How long should approved dealer damp repair work last

[zandero]

Hi,

I am new to caravaning and have just had my 2002 bailey ranger serviced and had a damp report which shows a damp reading of 50% around a window which an approved bailey dealer repaired approx 2 years ago. We have looked after our van as it is our pride and joy and the rest of the van is reading between 8% and 15% at the very highest appart from around the repair work.
Is it to be expected that approved dealership work should suffer so badly in such a short time, given the dryness of the rest of the van. I can only think they didnt repair it properly in the first place.

We bought the van in April 08 as approved used and it was sold to us as dry although we picked up it had suffered damp previously as the marine board around the window as dry and brittle to the touch (but not immediatly visable) the dealer then repaired the work under the approved warranty in sept 08.
Is this normal or should I be getting the dealer to repair the work again even though their warrenty is only 1 year.

KRgds
Alex

 

[Surfer]

Under Sale of goods Act it coudl be perhaps regarded as an inherent fault as it was present at tiem of purchase. It is up to the delaer to prove it wasn't there at time fo purchase but even so there must be a latent fault that has casued the problem. In effect you have them from two angles.
Contact Consumer Direct and discuss it with them.

 

[Damian]

You are talking about a 6 year old (at time of purchase) second hand van with known previous damp problems.
It is now an 8 year old van which is a different situation to buying new or even recent second hand.
The original water ingress warranty will almost certainly have run out at the time you purchased it, so in effect you bought a van with no warranty.

The 1 year "Guarantee" will be a product or service offered by the dealer which may, or may not, contain certain exclusions.
You need to check the wording on the paperwork.But even that is acaedemic now as it is a year past its expiry date

All Approved Workshops guarantee repairs for 6 months as a minimum, the maximum is an individual decision by the workshop.

2 Years after a repair is expecting a lot from the dealer under the circumstances you have described.

One very important question is WHY did you buy a van with known damp problems?

 

[Surfer]

Sale of Goods Act also applies to second hand caravans therefore the OP may have a claim, but will need to discuss it with Consumer Direct for further advice as the caravan was bougt in April 2008.. It all relates to inherent fault and the amount the buyer paid for the caravan, i.e. if yu pay £8000 for a second hand caravan you expect it too last at leaast 4 -5 years without any major issues but if you only paid £2000 then it coudl be a different story.
Good question as to why they bought a caravan with a known damp problem.

 

[forestgump]

it sounds like they took the van on the understanding it was damp repaird i would not as there are plenty of vans out there.

 

[Guest]

I'd expect a damp repair, well done, to last far longer than a year or two, however the problem I have with this is the time line?
The van was repaired 2yrs ago but only now having another service, what happened to last years service when a damp check should have thrown up any problems in good time?

 

[parker1158]

You are talking about a 6 year old (at time of purchase) second hand van with known previous damp problems.
It is now an 8 year old van which is a different situation to buying new or even recent second hand.
The original water ingress warranty will almost certainly have run out at the time you purchased it, so in effect you bought a van with no warranty.

The 1 year "Guarantee" will be a product or service offered by the dealer which may, or may not, contain certain exclusions.
You need to check the wording on the paperwork.But even that is acaedemic now as it is a year past its expiry date

All Approved Workshops guarantee repairs for 6 months as a minimum, the maximum is an individual decision by the workshop.

2 Years after a repair is expecting a lot from the dealer under the circumstances you have described.

One very important question is WHY did you buy a van with known damp problems?

Agree with Mr mod. We used to get this a lot when I worked for Audi many years ago when they only had 12 months warranty we would replace a part at say eleven months and the customer would assume that part was guaranteed for another twelve months...no it wasn’t it was guaranteed for one month.

If it was me I would contact Bailey and explain the facts noting that you realise it is out of warranty but under the circumstances would they contribute. If you stay calm and reasonable they may do something for you out of goodwill and customer relations.

 

[Philspadders]

in law the part that you fitted is guarunteed for 12 months.

 

[Damian]

Quote "in law the part that you fitted is guarunteed for 12 months."

Not necessarily true.
Many parts I fit have a 2 year guarantee.
However, with this scenario, I expect that the original leak was fixed, and the repair was , and is still good, BUT, it may well be that there is another water entry point which has become evident.

Without being able to check all the possibilities, it is impossible to give a comprehensive answer.
With water ingress the sealer will be ok after two years, although it is recommended to have the van resealed every 5 years, but I do not know of anyone who does this.

 

[forestgump]

as damian said it may not be the old leak ,the persons who done the repair may not admit it was a crap mend any way.

 

[TopCat1]

in law the part that you fitted is guarunteed for 12 months.

In the case of a warranty repair where no charge is being made to the customer, the original warranty (contract) is being honoured by the replacement of a defective part. No new contract is entered into. Thus the terms of the original contract apply. It might also interest you to know that in the UK there is no legal requirement to offer a warranty! Faults are dealt with under the 'Sale of Goods' act and the 'fit for purpose legislation. The offer of a warranty meerly provides the consumer with an easy and safe means of having manufacturing defects rectified without the need to referr to law. A comfort blanket if you like!

 

[zandero]

I was not aware at the time of purtchase the VAN had suffered damp, also when we bought the VAN from an approved Bailey dealer we specifically asked if the VAN had any damp and the sales person advised us as an approved bailey dealer they would not be able to sell a VAN as approved used if the VAN did suffer from damp. We only discovered the damage as the marine ply around one of the windows had started to rise and upon closer inspection realised the ply was dry and brittle.

The dealer replaced the whole front ply panel around the window but the report shows damp in the same area that has been replaced.

Interestingly the dealer on their paperwork state anything above 30% should be delat with immediatly as this could indicate structural problems, but when I phoned the dealer about this he said that 50% could just have been the humidity in the VAN and isnt really anything to worry about and that they would be concerned if it was 90% or visibly damp to the touch, which ate present it is not visble.

This makes me further question the dealer. Anyway they have said they are going to check the records and come back to mehowever the earliest they could do any repairs whether paid for by myself or Bailey/dealer is March/april as they are fully booked.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Zandero,

Your last posting has added some important detail, which might strengthen your argument.

Clearly this is a complex issue, as the caravan was used, and not new, so there are potentially all sorts of mittigating circumstances the dealer may try to use to avoid any liability, so my strongest advise is to seek professional legal advice.

Do not rely on the casual jottings on this forum which may be issued with good intentions but as none of us have access to all the necessary details, they will be flawed through lack of knowledge.

In the light of this, it may be unwise to continue to post details, which might be construed as defaming the dealer, until the matter has been resolved.

 

[Dustydog]

Hi Zandero,
Assuming you have the Bailey insured it is possible there may be a Legal Expenses section that may offer you legal advice from a solicitor,subject to the Insurers accepting the claim first.

 

[Parksy]

Hello Zandero, Your last posting has added some important detail, which might strengthen your argument. Clearly this is a complex issue, as the caravan was used, and not new, so there are potentially all sorts of mittigating circumstances the dealer may try to use to avoid any liability, so my strongest advise is to seek professional legal advice. Do not rely on the casual jottings on this forum which may be issued with good intentions but as none of us have access to all the necessary details, they will be flawed through lack of knowledge. In the light of this, it may be unwise to continue to post details, which might be construed as defaming the dealer, until the matter has been resolved.

Good advice but in view of the fact that Alex ('Zandero') the o.p. has not attempted to name the dealer or identify them in any way in his comments there are no grounds for any allegations of defamation.
As long as the dealer is not identified Alex has every right to seek advice, comment or support from forum members and it will be interesting and informative to see how this issue is dealt with and what the eventual outcome will be.
Obviously it can often be an advantage not to reveal every detail of a given situation because caravan dealers also read this forum but to be fair Alex hasn't tried to defame anyone in his comments so far and there is no suggestion that he is about to do so.

 

[parker1158]

Hello Zandero, Your last posting has added some important detail, which might strengthen your argument. Clearly this is a complex issue, as the caravan was used, and not new, so there are potentially all sorts of mittigating circumstances the dealer may try to use to avoid any liability, so my strongest advise is to seek professional legal advice. Do not rely on the casual jottings on this forum which may be issued with good intentions but as none of us have access to all the necessary details, they will be flawed through lack of knowledge. In the light of this, it may be unwise to continue to post details, which might be construed as defaming the dealer, until the matter has been resolved.

Yes you are 100% right John - but...........my sister is a lawyer and senior partner in a practice and she always says don’t use solicitors deal with it yourself. Clearly not something she would tell other people because she is there to make money but whenever I have had legal issues that is her advice eveyr time – try to sort it out between you. Even if you go down the small claims route the courts encourage you to sit together to try to sort it amicably in the early stages so why not do this in the first place and save yourself a lot of unnecessary agro. OK if you are not happy with the outcome go legal but my option is always to try and sort it first

 

[ProfJohnL]

The OP has already tried the casual approach and is now being given the brush off.

Now - we only have the OP's report, which is highly likely to be biased, so its not fair to judge the situation without all the cards on the table. There is no doubt the matter is complicated by the fact the caravan is second hand and was known to have had a damp problem, and the dealer (according to the op) does not sell damp affected caravans, so we may have a trades description issue as well.

It is a complex situation, and it needs the input of a professional with access to all the details to be able to identify the best course to follow. It may not need a solicitors letter, but a legal advisor should be able to explain the best way of dealing with it, without necessarily becoming directly involved.

It would be wrong to assume that the OP's grievance actually has positive outcome, - it may be the cost of repairs is all down to the OP, and a good legal advisor would say where it was inappropriate to push for a settlement that might be lost.

 

[Surfer]

John at this point there is no need to involve solicitors or professionals as you put it as under the Sale of Goods Act this appears to be an inherent fault and was there when the caravan was bought and should be covered by the dealer in relation to what the customer paid for the caravan. All this info can be found by checking the Sale of goods Act which is available on line for perusal.
The OP should be approaching the dealer armed with SOGA pointing out a few of the relevant clauses and this should be done in writing and sent recorded mail with a deadline for an answer within a specific time frame. The OP should also indicate that they want an answer in writing and will not accept telephone calls as they will then have no record available for the courts should it progress that far.
This is known as a "Letter before Action". Should the dealer fail to comply with the deadline, the the OP could consult CAB which is free and based on theri recomendations decide whether it warrants a small claims action as the repair will be costing well under £5000.
A cheap simple solution which is effective and not time consuming. I assume that you know all this already but the above info may be beneficial to the OP.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Uvongo

I agree in principal with what you write, and I would endorse your view if it were not for the fact that this is a secondhand caravan, and it has had a previous history of damp issues. This makes it much more difficult to establish if how and why the caravan is damp now. A lot also depends on the wording of the dealers original sales information.

Unless something has changed since I last looked, if a product is more than six months old, it is up to the customer to prove that any fault was present at the time of sale. This is where I think the biggest hurdle will be.

Sadly for the OP I see a number of potential pitfalls, and in my view it is sensible to seek professional help to avoid them.

 

[Surfer]

Not sure what you do not understand about "inherent" which means it was there at the time of sale and this is the route that the OP should be following. Sale of Goods Act as follows;
Key Facts:
• Wherever goods are bought they must "conform to contract". This means they must be as described, fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality (i.e. not inherently faulty at the time of sale).
• Goods are of satisfactory quality if they reach the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking into account the price and any description.
• Aspects of quality include fitness for purpose, freedom from minor defects, appearance and finish, durability and safety.
• It is the seller, not the manufacturer, who is responsible if goods do not conform to contract.
• If goods do not conform to contract at the time of sale, purchasers can request their money back "within a reasonable time". (This is not defined and will depend on circumstances)
• For up to six years after purchase (five years from discovery in Scotland) purchasers can demand damages (which a court would equate to the cost of a repair or replacement).
• A purchaser who is a consumer, i.e. is not buying in the course of a business, can alternatively request a repair or replacement.
• If repair and replacement are not possible or too costly, then the consumer can seek a partial refund, if they have had some benefit from the good, or a full refund if the fault/s have meant they have enjoyed no benefit
• In general, the onus is on all purchasers to prove the goods did not conform to contract (e.g. was inherently faulty) and should have reasonably lasted until this point in time (i.e. perishable goods do not last for six years).
• If a consumer chooses to request a repair or replacement, then for the first six months after purchase it will be for the retailer to prove the goods did conform to contract (e.g. were not inherently faulty)
• After six months and until the end of the six years, it is for the consumer to prove the lack of conformity.

I hope that the above helps clear up the OP's dilemna but I would say that they stand a good chance fo a successful action due to the inherent fault and taking into account price paid and fitness for purpose. However it is up to the OP to prove the inherent fault existed at tiem of purchase.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Uvongo,

I don't recall questioning the meaning of inherent, what I do have concerns for is its applicability in the OP's case. Perhaps you have access to more information about the specifics of this instance than the rest of us, but from my understanding of the circumstances of this case I am not convinced that we do not have all the salient facts, and on that basis SoGA may not provide the safe route you think it might.

It is now up to the OP to decide what route to take, and I lobby for the side of caution and seeking the advice of a professional to help to identify the best course of action.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Uvongo, I don't recall questioning the meaning of inherent, what I do have concerns for is its applicability in the OP's case. Perhaps you have access to more information about the specifics of this instance than the rest of us, but from my understanding of the circumstances of this case I am not convinced that we do not have all the salient facts, and on that basis SoGA may not provide the safe route you think it might. It is now up to the OP to decide what route to take, and I lobby for the side of caution and seeking the advice of a professional to help to identify the best course of action.

I don't believe there is much more to be gained by adding further until more verifiable fact is available.

 

[Dustydog]

Zandero
I asssume you have the full service history and all the damp tests from year one onwards. I am mindful you have had the caravan two years and it is now eight years old. IMO time is not on your side. I doubt it will be easy to prove there is an "inherent" fault so late in the day. An inherent fault usually has to manifest itself
Did the dealer offer you any kind of extended warranty at the time of your purchase?

Prof John is quite right that we do not know the full circumstances of your problem and thus other than giving broad brush advice there is nothing more specific we can say.
An inherent fault is :-
A fault present at the time of purchase. Examples are:
• an error in design so that a product is manufactured incorrectly
• an error in manufacturing where a faulty component was inserted.
The "fault" may not become apparent immediately but it was there at the time of sale and so the product was not of satisfactory standard.
My concern is the test of reasonableness on the time factor. Eight years is a long time. How do you know the original repair is the problem?

How do you know the latest repair wasn't carried out correctly?

As you can see there are a lot of unknown quantities that need explaining before any more constructive thoughts can be offered.