Elddis horror

[ProfJohnL]

Hi Mandarin I am awaiting an inspection by the dealer. I believe I have a similar problem with a 2017 Elddis 554. The "solid"joint in the floor appears to have failed showing daylight through the joint.

I suggest that to cover yourself, and to set the stage to begin a Consumer Right Act action, write to your seller tell them if the manufacturer does not accept liability and provides a free of charge repair, it will be you intention to hold the seller to task under the provisions of the CRA.

The dealer cannot claim they do not think its a fault, because they have referred the matter to the manufacturer.

I strongly suggest you read up about the CRA from somewhere like the consumer associations web site "Which?" You might even feel its worth talking to their legal advice service.

 

[Buckman]

As per the post above here is the Consumer Rights Act 2015. However as the caravan is now 5 years old and the onus is on you to prove that the fault was latent or inherent from day one, it may be in your best interest to get a report from a professional person like an Approved Workshop Scheme technician as they are recognised by the manufacturer.

The dealer or manufacturer may also claim it is accident damage from driving of poor roads in which case to raise a claim with the insurance company. More than likely the assessor will reject the claim, but if you ask for a copy of their report it can possibly be used as evidence that the issue was there from day one due to a manufacturing design or defect.

Can we assume that the caravan has been serviced annually since day one?

 

[Disgruntled 554]

You need to prove the Fault was there from the date of manufacture. Finance will only support you for the first six months. The key word is "body integrity ". That piece is in the "solid warranty" toilet paper because it has been useful for nothing else.

 

[Buckman]

You need to prove the Fault was there from the date of manufacture. Finance will only support you for the first six months. The key word is "body integrity ". That piece is in the "solid warranty" toilet paper because it has been useful for nothing else.

Hire purchase protection is there for as long as it is on HP as it is the finance house than owns the caravan. If on HP it is the finance house that is liable and not the dealer as it is the finance house that supplied the caravan.

 

[ProfJohnL]

As per the post above here is the Consumer Rights Act 2015. However as the caravan is now 5 years old and the onus is on you to prove that the fault was latent or inherent from day one, it may be in your best interest to get a report from a professional person like an Approved Workshop Scheme technician as they are recognised by the manufacturer.

Whether the provider of a professional report is recognised by the the manufacturer has no relevance in a CRA action, as a CRA action does not involve the manufacturer or their opinions, Its whether the writer is recognised by the courts as being classed as expert in the subject in hand.

The dealer or manufacturer may also claim it is accident damage from driving of poor roads in which case to raise a claim with the insurance company. More than likely the assessor will reject the claim, but if you ask for a copy of their report it can possibly be used as evidence that the issue was there from day one due to a manufacturing design or defect.

In this case the problem has been reported to the dealer, who if they thought it was damage through accident or some other non warrantable cause they would have said so and advised the owner as such. The fact the dealer has referred the problem to the manufacturers warranty scheme strongly suggests they believe it is a warrantable failure, and that referral is a strong indicator of the liability. It may be sufficient to swing a CRA judgement, but a second independent professional opinion would certainly help.

Can we assume that the caravan has been serviced annually since day one?

The nature of the fault is not a service item, though it should be hoped that if early evidence of the failure was present that it would have been picked up during a service With such types of failure unless it is a recognised failure mode, and specific measures are taken to inspect for the fault, it very unlikely to be noticed until it actually breaks, so the number , type, and interval of service carried out are not relevant.

 

[Mandarin]

Hi Mandarin I am awaiting an inspection by the dealer. I believe I have a similar problem with a 2017 Elddis 554. The "solid"joint in the floor appears to have failed showing daylight through the joint.

That's a bit more severe than our problem, its not clear to me what has failed and it was the dealer who decided it was more serious than we thought at first. However the latest implication is a fractured bbq feed gas pipe last weekend, probably due to body movement. That will be sorted on Monday.

Lucky for us the van is well within the 3 year warranty and our dealer is working with us and we have a good relationship with them.

Right now they assure us we can carry on using the van, and we've another three or four trips planned before year end.

 

[Buckman]

possible

Whether the provider of a professional report is recognised by the the manufacturer has no relevance in a CRA action, as a CRA action does not involve the manufacturer or their opinions, Its whether the writer is recognised by the courts as being classed as expert in the subject in hand.

In this case the problem has been reported to the dealer, who if they thought it was damage through accident or some other non warrantable cause they would have said so and advised the owner as such. The fact the dealer has referred the problem to the manufacturers warranty scheme strongly suggests they believe it is a warrantable failure, and that referral is a strong indicator of the liability. It may be sufficient to swing a CRA judgement, but a second independent professional opinion would certainly help.

The nature of the fault is not a service item, though it should be hoped that if early evidence of the failure was present that it would have been picked up during a service With such types of failure unless it is a recognised failure mode, and specific measures are taken to inspect for the fault, it very unlikely to be noticed until it actually breaks, so the number , type, and interval of service carried out are not relevant.

We reported our issue to dealer who referred it to the manufacturer who then stated it was accident damage. So forewarned is forearmed.

If a service was not carried done annually, it could be stated that at a service the issue would have been picked up earlier preventing further damage occurring therefore any warranty is not in force.

The OP needs to prove it was a latent or inherent fault that was there from day one to be successful with any claim if the manufacturer rejects any warranty claim.

 

[ProfJohnL]

possible


We reported our issue to dealer who referred it to the manufacturer who then stated it was accident damage. So forewarned is forearmed.

If a service was not carried done annually, it could be stated that at a service the issue would have been picked up earlier preventing further damage occurring therefore any warranty is not in force.

The OP needs to prove it was a latent or inherent fault that was there from day one to be successful with any claim if the manufacturer rejects any warranty claim.

Under the CRA the seller cannot hide behind a manufacturers refusal to accept liability. A product might have a 1 year manufacturer's warranty which might have expired, but the CRA provides cover for up to 6 years. So it is entirely possible for a manufacture to legitimately decline a claim because their warranty liability has expired, but the seller cannot use that refusal as a reason to defend a claim made under the CRA. The seller can still be liable for another 5 years.

In the OP's case, I assume the caravan was taken to the dealer, who will have inspected it. Presumably the dealer is competent to assess such matters and would have assessed this caravan. They would or should know the difference between damage caused by an accident and they should have advised the customer before submitting a claim to the manufacturer.

The OP hasn't told us if the manufacturer actually physically inspected the Caravan, so I suspect they have simply used the dealers report.

By submitting the claim the dealer is effectively saying "We believe this is a legitimate warranty claim for a latent manufacturing or design fault" and that means they are also admitting liability under the CRA for retailing faulty goods.

If you are engaging in a CRA action, the manufacturers warranty has no influence over the consideration or outcome of the action. That is why virtually all manufacturers warranty statements have a note to the effect "This warranty does not affect your statutory rights"

 

[Raywood]

As per my earlier point we seem to have at least two cases on here and a search of the other caravan forums might pick up more. If you can get a few it tends to show a manufacturing problem and would strengthen any claim.

 

[Disgruntled 554]

Hire purchase protection is there for as long as it is on HP as it is the finance house than owns the caravan. If on HP it is the finance house that is liable and not the dealer as it is the finance house that supplied the caravan.

I have the document from the finance stating that they have no responsibility after 6 months. If I want to take it further I need to get the financial ombudsman involved

 

[Disgruntled 554]

As per my earlier point we seem to have at least two cases on here and a search of the other caravan forums might pick up more. If you can get a few it tends to show a manufacturing problem and would strengthen any claim.

This was one of reasons for writing this, there may be more people who have loose rivets or even rivets that have sheared off. They are not aware that the side is parting company from the floor..

 

[Buckman]

I have the document from the finance stating that they have no responsibility after 6 months. If I want to take it further I need to get the financial ombudsman involved

Their T&CS cannot over write legislation passed by parliament. When we rejected our caravan it was 11 months old and on finance. The finance house had to deal with the issue.