Faulty Lunar quasar 462 caravan.USE YOUR RIGHTS

[ValA.]

Hello
This is to let you know that the out come of a legal battle that has taken 18months to win.
on 12th march 2010 i purchased a brand new lunar quasar 462 ,along with an awning and al ko wheel lock from (sorry details removed by moderator as contravenes forum rules) Caravans. As soon as i got the new caravan home on the day of delivery , it became clear that there were problems with it, the water heater did not work on electric, the windows were all badly scratched, the rear panel was cracked on the top n/s corner, entrance door warped and let in water, water in n/s bedbox from floor vent, water in rear light, roof above door bowed so it held rain water, which as soon as you went to enter or leave the caravan .grab handles on front panel not secured to main body, and worst dangerous electrics.
there were over twenty major faults ,i contacted ............................ Caravans who said they were very busy and that they would ring me and arrange for the caravan to come in and any work would be put right under warranty.
................... Caravans never rang so after 2 weeks i rang and eventually they gave me a date which was 6 weeks from when i purchased the caravan.
when i arrived on the day the workshop foreman tried to belittle every problem i pointed out, and the usual comments, they all do that and so on.
i left the caravan for 2 days and when i returned to pick up the caravan they had bent the door frame to match the bowed door, made the electrics dangerous and would not do anything about any of the other faults.
i took the caravan home and contacted Lunar caravans, i tried to explain the difficulty i was having with a brand new caravan of theirs and the problem with the dealer so far. i was told that Lunar do not deal with or speak to the public, and that all problems should be dealt with by...................... caravans. i then took legal advice and had a survey on the caravan which showed even more faults.
18 months down the line i won my case and recieved the full amount paid for caravan and accessories, plus approx £1000 in interest.
don,t let the dealers and manufacturors rip you off,i used my household insurance to sue,my costs alone were approx £6000,which were paid by .............................. in the end.
Be prepared for a dispute to take time,don,t give up,also get an assessor to make a report on the caravans condition,i used County Assessors of Timperly . Cheshire.well worth the cost and very professional courteous people.
There is alot more detail to this story, the running around ,the stress of dealing with people who could not care less that you bought a new caravan from them, and the unbelievable arrogance of the manufacturer.
I have now bought a Bessacarr 765 motorhome and look forward to getting away once again.

kind regards Ken.

 

[ValA.]

It's good to hear that your persistence paid off Ken - but what an awful story about a shoddily made caravan! It must have been very stressful - but worth it in the end!

 

[Dustydog]

Congratulations Ken.
Hopefully this will have been recorded in your local newspapers too.
Just a shame Lunar themselves didn't bite the bullet and try and help. There have been cases on here where a duff caravan has been taken back to the manufacturers workshops, Swift and Bailey I recall, to remedy the original poor build. I'n just sorry it took 18 months to succeed.
Whilst we all know the Contract of purchase is with the Dealer this in itself does not preclude the Manufacturer stepping in to offer help.
Sorry Lunar Nil Points from me!

 

[ken_374564897]

Hello Dustydog.
Lunar were the worst manufacturer I have had the misfortune to have deal with,they held up the dispute( according to my solicitor) ,by arguing over who was going to pay me back my purchase price.
Both companies do not deserve our business,and I would never deal with either of them ,nor all the caravan friends I spoke to about this case.
By the way,I must also give praise to the caravan clubs legal advice line,they pointed me in the right direction and helped with any queries I had.

Kind regards Ken

 

[Tony_5041742]

Well done Ken, it is a great shame that both manufacturer and retailer both let you down so badly but I am very glad your persistance won through in the end. I've never had quite such as extreme situation as you, but my experience of buying new caravans hasn't been great either. The last time we bought a new van, one of the big UK based makes, the dealer played the "your trade in isn't in the condition I expected" scam on the day we were supposed to take delivery. Because I wasn't expecting it and because we had waited 4 months for a factory order I very foolishly accepted what the dealer said and anted up some more money. Since then I've heard similar stories from friends so realise this isn't too uncommon an experience, so I now realise what I should have done was to have immediately taken legal advice.To add insult to injury the new van was full of faults too...

 

[NickinFrance]

Congratulations Ken, it's good to know that the individual can win.
Your experience would make a good article for the magazine (advertising department allowing)

 

[scooby301]

Well done Ken. We had a similar problem with Lunar and the dealer. Luckily I took my time and found all the faults before I handed over any money and rejected the caravan there and then. The faults I found were also belittled by the dealer but like you I stood my ground and Lunar eventually did replace the van for a new one. 10 months on and the van has been back at the dealers more than on any site! and the faults keep coming, as for Lunar I will never ever buy another caravan from them or this dealer.
Enjoy you new motorhome.

Scooby

 

[RogerL]

Isn't there a case for allowing the name of the dealer as well as the manufacturer? The OP won his legal battle so the evidence is now incontrovertible.
I can understand the forum's position in the case of unsubstantiated allegations but this is merely reporting the results of a legal case, ie the proven facts. It's long been a cornerstone of the British legal system that justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.
It's also in the public interest to name the dealer and manufacturer - even if it's not in their interest.

 

[ProfJohnL]

It is possible the case may go appeal, and undue publicity could predujice the case.

 

[RogerL]

It is possible the case may go appeal, and undue publicity could predujice the case.

Appeals are always held after the original case, at which evidence given is a matter of public record (with a handful of exceptions) - the appeals process never requires facts to be suppressed because appeals can go up several levels and take many decades to resolve.
In the OP's case he has had the money and costs so an appeal is now extremely unlikely.

 

[Parksy]

Isn't there a case for allowing the name of the dealer as well as the manufacturer? The OP won his legal battle so the evidence is now incontrovertible.
I can understand the forum's position in the case of unsubstantiated allegations but this is merely reporting the results of a legal case, ie the proven facts. It's long been a cornerstone of the British legal system that justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.
It's also in the public interest to name the dealer and manufacturer - even if it's not in their interest.

I'll take advice from Haymarket and let you know

 

[Surfer]

As a matter of interest, if the issue went to court then the details are in the public domain and it would not be irresponsible to publish the name of the dealer and the plaintiff or OP.

 

[Dustydog]

It is possible the case may go appeal, and undue publicity could predujice the case.

i doubt it John.
According to the OP he's had full recompence from the offending Dealer and has now bought a Bessacar Motor home. A valid point though if he hadn't been paid.
Swift Talk do allow name and shame , even of their own dealers!!

 

[Parksy]

If the case went to court the details are indeed in the public domain, and if those interested would care to seek them out then they will be able to read all of the details for themselves including the name of the dealer.
The name of the caravan manufacturer has been published because it would be impossible to have a caravan forum without mentioning the names of caravan manufacturers but the rules of Practical Caravan forum are quite clear as shown in forum etiquette which can be seen by clicking Here
Rule 4 states:
You may not transmit complaints about named companies or caravan parks. Such individual issues should be taken up with the company direct.

The rule makes no distinction about the outcome of a court case, it simply prohibits the transmission of complaints about named companies under any circumstances, which means that on Practical Caravan forum the dealership involved in the court case with the O.P. cannot be named on the forum.
Swift Talk forum is run by a caravan manufacturer and the naming and shaming referred to only involves dealers within their own network, and this is done with the prior knowledge and approval of those involved.
Practical Caravan forum often shows topics about the sale of goods act and consumer rights and is happy to continue to do so, but the forum is not part of a consumer rights organisation or pressure group and it is not intended to be.
We have no method of verifying facts, and whilst forum comments are taken in good faith, Practical Caravan forum accepts no responsibility for the accuracy of information transmitted within this forum.
Prospective buyers of new or pre owned caravans should inspect the goods very carefully before they accept delivery.
In cases where caravans are faulty, if the dealer refuses to accept responsibility to make good the faults the purchaser should follow the advice given on this forum and by consumers rights organisations, keep records of written correspondence and if there is no resolution they should be prepared to take legal action to claim their rights.
Practical Caravan forum is happy to advise when this happens no matter who the dealer happens to be.

 

[NickinFrance]

You may not transmit complaints about named companies or caravan parks. Such individual issues should be taken up with the company direct.

The original post wasn't a complaint about a dealer, it was a report of the outcome of a court case.

 

[Parksy]

The original post wasn't a complaint about a dealer, it was a report of the outcome of a court case.

A court case centred around a complaint involving a company. Rule 4 makes no distinction.
Edit: The outcome of the court case has been published on the forum.

 

[hortimech]

Right, so not allowed to name anybody in a complaint, can live with this, but as the OP has won his case should this not now be a news item and therefor published in the magazine and main webpage?

 

[ken_374564897]

Hello Scooby
Sorry to hear you have had the same experience as my self,it would seem that us motorhome and caravan folks do the quality control checks for the manufacturers,it would not happen in the car world,as they would lose to much business.
A couple of points for people to remember if they do decide to reject a faulty purchase are -
1 If you reject it , you cannot use it from that point on,or you are accepting the faults.
2 You must take care of it, washing and insuring it as i did.(my costs of assessor and insurance were meet when i won the case) .
3 Write down details of every phone conversation, meetings and letters wrote from the very first instance once you reject , as later on maybe a year or more, it will be hard to recall exact details from memory. it worked for me.

Kind regards Ken.
Moderators Edit
The last line of this posts has been removed.
Parksy (Moderator)

 

[emmerson]

And still people buy new caravans!!!!

 

[Surfer]

Not specific to this case but would a link for example to the case or even a blog be acceptable as then the dealer is not named on the forum? Obviously not a link to the dealer.

 

[Parksy]

Right, so not allowed to name anybody in a complaint, can live with this, but as the OP has won his case should this not now be a news item and therefore published in the magazine and main webpage?

If the O.P decided to write to Practical Caravan Magazine editor Nigel Donnelly it would be the editors decision whether or not to feature the story in the magazine as a news item. Similarly the editorial staff write the items which appear on the main web pages so it would be up to them to decide whether or not to feature the story.

Not specific to this case but would a link for example to the case or even a blog be acceptable as then the dealer is not named on the forum? Obviously not a link to the dealer.

Unfortunately as far as I know county courts don't publish on the internet details or transcripts of the cases heard so there is not much that can be linked to which would provide further useful information about this and other cases.

Forum moderators have no reason to doubt the word of Ken, the O.P. and I for one am very pleased that his consumer rights have been upheld and that he has been compensated by the court.
Practical Caravan forum is more than happy to transmit broad details of such cases over the internet as we have done in this instance.
The transmission of cases such as Kens on internet forums should cause manufacturers to sit up and take notice, and to improve the quality of their products in the long run.
The only problem is that the internet and discussion forums which operate within this electronic media have no choice other than to take whatever is written at face value.
Although 99.9% of what is written on Practical Caravan forum by members is written entirely in good faith with a high likelihood of comments being true and accurate, forum moderators have no mechanism with which to verify facts or the accuracy of all that appears in topics on the forum.
Moderators are ordinary caravan owners who have volunteered to help to keep the forum running while we are using it, we have no investigative powers or free access to lawyers which is why we stick to the rules and guidance shown in forum etiquete and the Terms and Conditions for the use of this forum.

The discussions on various topics which take place regularly on this forum highlight disputed facts which are often hotly debated.
Which side of each of these regular debates (about nothing in particular) is true?
Both parties in debates genuinely believe their own argument so which one is true?
I'm sure that Kens comments are genuine and true but can I prove that they are? It's not part of my remit to try to prove or disprove anything but the points that I have made are the sort of thing that a forum moderator has to consider when making decisions about potential breaches of forum etiquette.
The best thing for concerned forum members to do when buying a caravan would be to bear in mind the things that can go wrong, inspect the caravan thoroughly before removing it from the dealers (something that Ken the OP appears not to have done), and to know your consumer rights so no matter who the dealer is you will be less likely to be in a similar situation.

 

[Dustydog]

Parksy ,
Everything you have said in the last few posts is absolutely correct and I for one will not castigate the stance taken.
It is a sad fact of life that Media Organisations such as Lord Hezza's Haymarket are always targets for Libel actions. That alone precludes any mention of the offending Dealer on here. You only have to see how much the newspapers pay out in Libel actions.
So is there any objection to Ken agreeing to tell forum members by private e-mail if they really want to know?
I guess a number of us already know who the dealer is just from the geographic location which has of course been sensibly ediited out. It is probably worthy of further note that organisations such as Haymarket invariably pay substatntial Insurance premiums to Insurers for Libel cover. They have to abide by the Insurers T&Cs hence Forum Rule 4.
However if the Dealer involved wished to post about the matter I assume that will be welcome from Lord Hezza et al

.
There are hundreds of members on here who on the whole have had good Dealer experiences. We can of course praise the Dealer by name if we wish.

 

[RogerL]

Parksy ,
Everything you have said in the last few posts is absolutely correct and I for one will not castigate the stance taken.
It is a sad fact of life that Media Organisations such as Lord Hezza's Haymarket are always targets for Libel actions. That alone precludes any mention of the offending Dealer on here. You only have to see how much the newspapers pay out in Libel actions.
So is there any objection to Ken agreeing to tell forum members by private e-mail if they really want to know?
I guess a number of us already know who the dealer is just from the geographic location which has of course been sensibly ediited out. It is probably worthy of further note that organisations such as Haymarket invariably pay substatntial Insurance premiums to Insurers for Libel cover. They have to abide by the Insurers T&Cs hence Forum Rule 4.
However if the Dealer involved wished to post about the matter I assume that will be welcome from Lord Hezza et al

.
There are hundreds of members on here who on the whole have had good Dealer experiences. We can of course praise the Dealer by name if we wish.

Just remember that Libel/Slander only occurs when unfair/untrue statements are made.
Those found liable in civil proceedings CAN'T hide behind the Libel/Slander laws - it can't be used to keep malpractice secret.
It's laughable that Haymarket should be concerned about being sued by the dealer over revealing the facts when the facts have already been debated in court and found against the dealer.
The media seems able to publish whatever it wants whether true or not and uses "Freedom of The Press" to defend that right but individuals can't publish facts proven in court - does that sound like balanced to anyone?

 

[RayS]

Having served as a Mod, this is just the sort of thread that stops other people doing so, If you've got issues about what can or cannot be published, take them up directly with Nigel or Haymarket, Parksy/ Steve is doing a great job and I know first hand how difficult it can be.

If carried to extremes this could lead to all postings having to be moderated before publication which none of us want.

Please be aware - if you don't already know - that Mods are not Haymarket employees, do not get paid, run some risk of legal action, and do the job for the love of our hobby.

Whether or not name and shame is applicable is a decision - right or wrong - for the publishers. The Forum guidelines attempt to give the MODs just what they say -guidelines - so please direct your concerns to the correct target/s and leave Steve and Damain et al to do what they have control over.

 

[RogerL]

There's no access to the "correct targets" so we have to go through the Moderators and none of the comments are aimed at them