he failed to complete in a reasonable time and my next move would be to reject the caravan unless he was prepared to replace the complete hitch.

Rejection or refund leaves the OP without a new caravan.

..... and the dealer with a broken second hand caravan.

Let's think positive though if the grease doesn't fix it fingers crossed the dealer will do the right thing.

 

[Buckman]

A PDI does NOT check every single nut bolt and washer, and it's ridiculous to suggest this sort of issue should show up on a PDI.
My advice is about the third post into this thread, and I stand by it.
To talk about rejecting the caravan for what is, in the scale of things, an easily rectified fault is just plain daft.

In most cases the nuclear option is definitely the best to get the dealer motivated otherwise they just keep fobbing off people worth excuses. Many dealers as they have your money lose interest as soon as you walk out the door and have no interest in resolving any issues and will simply drag their feet hoping that you will give in to shoddy workmanship.

When I spend over £20k on anything I would expect it to be almost perfect. However by the same token, I don't expect some cheap goods to be perfect or long lasting and live with the fact that although they may cost me £50 instead of the quality item at £200.

 

[otherclive]

In most cases the nuclear option is definitely the best to get the dealer motivated otherwise they just keep fobbing off people worth excuses. Many dealers as they have your money lose interest as soon as you walk out the door and have no interest in resolving any issues and will simply drag their feet hoping that you will give in to shoddy workmanship.

When I spend over £20k on anything I would expect it to be almost perfect. However by the same token, I don't expect some cheap goods to be perfect or long lasting and live with the fact that although they may cost me £50 instead of the quality item at £200.

Tell that to my friend who is currently claiming nearly £10k against the supplying dealer, when he had no option but to have his MH repaired at a separate repair shop because of the Dealers refusal to cary out a further damp repair following an unsuccessful first attempt. My friend's costs exceeded £10k but the SCC limit is generally up to £10k, although at the Courts discretion claims above £10k could be heard within the SCC track. But if it had not been allocated to the SCC track the alternative would have been a formal court hearing with attendant costs and risks.

 

[Buckman]

Tell that to my friend who is currently claiming nearly £10k against the supplying dealer, when he had no option but to have his MH repaired at a separate repair shop because of the Dealers refusal to cary out a further damp repair following an unsuccessful first attempt. My friend's costs exceeded £10k but the SCC limit is generally up to £10k, although at the Courts discretion claims above £10k could be heard within the SCC track. But if it had not been allocated to the SCC track the alternative would have been a formal court hearing with attendant costs and risks.

Your friend's other option was to go through CAB who would progress it to Trading Standards who would then take the appropriate action. A bit drawn out, but a much cheaper option. However with them unfortunately involving a third party i.e. outside repair would complicate matters. We all live and learn and for many of us like myself it was an expensive lesson.

 

[Beardy]

Your friend's other option was to go through CAB who would progress it to Trading Standards who would then take the appropriate action. A bit drawn out, but a much cheaper option. However with them unfortunately involving a third party i.e. outside repair would complicate matters. We all live and learn and for many of us like myself it was an expensive lesson.

Do you have evidence of CAB ever doing that? When I contacted them about an issue with something I'd bought they were next to useless. It became apparent very quickly that the person I was speaking to was reading information from their web site and telling me what it said - completely pointless because I'd already read it. They weren't prepared to do anything other than advise.

 

[otherclive]

Your friend's other option was to go through CAB who would progress it to Trading Standards who would then take the appropriate action. A bit drawn out, but a much cheaper option. However with them unfortunately involving a third party i.e. outside repair would complicate matters. We all live and learn and for many of us like myself it was an expensive lesson.

The supplying dealer was formally notified that a third party repair company would be used, and that there would be a claim against them. As well as the third party repairer my friend got an independent assessment of the likely repair costs as a further benchmark. He did try CAB, and got no where, and a direct approach to Trading Standards was no better.

 

[Dustydog]

Back on track
The OPs caravan as handed over , in Law , was not of merchantable quality.
Surely all we need to do on here is tell him his options? Yes . That has been done and now we are arguing the whys and wherefores? Not good.

CRA 2015 is not limited to the SCC.
English Law is available to everyone . You do not need a solicitor to reject a £40k caravan that is defective as far as CRA 2015 goes. If it was then CRA isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.
Most caravanners I know including on here are prudent decent people . 99% of them will have legal expenses insurance on their household and caravan insurance which will offer substantial financial legal costs in pursuance of the claim.

Then you have the no win no fee brigade, Which.? Etc
The Law Is not beyond the honest person who wishes to enact a CRA claim. I assume their claim for defects is demonstrable, well recorded and technically supported by a qualified caravan engineer.
Go for the jugular, don’t lie down dead!

 

[woodsieboy]

In my view the reason more peolple are suggesting the 'nuclear ' option of rejection is that we have all read stories on this and other outlets where some dealers seem reluctant to honour their obligations to their customer, it does seem shocking that the OP has not been able to get his new caravan problem resolved to his satisfaction, but sadly I think that some companies adopt a policy of hoping the customer will go away if they ignore them. Certainly the customer should go away when it comes to changing caravan next time,but by then the dealership will have forgotten about that customer and be looking for more new suckers to the caravanning hobby. But it is not just caravans, I find it very rare now to phone a company and get a human being to answer the phone, it is normally a menu of button pressing and voice recognition,then the suggestion to go online, which then leads you to AI or chat bot, or whatever system of FAQ they have to keep the customer away from speaking to a human being. We are currently trying to get a problem with a mobile phone resolved since 28 September, e mails, letters etc all ignored, an appeal against a parking notice can't be made as the company concerned does not accept replies to it's e mails, but will accept payment. Trying to get a refund from a company that took a subscription a month early just generates an automatic e mail telling me how they value my custom,although not enough to bother answering the e mail. But as for the OP, my advice is not to give up, either reject and get rid of the caravan, and start again, or resign yourself to an uphill battle until it is resolved to your satisfaction.

 

[ProfJohnL]

It is still surprising how many people do not know about the CRA or other pieces of legislation that might apply when an issue arrises with something they have purchased.

How often have wee seen here in the forum, cases where it seems the CRA would apply, but the person asking for help clearly does not know about their rights or how to use them?

The UK Caravan industry has a long history of producing product of questionable quality, and having poor reputation of honouring their responsibilities and liabilities towards end users after the sale has been completed.

It does appear that dealers in particular do adopt a policy of stonewalling customers becasue they have found that customers either don't know their rights, or customers get fed up with pursuing a claim when it becomes protracted and long winded, and so it fizzles out through frustration on the part of the customer.

Its a war - and one of the best pieces of advice for dealing with sellers who try to ignore their legal responsibilities, is to show the seller you know your rights, and thus are less likely to be put off by delaying or other diversionary
tactics.

For that reason it is well worth pointing out in replies about the CRA. Often simply mentioning the phrase "Consumer Rights Act" can be enough to get the sellers full attention, and a more speedy satisfactory remedy. Using the CRA does not always mean taking action in court, its letting the seller know that you know about it.

 

[otherclive]

Back on track
The OPs caravan as handed over , in Law , was not of merchantable quality.
Surely all we need to do on here is tell him his options? Yes . That has been done and now we are arguing the whys and wherefores? Not good.

CRA 2015 is not limited to the SCC.
English Law is available to everyone . You do not need a solicitor to reject a £40k caravan that is defective as far as CRA 2015 goes. If it was then CRA isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.
Most caravanners I know including on here are prudent decent people . 99% of them will have legal expenses insurance on their household and caravan insurance which will offer substantial financial legal costs in pursuance of the claim.

Then you have the no win no fee brigade, Which.? Etc
The Law Is not beyond the honest person who wishes to enact a CRA claim. I assume their claim for defects is demonstrable, well recorded and technically supported by a qualified caravan engineer.
Go for the jugular, don’t lie down dead!

Do you know or have heard of anyone who has legal expenses insurance where the insurer is willing to fund the legal cost? My friends legal expenses from his bank and CMHC gave advice but declined supporting costs.

 

[Buckman]

Do you know or have heard of anyone who has legal expenses insurance where the insurer is willing to fund the legal cost? My friends legal expenses from his bank and CMHC gave advice but declined supporting costs.

A very valid point as we found out to almost to our detriment. You pay for the service, but all you get is talk and sometimes that talk is incorrect!

 

[Dustydog]

Do you know or have heard of anyone who has legal expenses insurance where the insurer is willing to fund the legal cost? My friends legal expenses from his bank and CMHC gave advice but declined supporting costs.

Yes my neice’s husband and a neighbour. Once you are through the call centres action will happen. But I accept each policy wording is specific but most should cover CRA disputes. Without seeing your friends policy and full knowledge of his claim it is hard to comment constructively.

 

[Buckman]

Yes my neice’s husband and a neighbour. Once you are through the call centres action will happen. But I accept each policy wording is specific but most should cover CRA disputes. Without seeing your friends policy and full knowledge of his claim it is hard to comment constructively.

The best to use is obviously Which Legal Services who are experts in consumer law. Unfortunately in many instances when contacting an insurer's legal advice call centre you are probably speaking to someone who has very little knowledge of CRA 2015 although they may have expertise in other areas. It would have cost us £12k if we had taken the advice as gospel.

Unfortunately this happened to use on two different occasions with different items. With the first item due to advice given we simply rolled over and gave up as the item although not cheap was not high value anyway.

Second time we were a lot wiser and although initially used legal advice for which we had paid, we decided to join Which and the rest is history as we were successful with our claim.