Has the Caravan Industry failed us?

[emmerson]

Has anyone read Ricky's post about his new van? Charger faulty, burning smell form somewhere, and a hook falls off. This is his first trip, and he says, "not too many issues with van".
It's Brand new, for God's sake! There shouldn't be any "issues".
This is exactly what this thread is about.Quality control? That seems to be a phrase that doesn't exist with new caravans.

 

[Craigyoung]

Must say , we got our caravan a few years ago in the September and done our first trip away to France the following August and a few days in to our holiday on site our charger burnt out !! It couldn't off happened any further away !! We got a temp fix with a French charger and a proper reimbursement from our dealers and a new charger fitted , kept the French charger just in case it should happen again !!

 

[colin-yorkshire]

So, from the above posts, you are all fed up with the British caravan industry.
But I'll bet you a shilling to bowl of porridge that next year will see the same amount of new caravans bought.
I cannot make sense of the caravanning public.

very true Emmerson but your head doesn't always rule what you buy it should but it doesn't, when we went back to a tourer we were after something very light [under 1100kg] because I had no intention of changing the car as well. out of the hundreds of vans we looked at it came down to two, a Adria at 1085 kg or the swift at 1090kg both brand new, I knew the Adria would be a better made van but it was very spartan vinyl flooring, 2 ring griddle,very small fridge, and very thin bunks, together with the lack of storage space, meant it wasn't really very comfy just like the vans we had in the 1980's and 90's, the swift however was fully equipped, and very modern, I almost bought it. but by chance called in at a local dealers and saw a bailey ranger he had for sale, an ex demonstrator so last years model, heavily discounted with all the kit on show plus 3 years free servicing, so I bought that one instead.
never really regretted it as is in the 11 years we had it nothing failed broke or fell off and right up to selling it, remained damp free,
suppose we were lucky to get a good one, but that is besides the point, while looking at vans my head should have said buy the Adria but I just couldn't do it. because of the trim.
and I think that is something that keeps catching new buyer out, they buy for the looks not the build quality, hoping this one will be better, sadly this is not the case.

 

[Raywood]

Must admit that having had five new caravans we have had very little trouble compared with what others seem to have.
Our first new caravan came from Trophy and had two faulty strip lights but as we bought it from a dealer 200 miles away it was cheaper to replace them than take it back. After five years it was showing its age but we traded it in for more than we bought it for.
Next Coachman and apart from a small bit of the photo veneer on a bunk being damaged no problems and we kept it ten years as it was so good although it did have an appetite for water pumps. Weight issues prevented us buying another.
Eldiss arrived without curtains but these were sent up by courier next day. First trip was to France at weekend and fridge did not work. Dealer replaced it with one from a stock caravan on return. The shower tray cracked after three years and overhead lockers catches kept failing so possibly the worst caravan but other have had a lot more problems..
Avondale had no defects when delivered, probably as well as they went bust six months later. It did suffer from bits falling off due to screws not being big enough but lasted six years before we changed it.
Current Lunar only had one TV point not working but that was because plug at aerial was not pushed home so soon rectified. There was a fair amount of debris on front shelf though which appeared to be from drilling to fit the blinds which should not have been there.
Am I lucky or average?

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Ray,

I'm confused by your post, You first tell us you have had not very much trouble ( admittedly compared to others) and then you you give us a list of faults!

The point is the faults you did have shouldn't have happened at all. That is what both SoGA and CRA tell us. But what is worse is the apparent acceptance of the buying public that there will be faults. It doesn't matter how small or insignificant a fault may be, it shouldn't be there. What it means is that one or more people have failed to do what they are paid to do - produce good functioning product.

We shouldn't be complacent about this, its only when every one involved in manufacturing is brought face to face with the consequences of their failings that things will get better.

I will say it again, caravans are not complex devises especially compared to cars, televisions and many other consumer goods, so it should be easier for the caravan manufacturers to do it right first time.

Looking at the list of failures you have had, most it seems to be with OEM items. Now its not always clear why such failure arise, it could be the OEM's fault, or it could be the way the item has been installed by the caravan manufacturer, but either way the caravan manufacture must carry the issue as they are the ones who specify the item, and should ensure that in conjunction with the OEM establish the most efficacious way of installing and using the item.

Don't forgive the manufacturer or the supplier, these faults should not arise - ever.

 

[emmerson]

Prof John, I agree word for word with your post.Caravan buyers just seem to accept that their new van will be faulty, but still buy them! Makes no sense at all to me.
Ray says his Trophy was showing it's age after five years.My van is 37 years old, 18 of those in my ownership,and is still all original* and when cleaned and polished still looks good. Nothing has worn out, no bits have fallen off, and it has been hard used all of its long life, and will hopefully continue for another few years, just until we get too old to use it, which, sadly, is not far away now.But,it was a quality van when new, and this still shows when compared with so-called up-market vans today.
*(Herself has just corrected me, as the carpet was replaced five years ago)

 

[Dustydog]

Thanks to all the respondents.
As expected sorry to say nothing from Haymarket :huh: hmy:

The entire "Caravan Industry " contributes annually some £6 billion to the UK economy.
More than half way to paying for the NHS.

I have heard whispers one of the Consumer Group Organisations may be looking at the Industry a lot closer very soon.
Yes. I still believe in tooth fairies

 

[paws]

I'm with emmerson on this one...
Although my van is practically "brand new" compared with his, (mine is only a mere 20 years old) it was designed properly, of reasonably good quality materials and put together by folks who knew their stuff and had a reasonable system of quality/workmanship checking.

Nothing has gone wrong with it, it doesn't leak and everything works just as it should, the seating/beds are still very comfortable and plumptious and like its owners, scrubs up quite well when necessary!

Some might say that we have the caravan industry we deserve, many folks buy new caravans spend many thousands of pounds and often don't even bother to have them professionally inspected by a good caravan engineer/technician prior to completing the purchase......... The dealers or manufacturers can't really be blamed for producing goods that the buyers seem quite willing to buy.... with the faults, leak, cracks and other nasty things, that then have to be fixed, often at some inconvenience to the purchase either under guarantee or consumer statutory protection legislation.

There are many experienced and talented caravan engineers/technicians around the country who for a few hundred pounds ( peanuts often in comparison to the purchase price of a new van) would be able to identify some of the shortcomings in new vans as they are presented, and provide the opportunity for the purchaser to have them fixed prior to completing on the deal.

If folks followed this procedure (and insisted upon it as part of the terms of sale) there would probably be hostility and a refusal on the part of dealers to accept the new" strange" terms, but after 6 months or so of Zero sales there would be a fairly comprehensive review of" quality standards" both at the factory and at the dealers resulting in a much improved product.

The message is clear.... if folks want a satisfactory product, then a method of bringing it about is the "inspection before completion" referred to above, if however folks are happy to accept that there will be numerous faults with some caravans, don't want to bother with inspections and are still happy to have them fixed under guarantee or statutory protections then it's easy.... they can just carry on as before!

Happy caravanning
paws

 

[WoodlandsCamper]

One other major design fault with caravans is floor de-lamination/sponginess. It's obvious persons are going to walk through the van to the lounge, it's obvious people are going to stand in front of the sink and do the washing up, so why is de-lamination such a problem? The floor design is not fit for purpose. :evil:

 

[Sproket]

One other major design fault with caravans is floor de-lamination/sponginess. It's obvious persons are going to walk through the van to the lounge, it's obvious people are going to stand in front of the sink and do the washing up, so why is de-lamination such a problem? The floor design is not fit for purpose. :evil:

That can be solved quite easily at the manufacturing stage by having support rails fitted between the chassis rails but that will add a few more kgs to the van tare weight. ...

But hang on a minute people will then keep their vans longer and cut out a possible floor repair ..

 

[ProfJohnL]

I concur with Paws, but even a well trained caravan engineer cannot have x-ray eyes to spot the problems when a screw has missed its proper securing material, so whilst a pre-purchase inspection is of course a right of customers it may not have the degree of impact suggested, though it would certainly be better than the cursory and often ineffective PDI which customers are charged for.

If rather than accepting that faults apparent at time of purchase will be correct by the dealer under warranty, if customers were to exert their rights under the CRA to reject a caravan with faults (regardless of how small) for a full refund - -not only would dealers have yards full of returned caravans, but the would be technically second hand and thus have less value than if "not sold"!

The industry ( and I refer here to both manufacturers and dealers) needs to be given a real dose of real life.

 

[Dustydog]

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/article-2294541/TONY-HETHERINGTON-Our-10-500-caravan-27-faults-seller-wont-refund.html
Sadly Prof they don't listen.
The above case is in the public domain and National Press so I can't see it breaches our Forum Rules.
Prof .Do you think the credit card company paid up and did no more? Did the Dealer and Manufacturer get away with it?
I hope someone out there knows the truth.
Meanwhile do us mere mortals have to purchase our caravans on credit to protect us against "nasty" sellers and "not my problem dealers?
It beggars belief in this email we still have an industry that believes customer care / satisfaction is not important.

 

[ProfJohnL]

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/article-2294541/TONY-HETHERINGTON-Our-10-500-caravan-27-faults-seller-wont-refund.html

Sadly Prof they don't listen.
The above case is in the public domain and National Press so I can't see it breaches our Forum Rules.
Prof .Do you think the credit card company paid up and did no more? Did the Dealer and Manufacturer get away with it?
I hope someone out there knows the truth.
Meanwhile do us mere mortals have to purchase our caravans on credit to protect us against "nasty" sellers and "not my problem dealers?
It beggars belief in this email we still have an industry that believes customer care / satisfaction is not important.

Hello Dusty

The report you point to is from 2013 which meant it fell under SoGA. It also did not give enough detail about the series and timing of events which would have affected the application of SoGA.

In a number of important respects CRA is different. It gives an inalienable right for faulty goods to be rejected with in 28 day of purchase. And it also limits the number of repairs a seller can make before a full refund can be demanded. The CRA is substantially clearer and more robust so far as the customer is concerned.

It still falls on customers to be prepared to complain through the CRA rather than to circumvent their rights by using the manufacturers warranty.

 

[Raywood]

Not sure you can reject a caravan under the CRA for the smallest fault, it does have to be far more serious than that. so as to make the condition unacceptable. It will take some time and a few copurt cases to see if a line can be drawn somewhere but as an example out Quasar had a television plug not working due to the push fitting at the aerial not having been connected. It took me all of five seconds to rectify it and I would have been laughed out of the dealers if I had asked for my money back. At the other end of the spectrum there are caravans delivered with serious damp and other problems which really are unfit for purpose but it is that middle point that is hard to define.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Ray

I agree it may require some case law to clarify the power of CRA, but as it is currently written, the product must be fault free, and that does not differentiate between minor or major faults. What might be a minor fault to you could be major to someone else, but either way its a fault, and that is breach of contract under the CRA.

It also raises the question in my mind, if such a fault has become apparent, if the same assembler was working on other parts of the caravan, how many other faults has he/she perpetrated and got through to me the customer?

I know it is highly unlikely that a caravanner would want to reject a caravan for such a small point, but never the less, someone failed to do the job they are paid for, and every subsequent stage of production and ultimately the dealer (seller) failed to verify the caravan was fault free before they passed it on and that is why it is so important for customers to at least formally report such issues.

I have to assume as you are so forgiving in your approach to these minor issues that you must include in your contract to purchase that you will accept a faulty product!

If we really want to get things to improve, then we must start to use the tools we are given. In this case the CRA is a strong card in our favour. Its purpose is to force sellers to be more rigorous in conforming to the law and to only provide fault free products. If we make retailers face the music, they will only have two options, either to go out of business ( and why would we want unresponsive retailers to continue anyway) or to be more rigorous with their supply chain back to the manufacturers.

I know my approach is idealistic, but it is a realistic option with the CRA. Allowing a retailer of the hook for minor issues sends the wrong message.

 

[Dustydog]

http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/consumer-rights-act?gclid=Cj0KEQjwz-i3BRDtn53Z5Z7t4PUBEiQA23q2ANiuNgbsoWdkZt_nmNysZ56D7KtREcYbNBYmGuoYyzsaAnZB8P8HAQ
Hi Ray.
It is worth reading this Which? Link.
As far as I can see the CRA goes a lot further and is sharper than SoGA.
A fault is a fault no matter how large or small. Agreed it hasn't been tested but I believe this new Act seeks to give the Consumer ultimate rights of rejection without quibble by the Seller.
Things change after 30 days but park that for now.
As the Prof says we now have a tool that could at last shake up the Caravan Industry.
In regard to my last post.Do you think the Credit card Co once they pay up try and recover from the dealer or manufacturer?
I'm curious!

 

[Raywood]

I have not read the Act but am relying more on what I have read including the item in PC but will if I need to make a claim for something I have bought. not necessarily a caravan.
I am not that forgiving but a loose plug to the aerial would not justify the 80 mile trip there and back to the dealers to push it in and I did not discover it until I was on site. It should not have happened but in real life you have to live with it.
Given that most of us are ordering a caravan and waiting weeks if not months for it to arrive I do not see us rejecting a caravan unless there is a serious fault but it will be interesting if somebody tries to. I it might mean that if you change after ordering your mind you can go through it with a fine tooth comb and when you find something as you probably will reject it and see what happens.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Ray,

I'm surprised you haven't caught on about the strength of both SoGA and the CRA with regards to faults and the sellers responsibilities to the customer.

Both acts take the stance that If a customer has a faulty product, its not the customers fault, so why should the customer be inconvenienced because of a failure made or allowed trough by the seller. If a product is faulty, it is the sellers responsibility to recover the product with the minimum inconvenience to the customer. So for example, the seller could despatch a company employee to repair or to collect the product. They could with the customers approval send a carriage paid label or courier. By agreement you could return the product to the dealer and the dealer should cover your costs.

Most purchases are essentially two party agreement between the customer and the seller. When the contract is agreed, both parties have accepted the other parties situation. That means the seller accepts the customers location even if its the other end of the country. It also means that they have to accept that if the customer experiences a claimable fault, the seller has to accept the cost of recovering and either replacing or refunding the faulty goods. I suspect that many retailers may not appreciate this implication, because if they did some sellers may refuse to sell goods if the cost of recovery in the event of a fault is considered to be too much.

What often clouds this process with caravans is the fact that most dealers when faced with report of a fault will not tell customers about their statutory rights under SoGA or the CRA, but will (unless you direct them otherwise) attempt to repair the caravan through the manufacturers guarantee, where the manufacturer expressly places the cost of product recovery to the repair location is at the customers expense.

If caravanner's were to instruct dealers to carry out product fault repairs under SoGA or CRA then dealers will start to feel the pinch on their profits, and it should begin to motivate them to do their pre delivery checks more thoroughly to pre empt later repair costs.

 

[Raywood]

Hi Prof, I do agree that both acts allow you to demand the dealer meets the cost of transporting the goods back to them for repair or for them to come to you to do it. Unfortunately most dealer will flatly refuse to do this which means you would have to go to law to recover the costs. For most people this is probably not worth the time and effort as the dealer is so close that you are talking about a few pounds. Even for us who bought from a dealer some distance away because there was no dealer for the make closer you are talking about £20 so or £40 if I make two trips most people are not going to get involved for that sort of sum and if it is the difference between getting a repair done and not and they will live with it.

There are also problems when you report a fault developing and the dealer wants to see it then there is no way the dealer will do anything until he has seen it. Again you will be left asking for the money.

As I say I have not read the actual legislation but the authoritive comment on it I have seen suggests that rejecting for minor issues is probably not on. You have to have good grounds and a minor flaw which the dealer can put right is not going to work but we will have to see what happens. The comment is generally the wording is in fact a bit too vague and may cause problems in some cases.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Ray,

The full power of the CRA has not yet been tested, so until it is, and case law demonstrates how it can be applied or disapplied, then the point I am making is entirely legitimate.

It is clearly written in the relevant acts the seller is responsible for all costs in recovery and replacement of faulty goods. If a dealer refuses to cover such costs a carefully worded letter pointing out the relevant sections of SoGA or the CRA should be enough to bring them to book. I am quite confident that any member of Which? would have easy access to a letter with sufficient leverage to bring a result or to take them to court for breach of the act.

If a dealer does not like paying out large recovery costs, then they should consider that when they agree to supply a caravan, and perhaps refuse to to enter into a contract in the first place. These are aspects of setting up a business that should be considered. If you envisage a nationwide customer base, you must also consider the implications of nationwide recovery and costs.

There are are obvious ways to reduce these occurrences,
To only purchase or handle goods from suppliers who have a proper Quality Assurance programme.
To have the right to reject faulty goods back to suppliers and to bill suppliers for consequential costs.
To have in place appropriate quality assurance process within the business to identify faulty goods so you do not supply you customer with faulty goods.

If a seller supplies goods with faults, then they deserve rap on the knuckles, and as we can't use corporal punishment these days, a hit on the proffits is just as good.

To use a well worn paraphrase "non bastardum carborundum"

The Ford Motor Company were renowned for have very stringent supplier contracts. If supplied goods did not conform to contract, any interruption to production caused by late or non-compliant goods was charged to the supplier. Caravanners should be just a strict with caravan sellers.

 

[Raywood]

Hi Prof, I do tend to agree with what you say but without being facetious I am afraid choosing a caravan based on your criteria might exclude all makes and most dealers.
Looking at the new act amongst other things we are talking about the product not being of satisfactory quality. This is a legal mine field as satisfactory quality is a matter of opinion and might even vary according to where in the price scale you purchased. Is a buyer of a Freedom at £10,000 entitled to the same as a Buccaneer at £30,000 I would say yes but not everyone would agree.
The one bit that seems certain is it has to meet the specification agreed. On that one it either does or does not although even there manufacturers say the have a programme of continuos improvement and you might get an argument based on that but I would think any sewrious deviation from the brochure would sink them.
It does look as though any advice will be based on opinions for the short term and we will have to see what happens.

 

[Dustydog]

It's worth reflecting the new Act replaces three old ones ie SoGA, Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations and supply of Goods and Services Act.

The first main new advantage is the right to a refund within 30 days.
I suggest defining "satisfactory quality and fit for purpose " on a £25k caravan is easier than a plastic tin opener from a pound shop.
Even in Ray's example I suspect a refund will be warranted. Over the top you may say? But no.We are talking about expensive products costing more than a new car in some cases.
This is the wake up call for Dealers to realise the Customer at last has a weapon more powerful than seen before. No longer is there room for complacency.
Those who purchased new at the recent NEC show from Dealers far afield will probably be he first to test the efficacy of the CRA.
I agree with the Prof it is for the Dealer to attend the caravan at the buyers premises. Not make the buyer travel hundreds of miles.
It is further noteworthy that the onus is now on the seller / Dealer to prove the caravan at point of sale was of satisfactory quality.
In a few weeks time as the new purchases start reaching the consumer I do hope people will have the courage to use the new Act and not be fobbed off with " it's only a minor matter".
Failure no matter how large or small is failure. The Dealers will have to get up and go out to site or pay a full refund.
Also the Dealer after 30 days of purchase only gets one chance to effect a satisfactory repair. Failure will again be a refund.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Thanks to both Raywood and Dusty for continuing the discussion in a sensible non confrontational manner.

Ray, The set of criteria I suggested were for dealerships, though the same basic principle should apply to every transaction within a supply chain.

The point you make about the value of goods may have bearing on older or second hand goods, but the discussion we have had relates to the first thirty 30days where any fault that comes to light is technically a breach of contract by the seller.

At the point of sale and for at least 30 days a NEW caravan should be as described, no parts missing, and all the parts that are there should be fully functional and without fault. In that respect there should be no differentiation based on purchase price. If you buy an expensive Parker ballpoint pen or the cheapest possible one both should produce an ink line, price has no bearing on it. The cheaper one may run out sooner than the Parker, which might be a reflection of the price.

Just to remind an readers that have not followed the detail of the thread, these issues relate to the use of SoGA and the CRA and not to work carried out under the terms of the Manufacturers Guarantee.

 

[Raywood]

It will be interesting to see what happens. Certainly the idea of dealers selling to customers a long distance away might produce some real problems for them and might mean a change of attitude by them.
I am not convinced though that very minor faults of the type I quoted would allow rejection of the caravan but time will tell.
If like me you discover these things miles away again the courts may not regard it as sensible to require a dealer to send someone miles to fix it when it is very easy and well within the purchasers ability to fix it but you never know.
The only caravan we had with a serious problem had a fridge that did not work. This was replaced by the dealer wit another with one from a stock caravan. Under the new act it does sound possible that we could now reject it but you could get the alternative argument that the caravan was of satisfactory and just the fridge needs replacement. I am not saying which way that would go as it is possible to argue both ways. As the caravan was built to our spec wit an L shaped front end and just what we wanted I would always have taken the fridge but if it was a stock model things could be different.

 

[ProfJohnL]

When a customer purchases an item like a caravan, they receive one receipt, for the whole caravan. It does not divi out all the OEM items of equipment. so it is a single purchase. Consequently the seller is responsible for the whole kaboodle. Technically therefore any fault no matter how small places the seller in breach of contract.

Now I have always believed and made the point that SoGA was never designed to give any party an unfair advantage, and being more realistic a failure of a component that can be easily fixed (e.g. a blown light bulb) would be insufficient to trigger a full refund, but the detail in the CRA is different, it is now in black and white that if goods become faulty within 30 days, the customer can demand a full refund. I suspect that as the CRA matures, it will become more likely that an element or reasonableness will be required, but the CRA is still a much more robust piece of legislation, and is good news for consumers