thanks for your advice ray, but this is with one of the big clubs, and gone down the legal path, the van is over the first 3 years, so we pay half the cost, the last van we had was a land ranger 660abs from avondale, a much better built caravan,
I do wonder if there is some lack of clarity about where the liability might lie, which could change the way your problems might be addressed.
The rights, obligations and liabilities are quite different under the manufacturer's warranty compared to your statutory rights which are with the seller not the manufacturer.
Let there be no doubt, the Consumer Rights Act (2015) has real teeth which stay sharp regardless of any action or repairs undertaken through the manufacturer's warranty. That is why every manufacturers warranty has to include a phrase like "This warranty does not diminish your statutory rights"
I'm guessing it's the manufacturer that given you the pay 50% ultimatum. That is quite legal for them, becasue of teh way the Manufacturers warranty is written, they write it and you can take it or leave it. but the CRA sets out quite clearly the seller is responsible if they sell faulty goods or goods that are not durable or fit for purpose.
On the assumption the fault has not been caused by misuse or damage, there is a real possibility the fault was present at the point you took delivery, and that means the seller sold faulty goods. That is contrary to the CRA and providing you can provide evidence from an accepted expert assessor, you have a strong case to bring a claim against the seller (not the manufacturer)
Claims of this type do not need the manufacture to agree as they are not legally part of the contract of sale.
Each case should be resolved on its own facts, and if you have actually been able to have unimpeded use of the product despite the fault being present, then the seller can counter claim for the use you have had.
Ultimately the CRA is designed to put the consumer back into the same place they would have been if the fault had not arisen - which is a fair way to look at it.
The fact the manufacturer has agreed there is a warranty liability is a strong point that might yield better results with a CRA claim.