Elddis Major Damp

[Raywood]

All brands are the same and have similar issues. We have had issues with Lunar, Bailey and Swift caravans in the past however they most were second hand caravans and covered by SOGA.
Sadly no manufacturer or dealer has any obligation to cover repairs on a caravan for more than 6 years as that is written into legislation. Unless you have paid for repairs after 2015, you probably are not covered by CRA 2015. However it is up to your solicitor to tackle the issue as they will know more than any of us.

You are correct that Eldiss cannot now be involved, I did point out some way back that any action would have to be against the dealer for the faulty repair. We are told there is an experts report to back up that this was a faulty repair and if the report is that conclusive it should enable a successful claim.

 

[Buckman]

You are correct that Eldiss cannot now be involved, I did point out some way back that any action would have to be against the dealer for the faulty repair. We are told there is an experts report to back up that this was a faulty repair and if the report is that conclusive it should enable a successful claim.

A lot depends on how long ago the repair was done and whether it was under warranty or whether consumer paid.

I am not sure how CRA 2015 is applied if you have a repair done under warranty in year 3 and need the same repair done in year 7. If you paid, I think you should have CRA 2015 cover if you are able to prove that the fault was there from day one after the repair?

 

[Raywood]

The claim here is not under the CRA but a simple one based on the common law duty of the repairer to carry out the work in a satisfactory manner. The guarantee and CRA are not relevant because the problem seems to be caused by faulty repair and not the original problem.

 

[longtailtit]

Thanks everyone - all good points - the law in this area is actually quite complex (in our case : purchase was in 2014 - defective repair was in 2018 - damage reappears in 2021 - & the dealer did all the annual servicing so there was an additional duty of care there too).

So there are several twists and turns for our solicitor to work out - in particular our extremely useful SAR(s) have effectively allowed us to see all documents from both sides.

Will keep you posted as and when I can.

(The SAR procedure is an exercise that others with issues could well benefit from too - I thoroughly recommend it - it can be done for both dealer and manufacturer) .

 

[Buckman]

If you had paid for the repair in 2018 then it is covered under CRA 2015.

 

[ProfJohnL]

If you paid for the repair in 2018 then it is covered under CRA 2015.

Longtailtit has on several occasions quite clearly stated it was repaired in 2018 under warranty. The repair was therefore authorised and paid for by the the caravan manufacturer.

 

[Dustydog]

If you paid for the repair in 2018 then it is covered under CRA 2015.

We have been very lucky that Longtsilt it has kept us very well briefed on the convoluted scope of the problem.How potential Statutes may or may not be involved ie SOGA and CRA, plus common Law Tort etc. Further he has shared some of his well qualified Solicitors views,. A long way to go yet and far more complex than was originally thought.
So many thanks to Longtailtit for sticking with us. I wish him a good final outcome.plus all the Forumites inputs have been useful too👏

 

[Raywood]

Longtailtit has on several occasions quite clearly stated it was repaired in 2018 under warranty. The repair was therefore authorised and paid for by the the caravan manufacturer.

I think the relevant point here is that it was the OP's choice to put the claim through the dealer and the repair was carried out by them. Eldiss may have accepted this as a claim under the warranty but they did not take responsibility for the quality of the work . The dealer has the common law duty to do this to an acceptable standard and apparently failed. On that basis I think only the dealer can be pursued successfully.

 

[Buckman]

Longtailtit has on several occasions quite clearly stated it was repaired in 2018 under warranty. The repair was therefore authorised and paid for by the the caravan manufacturer.

I left out "had".

 

[Raywood]

I appreciate that but this does not mean they take responsibility for the quality of the work. Basically any repairer can put the claim in and Eldiss will agree to them doing the work, assuming they accept the warranty rates. The choice of repairer is down to the caravan owner, at least in theory, although I accept in practice it might not be that easy. The workshop we use for our caravan servicing is an approved Eldiss one, but does not sell caravans for them, so you have other choices.

 

[Buckman]

To compliment this thread, thsi article may be of interest as it is a genuine recent claim.

Which Legal Services member John bought a brand new Lunar Clubman ES touring caravan in May 2017 for £21,499. However, John quickly realised that the caravan had a catalogue of flaws, including misaligned panels and faulty touch lights. The dealer he bought it from fixed some of the problems out of goodwill, but more faults later developed. The dealer said that because the 12-month warranty had expired, it wasn’t obliged to help with any more repairs.

John decided he wanted to reject and return the caravan, but the dealer refused. It also refused to pay for travel costs for taking the caravan in for repairs, which John was in fact entitled to. He was left disappointed with an expensive caravan that had multiple defects.

Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, John was entitled to expect the caravan to be of satisfactory quality. It wasn’t, so this was a breach of contract. The dealer was also wrong to rely on the warranty. John’s next step was to enforce his ‘final right to reject’ and claim a refund.

John was advised by WLS to ask his credit card provider for a refund, as under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act it was jointly liable for the breach of contract. The Bank accepted the evidence, and it was agreed that the caravan should be sold privately. The bank agreed to make up the difference in cost, and John received £22,241.98 back in total.

As John paid using a credit card, his payment was protected under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act. This Act protects consumers when they use their card to pay for goods or services worth £100 up to £30,000 if things go wrong. The bank did need an independent assessment by a caravan specialist to confirm the defects before it finalised the refund.

I must admit I was not aware that one could claim travelling costs for travelling back and forth for repairs?

 

[RogerL]

So the faulty caravan was offloaded to another private buyer, with no warranty, rather than back to the selling dealer? That sounds like the dealer has got away almost scot-free.

 

[Buckman]

I would think that it would have been up to the CC company as they now owned the caravan? Wouldn't the CC company claim back from dealer and any finance company?

 

[RogerL]

I would think that it would have been up to the CC company as they now owned the caravan? Wouldn't the CC company claim back from dealer and any finance company?

That's not my understanding from your account - unlike HP or PCP, the bank doesn't own the item bought on a credit card, it seems they only paid out on the difference between private sale value and amount claimed.

 

[Buckman]

That's not my understanding from your account - unlike HP or PCP, the bank doesn't own the item bought on a credit card, it seems they only paid out on the difference between private sale value and amount claimed.

I have no idea and not particularly interested in how the dealer, finance house or CC sorted out their issues. I posted the post in case anyone was interested in reading it to understand their options.

 

[Raywood]

Given the caravans history I cannot see this fetching much. No sensible dealer would buy it given its history unless they felt confident they could repair it. If they did not they would almost inevitably have a claim against them for whatever they sold it for so it would not be worth the risk.
The caravan belonged to the claimant before the settlement and the finance company would normally have the claimants rights against the dealer assigned to them in return for the payment. This would allow them to pursue the dealer if they thought it worth their while and for the sum involved I think they would.

 

[longtailtit]

Hi , I'm still here and am awaiting hearing from our Family Legal Solicitor - I actually think our case has been referred on to a barrister, not least because my Subject Access Request revealed that the dealer was hiding relevant information to our claim, which the dealer had a duty to disclose. Courts disapprove of less- than -honest behaviour and have the power to penalise the dealer under sections 32(1)(b) and 32(2) of the Limitation Act 1980 - i.e. under this section the usual 6 year limitation clock stops -rewinds - and restarts at "zero" at the point that we could have reasonably discovered these concealed facts.

This would certainly be very helpful for us, and because we would have extra time this would open up the whole case both in breach of contract (for supplying a defective caravan) and in breach of duty (for the defective repair).

Will keep you informed...

Hopefully my experiences will help others too, in the fullness of time.

 

[otherclive]

Hi , I'm still here and am awaiting hearing from our Family Legal Solicitor - I actually think our case has been referred on to a barrister, not least because my Subject Access Request revealed that the dealer was hiding relevant information to our claim, which the dealer had a duty to disclose. Courts disapprove of less- than -honest behaviour and have the power to penalise the dealer under sections 32(1)(b) and 32(2) of the Limitation Act 1980 - i.e. under this section the usual 6 year limitation clock stops -rewinds - and restarts at "zero" at the point that we could have reasonably discovered these concealed facts.

This would certainly be very helpful for us, and because we would have extra time this would open up the whole case both in breach of contract (for supplying a defective caravan) and in breach of duty (for the defective repair).

Will keep you informed...

Hopefully my experiences will help others too, in the fullness of time.

Thanks for the update. I cannot for the life of me see why the dealer icw the maker do not make an offer to settle this case as in the greater scheme of business finances they should see the risks ahead.

 

[Buckman]

Hi , I'm still here and am awaiting hearing from our Family Legal Solicitor - I actually think our case has been referred on to a barrister, not least because my Subject Access Request revealed that the dealer was hiding relevant information to our claim, which the dealer had a duty to disclose. Courts disapprove of less- than -honest behaviour and have the power to penalise the dealer under sections 32(1)(b) and 32(2) of the Limitation Act 1980 - i.e. under this section the usual 6 year limitation clock stops -rewinds - and restarts at "zero" at the point that we could have reasonably discovered these concealed facts.

This would certainly be very helpful for us, and because we would have extra time this would open up the whole case both in breach of contract (for supplying a defective caravan) and in breach of duty (for the defective repair).

Will keep you informed...

Hopefully my experiences will help others too, in the fullness of time.

We simply used Which Legal Services who are a lot cheaper than any solicitor or barrister and were very successful. Hopefully you will be able to claim back all your legal costs. Good luck and thanks for keeping us updated.

 

[Raywood]

Thanks for the update. I cannot for the life of me see why the dealer icw the maker do not make an offer to settle this case as in the greater scheme of business finances they should see the risks ahead.

My feeling is that they are waiting to see if the claim actually does proceed. From my experience this is a common tactic and the defenders simply pay up or try to negotiate once proceedings are commenced. It is only when you prove that you are serious that they take you seriously.

 

[Buckman]

My feeling is that they are waiting to see if the claim actually does proceed. From my experience this is a common tactic and the defenders simply pay up or try to negotiate once proceedings are commenced. It is only when you prove that you are serious that they take you seriously.

You are 100% correct as we came across that when we rejected our 2016 caravan and again more recently.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Thanks for the update. I cannot for the life of me see why the dealer icw the maker do not make an offer to settle this case as in the greater scheme of business finances they should see the risks ahead.

icw ? what does this mean?

 

[Echodale]

icw ? what does this mean?

I Just Googled it and 'tis shorthand for "In Connection With"

 

[virajjuniyal]

I would think that with a damp readings of 21 to 23%, the dealer would hopefully say to monitor it every three months, to ensure the levels are coming down , if they are increasing then you have, a legitimet claim against a bad repair.

hellodear.in

tea tv apk

 

[Raywood]

Possibly the reading is a bit low to say there is a definite problem, but certainly it needs to be monitored. It is not a good sign and it is near where there is a definite need to investigate.