Fleetwood owners

[vansmudge]

Following the going into administration of Fleetwood, I am having difficulty with my dealer to get him to honour his statutory obligations with regard to 'warranty'

Could you let me know the names of dealers which have mainatined the caravans within the letter and spirit of the law.

Thanks.

Barry

 

[caravanoracle]

most dealers were not agents for fleetwood and therefore, according to baristers and lawers who have a better knowledge of retail law than me, say that the legal obligations of the dealer are NOT the same when the manufacturer goes into admin. i know two dealers who were taken to court by customers being advised by consumer direct, and the customer lost.

 

[Dustydog]

That's very interesting.

Any chance you could steer me towards the cases. This means the very foundation of the Sale of Goods Act is not necessarily how we see it.

So in these cases are you saying the Courts paid no heed to the Contract of Purchase / Sale ??

Cheers

Dustydog

 

[caravanoracle]

the sales of goods act isnt as clear cut as first thought, and i know for a fact that a lot of advice given by consumer direct is not to the letter of the law but the interpretation of the individual advisor.

i recently attended a court case were i was representing the company i`m employed by, were consumer direct had informed the customer he had a case under the sales of goods act. consumer direct told him he had 6 years to report a manufacturing defect. the judge told him that they were WRONG and that he could not win his case if he chose to continue. needless to say the customer went away with a rather large amount of egg on his face, no money and a bill for all court costs.

when a caravan dealer is NOT an agent for the manufacturer and just agrees to sell their products, then the manufacturer is no longer trading for any reason, the law is very different.

 

[ProfJohnL]

It is wrong to read too much into the case that caravan oracle relates.

Without knowing the full facts and what the customer was claiming and seeking, and seeing the exact judgement that was handed down, the outcome is not an indication that the sale of Goods act is being devalued.

Historically most customers and sellers were not fully aware of their rights and responsibilities, which meant that customers did not know they had rights and often sellers capitalised on that ignorance and found it easy to block valid warranty claims. That is one reason why sellers are often viewed as being less than honest.

It is important to understand that the act was brought in to to set out guidelines to ensure that the proper interests of both parties in a retail contract (the customer and the seller) are balanced and fair.

SoGA clarifies a consumers rights, but it only responds when there is a genuine case to answer. It is not always going to give the customer the remedy they might want. But it should give them the remedy they deserve. It should also protect sellers from unfair claims.

The customers' case may have been weakened for any number of undisclosed reasons. One that is apparent was the fact that the case was being brought 6 years after the sale, and whilst SoGA does not specify a time limit on claims, 6 years is generally accepted as the practical age maximum limit with consumable products with shorter working lives having a sensible claim life applied by the court, on a case by case basis.

In simple terms, the sellers responsibility diminishes to zero over the reasonable life of the product.

Your rights under the sale of goods are solely the responsibility of the seller. The existence or otherwise of the manufacture is not a relevant factor in the responsibilities of the seller under SOGA.

As always it is important if you are going to seek a remedy through SoGA it is advisable to get professional legal advice.

 

[caravanoracle]

It is wrong to read too much into the case that caravan oracle relates.

Without knowing the full facts and what the customer was claiming and seeking, and seeing the exact judgement that was handed down, the outcome is not an indication that the sale of Goods act is being devalued.

Historically most customers and sellers were not fully aware of their rights and responsibilities, which meant that customers did not know they had rights and often sellers capitalised on that ignorance and found it easy to block valid warranty claims. That is one reason why sellers are often viewed as being less than honest.

It is important to understand that the act was brought in to to set out guidelines to ensure that the proper interests of both parties in a retail contract (the customer and the seller) are balanced and fair.

SoGA clarifies a consumers rights, but it only responds when there is a genuine case to answer. It is not always going to give the customer the remedy they might want. But it should give them the remedy they deserve. It should also protect sellers from unfair claims.

The customers' case may have been weakened for any number of undisclosed reasons. One that is apparent was the fact that the case was being brought 6 years after the sale, and whilst SoGA does not specify a time limit on claims, 6 years is generally accepted as the practical age maximum limit with consumable products with shorter working lives having a sensible claim life applied by the court, on a case by case basis.

In simple terms, the sellers responsibility diminishes to zero over the reasonable life of the product.

Your rights under the sale of goods are solely the responsibility of the seller. The existence or otherwise of the manufacture is not a relevant factor in the responsibilities of the seller under SOGA.

As always it is important if you are going to seek a remedy through SoGA it is advisable to get professional legal advice.

the customer was claiming i was liable for a crack in the front panel of his 5 yr old caravan he bought from me. the crack was noticed by the customer 4 weeks after his 5th service and tried to say the technician had either missed it or ignored it. this is because his extended warranty was still in place at this last service, but not when he found the crack. i was able to prove the crack was not there with acurate service records and damage reports for his caravan. he was advised by consumer direct that i was liable and had 6yrs by law to report the fault and along with an insurance assesors report which stated that in their opinion it was a manufacturing deffect.

the judge made it clear that the customer was not able to PROVE the crack was there and even if he could, he would then have to PROVE it was a manufacturing deffect. in the judges opinion he would not be able to prove it was a manufacturing deffect. he also stated that the 6yr rule which consumer direct had advised him of, was also wrong. so therefore he could not win if he was to persue his case.

 

[Dustydog]

Caravan Oracle

I hear what you say but I feel your interpretation may be slightly askew of reality.

John L has given his excellent assessment of the situation and that is important.

This thread is about Fleetwood Ownwers. If you sold me a Fleetwood caravan , say a year or two ago I am confident the SOGA will allow me to seek full redress from you. My contract of sale is with you, NOT Fleetwood.

The case you site is clearly based on the test of foreseeability and reasonableness. At virtually six years old I may tend to agree with the judge. BUT that result isn't a cast iron affirmation that every Fleetwood owner will not be able to seek redress from the dealer.

Cheers

Dustydog

 

[caravanoracle]

as previous avondale dealers have found out using their lawers, the dealer (not an agent) is not as liable as some people think and the SOGA isnt as clear cut as you may think, especially when you are NOT an agent.

 

[caravanoracle]

i find it a bit one sided when a customer rings consumer direct and they provide the bullets for the customer to shoot. its almost like they dont want businesses to win in any case. in some cases consumer direct are simply wrong and are badly advising a customer of their rights. as a dealer we seek advice from trading standards and i have to say in a lot of cases the advice differs between trading standards and consumer direct. all i am pointing out is that negotiation between the dealer and customer has to be practical and dont take consumer direct as gospel

 

[ProfJohnL]

Please do not take this personally Oracle.

The of the case you were involved in had a particular outcome. The outcome was the result of highly specific circumstances, and it is entirely wrong to use this as an example of the total impact of SoGA. Do not expect SoGA to always have the same result, each case is considered on its own merits.

There are effectively two parts to cases like these, first is the onus to establish the probability a fault existed at the time of sale, and then the second part is to assess the liability of either or both parties.

As the age of the product increases, it is more difficult to establish if a fault existed, and equally as the age increases the level of liability the seller incurs if a fault is established diminishes.

Applying this process to the case you relate:

The suspected fault was reported late in the reasonable life of the product. This decreases the probability that it was present at the time of sale, a position that is supported by your service records.

It might also be a consideration that the extent of the damage should have presented evidence earlier in the life of the product, the fact that it didn't also counts in your favour.

This increases the probability the damage could have arisen from other causes.

On balance it is difficult to believe the damage resulted from a fault that was present at the time of sale, which is the crux of SoGA.

I refer you back to my second paragraph of my earlier posting. The specifics of the judgement are very important. Judges are usually very careful and precise in what they say and write.

I quote your posting "he also stated that the 6yr rule which consumer direct had advised him of, was also wrong." Is this the actual wording of the judgement, I doubt it as it is inaccurate and ambiguous.

It is inaccurate as the six year period is not a "rule" (echos of the 85 and 7% 'rules') It is a guideline and only applies if the normal life expectancy of a product is not shorter e.g. perishable goods etc.

It is ambiguous as does the statement 'also wrong' cold apply to the 6tr rule or to the advice that consumer direct gave.

I construe form the information supplied so far, that the judge rather than saying the six year life is wrong, may have actually said that in this case it was inappropriate.

Ultimately this case is an example of SoGA giving a fair outcome.

Now for the responsibilities under SoGA of franchised and non franchised dealers. In fact their Soga responsibility are exactly the same. All retail sellers are required to supply goods/services at the time of sale that are free from design, material, and manufacturing faults that is of merchantable quality and fit for purpose.

If a product fails as a result of one of the above, the seller is solely responsible to effect a suitable remedy, that is the warranty aspect.

It must not be confused with a manufactures guarantee .This is not a legally required feature of any sale, however most manufactures do offer one, but it is a totally different matter and is not covered by SoGA. Most manufactures back these guarantee independently, and if the manufacture goes belly up then the guarantee also

ceases.

Some extended grantees sold by manufacture arranges to underwite the cost of claims through an insurance policy. Because this is purchased policy, SoGA may apply, but the dealers role depends on how the policy is payed for. As a result the dealer may have some liability if the manufacture fails, but this a different matter to the sale of a caravan its self.

 

[vansmudge]

Please do not take this personally Oracle.

The of the case you were involved in had a particular outcome. The outcome was the result of highly specific circumstances, and it is entirely wrong to use this as an example of the total impact of SoGA. Do not expect SoGA to always have the same result, each case is considered on its own merits.

There are effectively two parts to cases like these, first is the onus to establish the probability a fault existed at the time of sale, and then the second part is to assess the liability of either or both parties.

As the age of the product increases, it is more difficult to establish if a fault existed, and equally as the age increases the level of liability the seller incurs if a fault is established diminishes.

Applying this process to the case you relate:

The suspected fault was reported late in the reasonable life of the product. This decreases the probability that it was present at the time of sale, a position that is supported by your service records.

It might also be a consideration that the extent of the damage should have presented evidence earlier in the life of the product, the fact that it didn't also counts in your favour.

This increases the probability the damage could have arisen from other causes.

On balance it is difficult to believe the damage resulted from a fault that was present at the time of sale, which is the crux of SoGA.

I refer you back to my second paragraph of my earlier posting. The specifics of the judgement are very important. Judges are usually very careful and precise in what they say and write.

I quote your posting "he also stated that the 6yr rule which consumer direct had advised him of, was also wrong." Is this the actual wording of the judgement, I doubt it as it is inaccurate and ambiguous.

It is inaccurate as the six year period is not a "rule" (echos of the 85 and 7% 'rules') It is a guideline and only applies if the normal life expectancy of a product is not shorter e.g. perishable goods etc.

It is ambiguous as does the statement 'also wrong' cold apply to the 6tr rule or to the advice that consumer direct gave.

I construe form the information supplied so far, that the judge rather than saying the six year life is wrong, may have actually said that in this case it was inappropriate.

Ultimately this case is an example of SoGA giving a fair outcome.

Now for the responsibilities under SoGA of franchised and non franchised dealers. In fact their Soga responsibility are exactly the same. All retail sellers are required to supply goods/services at the time of sale that are free from design, material, and manufacturing faults that is of merchantable quality and fit for purpose.

If a product fails as a result of one of the above, the seller is solely responsible to effect a suitable remedy, that is the warranty aspect.

It must not be confused with a manufactures guarantee .This is not a legally required feature of any sale, however most manufactures do offer one, but it is a totally different matter and is not covered by SoGA. Most manufactures back these guarantee independently, and if the manufacture goes belly up then the guarantee also

ceases.

Some extended grantees sold by manufacture arranges to underwite the cost of claims through an insurance policy. Because this is purchased policy, SoGA may apply, but the dealers role depends on how the policy is payed for. As a result the dealer may have some liability if the manufacture fails, but this a different matter to the sale of a caravan its self.

I am most grateful for your comments John.

I am unsure about the status of the comapny that I purchased the caravan from ie Agent or dealer.

However, the MD has repeatedly said that he has no legal obligation to rectify faults that were identified in writing within weeks of taking delivery.

He claims to have recieved legal advice to this effect and has challenged me to take him to court, where he claims I will loose.

As ever it is difficult to see through the 'Bluff' but my instints from the clarity of your reply, is to take the matter to the small claims court.

I have copies all of faults reported to him in writing.

The policy of the MD has been to seek to sell me a further insurance with the same company with whmo we purchased the warranty extension at the time of the sale.

When asked if the faults registered with him in writing, will be retrospectively resolved if I took out the insurance, his reply - in writing - was, "we will make sure they are"

I have taken advice from Trading Standarads, Citizens Advice, Consumer Direct and all say that the comapny from whome the caravan was purchased is responsible for making good the defects.

Thanks to all of the other correspondents.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Barry,

My previous comments were directed towards Caravan Oracle, to help explain in view why his particular experience cannot be assumed to be the typical outcome of an action under SoGA.

I hope they have been of some help to you as well, but I must respond to a few points you raised in your subsequent comment.

SoGA is very clear that it applies to retail contracts between a seller and a customer. It is very important to appreciate that if it does go to court the outcome is not guaranteed to be in favour of the customer. The outcome should be fair for both the seller and the customer which is why each case is judged on its own merits , and sometimes small details can have a big impact on the balance of probabilities.

It seems to be the case, that if a major product fails within 6 month of purchase, then the onus is on the seller to establish that a fault did not exist, but for periods after that, there is an increasing requirement for the customer to establish the fault did exist at the time of sale. Clearly that becomes increasingly difficult as the product ages. Often such cases may hinge on the age of the product when the issue is reported, and whilst SoGA does not specify a maximum age at which a sellers liability ceases, a few cases have shown that 6 years is a realistic maximum, but in many cases the life expectancy may be substantially less.

Whilst I did explain some of the differences between warranties and manufactures guarantees, the differences are important. Technically a 'warranty' is a statement that implies that a product IS free of faults at a particular time. In the case of SoGA that relates specifically to the point of sale. This is why SoGA relates to the seller. The warranty is a legal requirement and up-pholds your statutory rights. These rights cannot be diluted or offset. When ever a new retail product is sold the warranty is invoked, even if no document to that effect is produced.

A 'Manufactures guarantee' is a statement of intent. In this context it is a statement of how the manufacturer will act if certain specified conditions occur. This is not a legal requirement under SoGA. And It cannot replace the sellers obligations in any way, shape or form, which is why you will usually see a statement like 'your statutory rights are not affected ' or something to that effect on the box or documentation.

Manufactures guarantee's are a conditional gift, usually with quite specific clauses that you are obliged to follow if you want the guarantee to remain effective. Unfortunately, when a manufacture ceases to exist, the rights under the guarantee also cease. But this does not affect your warranty which is with the seller.

Another common ploy is for sellers to sell an 'extended warranties' This is in my view a trading standards mis-demeanour as it is mis-described and thus possibly miss-sold. It is not a warranty, it is an insurance policy, and it would be far better to describe it as a guarantee policy. Here though it is not a gift, it is a purchased policy, so SoGA does apply. Unfortunately what is more difficult to establish remotely is who is the seller (Usually it is the person or organisation you pay your money to) and does the policy still stand if the product manufacture ceases to exist.

More specifically some words of advice.

First of all, if you continue to post on this subject be very careful not to mention names or give any specific details otherwise you will be in breach of forum rules,and it may jeopardise your claim.

If you have documentary evidence that you reported the faults to the seller within six months of purchase, then depending on what the faults are, you may have a strong case under SoGA.

You will note that I have used the word seller, very deliberately, If you used a finance deal then your seller may be the finance house, and not the dealer.

Last and not least, do seek professional legal advice before embarking on a court case. Whilst I believe my jottings are a balanced view of the workings of SoGA, I am not a legal expert.

 

[vansmudge]

Hello Barry,

My previous comments were directed towards Caravan Oracle, to help explain in view why his particular experience cannot be assumed to be the typical outcome of an action under SoGA.

I hope they have been of some help to you as well, but I must respond to a few points you raised in your subsequent comment.

SoGA is very clear that it applies to retail contracts between a seller and a customer. It is very important to appreciate that if it does go to court the outcome is not guaranteed to be in favour of the customer. The outcome should be fair for both the seller and the customer which is why each case is judged on its own merits , and sometimes small details can have a big impact on the balance of probabilities.

It seems to be the case, that if a major product fails within 6 month of purchase, then the onus is on the seller to establish that a fault did not exist, but for periods after that, there is an increasing requirement for the customer to establish the fault did exist at the time of sale. Clearly that becomes increasingly difficult as the product ages. Often such cases may hinge on the age of the product when the issue is reported, and whilst SoGA does not specify a maximum age at which a sellers liability ceases, a few cases have shown that 6 years is a realistic maximum, but in many cases the life expectancy may be substantially less.

Whilst I did explain some of the differences between warranties and manufactures guarantees, the differences are important. Technically a 'warranty' is a statement that implies that a product IS free of faults at a particular time. In the case of SoGA that relates specifically to the point of sale. This is why SoGA relates to the seller. The warranty is a legal requirement and up-pholds your statutory rights. These rights cannot be diluted or offset. When ever a new retail product is sold the warranty is invoked, even if no document to that effect is produced.

A 'Manufactures guarantee' is a statement of intent. In this context it is a statement of how the manufacturer will act if certain specified conditions occur. This is not a legal requirement under SoGA. And It cannot replace the sellers obligations in any way, shape or form, which is why you will usually see a statement like 'your statutory rights are not affected ' or something to that effect on the box or documentation.

Manufactures guarantee's are a conditional gift, usually with quite specific clauses that you are obliged to follow if you want the guarantee to remain effective. Unfortunately, when a manufacture ceases to exist, the rights under the guarantee also cease. But this does not affect your warranty which is with the seller.

Another common ploy is for sellers to sell an 'extended warranties' This is in my view a trading standards mis-demeanour as it is mis-described and thus possibly miss-sold. It is not a warranty, it is an insurance policy, and it would be far better to describe it as a guarantee policy. Here though it is not a gift, it is a purchased policy, so SoGA does apply. Unfortunately what is more difficult to establish remotely is who is the seller (Usually it is the person or organisation you pay your money to) and does the policy still stand if the product manufacture ceases to exist.

More specifically some words of advice.

First of all, if you continue to post on this subject be very careful not to mention names or give any specific details otherwise you will be in breach of forum rules,and it may jeopardise your claim.

If you have documentary evidence that you reported the faults to the seller within six months of purchase, then depending on what the faults are, you may have a strong case under SoGA.

You will note that I have used the word seller, very deliberately, If you used a finance deal then your seller may be the finance house, and not the dealer.

Last and not least, do seek professional legal advice before embarking on a court case. Whilst I believe my jottings are a balanced view of the workings of SoGA, I am not a legal expert.

Thanks again John.

I am in the process of completing a detailed history with all of the documentary evidence and will be seeking legal advice next week.

Thanks again.