Escalating warranty repair for damp - advice please

[Sam Vimes]

The story so far.....

We purchased our caravan from new in October 2020. After a few months we lodged a warranty claim for a replacement front window as there were marks where the two panes were touching - this was accepted by the dealer and the manufacturer.

On the first service on October 2021 damp was discovered around the window and in one other place. Another warranty claim was made and accepted by the manufacturer. Since then its been nothing but delays in getting all the parts - particularly the replacement window.

I've been very patient and frequently requested an update on when this would be fixed but its always 'we're not sure when we'll get the window'.

Well my patience is at an end and I need to escalate this problem to get it fixed as its now 7 months with no action. To make matters worse on our first trip this year we noticed stains on the inside where the damp was reported to be. I'd already warned the dealer and manufacturer that the longer it was left the worse the problem would get and the work needed to rectify would be more - not to mention the inconvenience to us.

I'm going to speak to them this week and express my disatisfaction with the lack of progress. Now, the magic words CRA2015 are often mentioned on this forum as if its going to get things done but having read through it, it's vague in some respects as it talks about a 'reasonable time to repair' without defining what reasonable is.

So my plan is to have a rant at the dealer and give them a short deadline in which to get it fixed and if they can't do that ask for compensation for having to live with a sub-standard caravan. Not to mention the inconvenience of having to take it back to the dealer just as the season is kicking off and which will result in lack of use.

Any advice you can provide as to how to raise the 'DEFCON' level and get some action would be much appreciated.

Thanks in advance

 

[Jcloughie]

My advice would be to keep your ‘rant’ very civilized and in writing. Always useful in the future. I can understand there being a delay on the window so long as it's reasonable. But not to at least do a temporary repair on the damp ingress in the mean time.

John

 

[Buckman]

It needs to be remembered that the six months time limit is suspended each time the caravan goes in for a repair and only starts again when both parties are happy with the outcome.
A reasonable probably would be a month, but certainly not 7 months. Your caravan may still be within the 6 month window to reject it as you have already given the dealer one chance at a repair. We successfully rejected our caravan when it was 11 months old as it was still within the 30 day window never mind the 6 month window.

 

[Sam Vimes]

Thanks for the replies

My advice would be to keep your ‘rant’ very civilized and in writing. Always useful in the future. I can understand there being a delay on the window so long as it's reasonable. But not to at least do a temporary repair on the damp ingress in the mean time.

John

I'm always civilized when 'ranting' although I confess on one occasion I did lose it a bit when the other end was being particularly obtuse. Equally I always follow up calls with an email re-stating the conversation.

But in reference to your understanding of delays, you use the word 'reasonable' which is not quantifiable. A temporary repair is not possible since its around the window and which has been determine needs replacing to fix the problems.

It needs to be remembered that the six months time limit is suspended each time the caravan goes in for a repair and only starts again when both parties are happy with the outcome.
A reasonable probably would be a month, but certainly not 7 months. Your caravan may still be within the 6 month window to reject it as you have already given the dealer one chance at a repair. We successfully rejected our caravan when it was 11 months old as it was still within the 30 day window never mind the 6 month window.

Not quite sure I understand this. CRA2015 only mentions the 6 month period from receipt of ownership. This is no mention of it restarting once the repair has been successful. Of course there is a warranty period on the repair but not the whole caravan - in this example.

There is in CRA2015 a right to reject or obtain a price reduction if after one repair its still not fixed.

Again in CRA2015 the 30 day short term right to reject is only applicable after you've taken ownership. If you managed to reject yours at the 11 month period I think you were lucky.

Then again the whole issue is a minefield which could keep the lawyers happy for years.

 

[Dustydog]

Buckman correctly points out the CRA on the replaced /repaired item the 6 months starts all over again. So arguably as you told them about the window very early on, not yet replaced, imo you are not yet time barred. The failure to remedy the water ingress has now lead to visible damp damage.
I’d be very firm now and do a Buckman. Ask for an immediate refund on the basis they have failed to comply with the CRA Law resulting in further damage which in turn may have reduced your caravan’s market value,
I hope you are successful in getting the fix you want but remember the total rejection is not necessarily unachievable.

 

[Jcloughie]

I'm always civilized when 'ranting' although I confess on one occasion I did lose it a bit when the other end was being particularly obtuse. Equally I always follow up calls with an email re-stating the conversation.

But in reference to your understanding of delays, you use the word 'reasonable' which is not quantifiable. A temporary repair is not possible since its around the window and which has been determine needs replacing to fix the problems.

You are of course correct. However, that is the word used in law. Loose as it is, it seems to have been proven to be the most useful adjective.

Quote. From: (it may not be from the UK).

Reasonable
Suitable; just; proper; ordinary; fair; usual.

The term reasonable is a generic and relative one and applies to that which is appropriate for aparticular situation.

In the law of Negligence, the reasonable person standard is the standard of care that areasonably prudent person would observe under a given set of circumstances. An individualwho subscribes to such standards can avoid liability for negligence. Similarly a reasonable actis that which might fairly and properly be required of an individual.

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rightsreserved.
reasonable
adj., adv. in law, just, rational, appropriate, ordinary or usual in the circumstances. It may referto care, cause, compensation, doubt (in a criminal trial), and a host of other actions or activities.

Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.
REASONABLE. Conformable or agreeable to reason; just; rational.
2. An award must be reasonable, for if it be of things nugatory in themselves, and offering noadvantage to either of the parties, it cannot be enforced. 3 Bouv. Inst. n. 2096. Vide Award.

John

 

[Buckman]

Thanks for the replies




I'm always civilized when 'ranting' although I confess on one occasion I did lose it a bit when the other end was being particularly obtuse. Equally I always follow up calls with an email re-stating the conversation.

But in reference to your understanding of delays, you use the word 'reasonable' which is not quantifiable. A temporary repair is not possible since its around the window and which has been determine needs replacing to fix the problems.



Not quite sure I understand this. CRA2015 only mentions the 6 month period from receipt of ownership. This is no mention of it restarting once the repair has been successful. Of course there is a warranty period on the repair but not the whole caravan - in this example.

There is in CRA2015 a right to reject or obtain a price reduction if after one repair its still not fixed.

Again in CRA2015 the 30 day short term right to reject is only applicable after you've taken ownership. If you managed to reject yours at the 11 month period I think you were lucky.

Then again the whole issue is a minefield which could keep the lawyers happy for years.

It does not restart from the beginning after a repair. The period is suspended from the time you bring the issue to the dealer's attention until the repair has been resolved to the satisfaction of both parties.
If you mention the repair to the dealer today, but they can only do the repair 6 months hence, the 6 month time period from delivery is suspended. Therefore it could still be in the 6 month window even though the caravan is a year old.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Presently this matter falls under UK civil law, I have read that in UK law the reference to reasonableness is what a reasonable person would understand or expect, which is why civil judgements are based on the balance of probabilities, which is different to Criminal cases where its beyond reasonable doubt.

With regards the problem, the initial contact about the repair on the caravan was under the manufacturers warranty policy, and unfortunately that probably does not set specific periods for how long work can take, so technically the warranty has not been broken- just very long winded.

Crucially the CRA makes it very clear that no other warranty provision can override or cancel your statutory rights , so you have every right to approach the seller to have the necessary work carried out under the CRA. I would presume the seller is fully aware of when the problems were reported as they were probably the conduit you used to try to access the manufacturer's warranty. Assuming that is the case they cant deny liability under the CRA.

Now for the practicalities. If we assume there are genuine reasons why the manufacture has been unable to complete the repairs, its likely the seller will have the same issues with obtaining any necessary parts, so there is strong possibility the delay will be much the same. But there may be alternative solutions which might not be in keeping with the manufacturers protocols so that could affect the remainder of your manufacturers warranty.

There is often a misconception about the meaning of "not fit for purpose" under the CRA. Essentially to make this type of claim stick you would have to show the caravan could not be used at all. I am in now way belittling the damp issues but if you were able to continue to use the caravan with the damp issue present, the caravan hasn't failed completely. This might limit what "losses" you might be able to claim for. If this case were to go to court your loss of use would be likely judged as not total.

I hope the seller does have a means to repair quickly.

 

[Buckman]

There is often a misconception about the meaning of "not fit for purpose" under the CRA. Essentially to make this type of claim stick you would have to show the caravan could not be used at all. I am in now way belittling the damp issues but if you were able to continue to use the caravan with the damp issue present, the caravan hasn't failed completely. This might limit what "losses" you might be able to claim for. If this case were to go to court your loss of use would be likely judged as not total.

I hope the seller does have a means to repair quickly.

Just to add to the above. We used our caravan and rejected it as not "fit for purpose" amongst other clauses in rejecting the caravan. There is no way that any dealer or manufacturer wants to end up in a court of law disputing "not fit for purpose" due to fact that they may probably lose or they will get bad publicity.

We were in France when we rejected the caravan as not fit for purpose and we had no choice except to continue using the caravan until we returned back to the UK. No one challenged the rejection term "not fit for purpose".

Using a caravan with damp issues may give rise to mould and mould spores are dangerous to your respiratory system so again no fit for purpose and the caravan should not be used. There are other reasons why depending on severity of damp also make it unfit for purpose and it should not be used.

 

[Buckman]

Presently this matter falls under UK civil law, I have read that in UK law the reference to reasonableness is what a reasonable person would understand or expect, which is why civil judgements are based on the balance of probabilities, which is different to Criminal cases where its beyond reasonable doubt.

I hope the seller does have a means to repair quickly.

Why do you think it falls under civil law as CRA 2015 is legislation passed by parliament there any infringement would be a criminal offence?
I agree that the term "reasonable" is open to debate and can be interpreted in different ways. Is it reasonable for a person that has paid £20k plus for an item to then wait months for a repair? Is it reasonable for a person that has paid £10 for an item to wait months for a repair? It would be up to a judge to decide what is reasonable taking into account the factors and the item in question.

 

[otherclive]

Why do you think it falls under civil law as CRA 2015 is legislation passed by parliament there any infringement would be a criminal offence?
I agree that the term "reasonable" is open to debate and can be interpreted in different ways. Is it reasonable for a person that has paid £20k plus for an item to then wait months for a repair? Is it reasonable for a person that has paid £10 for an item to wait months for a repair? It would be up to a judge to decide what is reasonable taking into account the factors and the item in question.

It is Civil Law unless there has been an act carried out that clearly breaches criminal laws. In UK there is a lot of law passed by Parliament that falls within the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts, and CRA 2015 is just one such.

 

[Buckman]

It is Civil Law unless there has been an act carried out that clearly breaches criminal laws. In UK there is a lot of law passed by Parliament that falls within the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts, and CRA 2015 is just one such.

It seems that Which Legal Services may be incorrect? Surely if a trader breaches CRA 2015, Trading Standards can institute criminal proceedings on behalf of the consumer and take the supplier to court? https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/notes/division/3/3

 

[Dustydog]

CRA 2015 is a Statute Law. Some of the comments about Civil Law and reasonableness and balance of probability in Civil Courts is correct but not when the Civil Court is dealing with Statuary Law. It is how a Court deals with Statute Laws. Both Civil and Criminal Courts may be involved depending which Statute has been breached. Simple. On Statute matters , in general terms will fall under the Civil Court.I don’t understand why Criminal Law has crept into this Forum??
In essence a claim under CRA will be dealt with by the Civil Court but fully in compliance with the CRA Statute Law,
I do sometimes wonder why we get bogged down on this type of minutiae. Is their a qualified solicitor of barrister amongst us😜😜😜

 

[otherclive]

It seems that Which Legal Services may be incorrect? Surely if a trader breaches CRA 2015, Trading Standards can institute criminal proceedings on behalf of the consumer and take the supplier to court? https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/notes/division/3/3

It seems that Which Legal Services may be incorrect? Surely if a trader breaches CRA 2015, Trading Standards can institute criminal proceedings on behalf of the consumer and take the supplier to court? https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/notes/division/3/3

But surely this never ending debate on CRA 2015 is about a "dispute" between the Buyer and Seller. Introducing Trading Standards is a red herring as it is unlikely that they would became involved in what is a straight forward Civil dispute between Buyer and Seller using CRA 2015 in most cases within the remit of the Small Claim Court.

 

[Sam Vimes]

All of the above just goes to show what a real can of worms can be opened when things go wrong.

Just to re-iterate....

My caravan is not unusable due to the damp, its just the delay in getting it fixed that's bugging me plus the fact that the damp occured so early on in its life and speaks volumes for the quality control or lack of.

Not having it fixed within a reasonable time though - whatever that is - might affect my ability to sell the caravan at a time of my choosing.

Additional inconvenience may come when it does go in for repair and because of the delays they find the problem is bigger than first thought and there's yet even more delay.

There is no question that the problem will be fixed under warranty - but when The dealer has already got the go ahead from the manufacturer but just can't get the parts. The manufacturer basically has dumped the problem on the dealer saying - 'you get the parts directly from the window manufacturer'. The manufacturer wont issue a replacement window to the dealer, presumably because they want them for new vans. The dealer probably isn't that big or important enough to the window manufacturer to have any priority.

 

[ProfJohnL]

CRA 2015 is a Statute Law. Some of the comments about Civil Law and reasonableness and balance of probability in Civil Courts is correct but not when the Civil Court is dealing with Statuary Law. It is how a Court deals with Statute Laws. Both Civil and Criminal Courts may be involved depending which Statute has been breached. Simple. On Statute matters , in general terms will fall under the Civil Court.I don’t understand why Criminal Law has crept into this Forum??
In essence a claim under CRA will be dealt with by the Civil Court but fully in compliance with the CRA Statute Law,
I do sometimes wonder why we get bogged down on this type of minutiae. Is their a qualified solicitor of barrister amongst us😜😜😜

In an effort to explain the way reasonableness is used and how it would be applied, I felt it was important to explain the difference between civil and criminal judgements.

For Buckman
Revised paragraphs
The CRA establishes a set of guide lines that show how manage if any failure of a product or service occurs in retail transactions. In most cases failures are genuine mistakes, with no malice intended, and it would be entirely inappropriate to jump straight to the position of accusing the other party of criminal intention unless there is clear evidence of such.

There are of course some situations where it may be necessary to involve the authorities who look into criminal activity, but I don't think the OP is suggesting there is any illegal activity in this case.

As it stands the CRA is only civil law, However depending on how the CRA may have been breached (for example weights and measures, or deliberate fraud) it could mean that other charges might be brought and those could be criminal.

I should add at this stage I hope the seller understands the position and undertakes the necessary action without recourse to the small claims court.

 

[Buckman]

But surely this never ending debate on CRA 2015 is about a "dispute" between the Buyer and Seller. Introducing Trading Standards is a red herring as it is unlikely that they would became involved in what is a straight forward Civil dispute between Buyer and Seller using CRA 2015 in most cases within the remit of the Small Claim Court.

Thank you for the input. Both Prof and OC are correct regarding CRA 2015 being a civil claim .

 

[Raywood]

I have had a brief look at this and agree with the Prof and OC.
My feeling is that the OP needs to write to the dealer and quote the CRA and point out that at law the problem is theirs and that they are liable to put things right within a reasonable time scale and this has not happened. In the circumstances unless they can give a reasonable fixed date for the work to be done then it will be assumed they will not be complying with the act and therefore they will be required to return the money paid for it. In practice they might be able to deduct something for the subsequent use though.
If the caravan was on HP or a credit card was used to pay for any part of the purchase the companies involved should also have a liability under the Consumer Credit Act and should be contacted..

 

[Sam Vimes]

Please define 'reasonable timescale'.

Expectations may vary depending on what side of the transaction you are.

The dealer is not denying responsibility but appears to be dependent on parts they are having trouble getting from Europe.

 

[Buckman]

Please define 'reasonable timescale'.

Expectations may vary depending on what side of the transaction you are.

The dealer is not denying responsibility but appears to be dependent on parts they are having trouble getting from Europe.

We had the same problem and it took 6 weeks for parts to arrive. I think they rather use parts to build new caravans than use them for repairing caravans under warranty!

 

[ProfJohnL]

Please define 'reasonable timescale'.

Expectations may vary depending on what side of the transaction you are.

The dealer is not denying responsibility but appears to be dependent on parts they are having trouble getting from Europe.

What is "reasonable" may well depend on changing circumstances, so for example the Covid Pandemic may well be a genuine reason to adopt a more flexible time scale. There may be other factors including the added difficulties of importing goods due to Brexit, and the small number of HGV drivers available to move goods around. Basically each case has to be assessed on its own merits and difficulties.

However I think that despite all the possible excuses I noted above, something like a 4 month time scale for the completion of any repairs would be reasonable, but I'm not fully aware of all the specific difficulties of this particular case.

 

[JTQ]

Why do you think it falls under civil law as CRA 2015 is legislation passed by parliament there any infringement would be a criminal offence?

But unless I missed a point here the OP has not invoked a CRA 2015 claim yet, so how has the dealer infringed it?
My understanding would be, if the OP has claimed under CRA 2015 and the dealer was not complying with their legal obligations, or even attempting to mislead the claimant on their rights, then things move into legal territory.

 

[Jcloughie]

Why do you think it falls under civil law as CRA 2015 is legislation passed by parliament there any infringement would be a criminal offence?

It's not that clear cut and could fall within civil and criminal law.

What are the consequences of breaching the Consumer Rights Act?

They can seek a court order and bring civil and criminal provisions under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. If the trader fails to comply with a court order it can lead to a maximum penalty on conviction of an unlimited fine and 2 years' imprisonment.

John

 

[otherclive]

It's not that clear cut and could fall within civil and criminal law.

What are the consequences of breaching the Consumer Rights Act?

They can seek a court order and bring civil and criminal provisions under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. If the trader fails to comply with a court order it can lead to a maximum penalty on conviction of an unlimited fine and 2 years' imprisonment.

John

Surely this is all irrelevant as Sam is still talking to the dealer and a warranty repair has been agreed. In the real world we live in it shoukd not go unnoticed that there are numerous areas where items are not available. The dealer cannot just whistle up an alternative, or cobble together a repair. I have difficulty understanding why so many responses are to dive into the legal mud pool at the first take. I’m sure Sam is very capable of navigating this issue to a successful outcome without resort to proceedings of any type being required.

 

[Jcloughie]

Surely this is all irrelevant as Sam is still talking to the dealer and a warranty repair has been agreed. In the real world we live in it shoukd not go unnoticed that there are numerous areas where items are not available. The dealer cannot just whistle up an alternative, or cobble together a repair. I have difficulty understanding why so many responses are to dive into the legal mud pool at the first take. I’m sure Sam is very capable of navigating this issue to a successful outcome without resort to proceedings of any type being required.

I fully agree but was simply making a correction. Sorry.

But having said that, I imagine the CRA was brought up in direct answer to the OP’s question as if he wishes to escalate it would be in his arsnal, even if not used.

John