Hypothethical question?

Jul 18, 2017
11,947
3,326
32,935
Visit site
I do not advocate anyone following and suggestions or advice in this thread. As said it is a hypothetical question and hoping some of the more learned members can offer opinions on the matter. the thread may be of interest to others especially newbies so if you are to quote any legislation it would be appreciated.

Take for example that you buy a brand new caravan, car or something else from a dealership and according to the wording in the warranty to maintain the warranty you need to have the goods serviced annually. The servicing needs to be done on the anniversary of the purchase. However due to circumstances excluding any pandemic etc you forget to have the annual service and it goes several months past the anniversary date.

Now a scenario; In month 18 there is found to be damp around a skylight due to a crack in the skylight. The crack is a known fault and even if the caravan had been serviced on time it would have passed any damp check as the crack did not exist at the time. Would the crack be regarded as an inherent fault as the manufacturer never followed the manufacturer's guidelines for installing the skylight? Should the dealer be responsible for the repair if manufacturer refuses warranty claim as the caravan did not have an annual service and manufacturer could deny any warranty claim?

If we look at the legislation for CRA 2015 nowhere does it mentioned that for the CRA 2015 to be effective the goods should be serviced at anytime within the scope of the legislation.

Next scenario; Caravan is bought and used extensively for several months of a year and then issues arise from the extensive use for touring and not business. Manufacturer denies warranty due to the caravan being used extensively when it is supposed to be a leisure vehicle for occasional use. Dealer also refuses responsibility quoting manufacturer. Again in CRA 2015 nowhere is there mention of leisure vehicles and usage and probably not in the owner's handbook. Is there a definition for leisure vehicle and usage as a search does not throw up any definitions.

Both scenarios are based on real life experiences of some caravan owners however I am sure there are many other similar cases out there that we do not know about. We experienced scenario 2 many years ago under SOGA .

In either case do you feel that the consumer is in a strong position to be able to claim that the dealership is responsible for repairs?
 
Aug 24, 2020
275
155
4,735
Visit site
I'm not a lawyer or SOGA expert, but as to your second point:
"Caravan is bought and used extensively for several months of a year and then issues arise from the extensive use for touring "

I'd be astonished if that was upheld in court, UNLESS there's something in the caravan documentation or sales literature specifying a maximum usage. It's perfectly reasonable to think that some caravans owned by retired people (for example) will be "on tour" more than they're in storage, and for a caravan to be considered fit for purpose it should be capable of withstanding this reasonably predictable use.

For your first scenario - and with the same caveat - if the problem is caused by the skylight not being installed in accordance with the skylight manufacturer's instructions - then I'd say it isn't related to servicing, the installation wasn't fit for purpose from day one.
 
Jul 18, 2017
11,947
3,326
32,935
Visit site
I'm not a lawyer or SOGA expert, but as to your second point:
"Caravan is bought and used extensively for several months of a year and then issues arise from the extensive use for touring "

I'd be astonished if that was upheld in court, UNLESS there's something in the caravan documentation or sales literature specifying a maximum usage. It's perfectly reasonable to think that some caravans owned by retired people (for example) will be "on tour" more than they're in storage, and for a caravan to be considered fit for purpose it should be capable of withstanding this reasonably predictable use.

For your first scenario - and with the same caveat - if the problem is caused by the skylight not being installed in accordance with the skylight manufacturer's instructions - then I'd say it isn't related to servicing, the installation wasn't fit for purpose from day one.

Second scenario happened with a poster who is a member on here however they have not been around for awhile although active on another group.
 

Parksy

Moderator
Nov 12, 2009
11,904
2,399
40,935
Visit site
I'm not a lawyer either, but my thoughts on the second scenario are:
Who decides what is 'extensive use' for a touring caravan?
Unless a manufacturer states in their warranty T&C's a limit to the number of nights a touring caravan can be used I don't see how a claim can be refused on the grounds of extensive use, unless the dealer or manufacturer can prove that the caravan has been used as a full time dwelling rather than for leisure purposes.
First Scenario:
This is slightly more difficult.
Can it be proven that the cracked skylight is due to a faulty factory installation?
If the crack is a known fault, why hadn't it been dealt with before damp became an issue?
Have other similar cases have come to light, and did a court judgement decide in favour of the claimant?
In either case, a warranty or conditions imposed on the warranty shouldn't affect statutory rights, the CRA trumps any manufacturers warranty, but if a caravan has been neglected or used for other purposes than for leisure then a claim is unlikely to succeed.
 
Mar 14, 2005
17,557
3,051
50,935
Visit site
First scenario. The contractual arrangements for both the Manufactures warranty, and the consumer rights under the CRA and SoGA are entirely differnt and not connected.

The manufacturers warranty is a contractual arrangement between you and the manufacturer. Like any contract it has to fair and reasonable, and there are laws concerning unfair contracts which you could try to invoke, but I suspect the manufacturers lawyers have got that covered adequately.

As with any contract if any party fails to fulfil the T&C's that is breach of contract and unless otherwise stipulated in the T&C's the contract can be terminated.

The CRA does not need to stipulate service intervals becasue it focuses on if the goods should have lasted a reasonable length of time and that might include consideration of timely services to maintain the function of a product. For example It would be unreasonable to try to claim a potted plant was faulty if it had not been correctly watered for 18 months. But if the pot had cracked then that might be classed as insufficiently durable.

At 18month its up to the consumer to prove the fault or underlying cause was present at the point of sale.

Second scenario

This on the face of it boils down to the manufacture saying a products been used more than is reasonable therefore they are not liable for early failures. - and the user saying its not been used too much.

There needs to be a very clear definition of what and why the use of a product you own has to be limited.

In both cases if there is a responsibility for both seller and buyer to exchange enough information to enable them both to assess the suitability of the goods or services to the intended use or application before the contract is agreed.

If the buyer made it clear to the dealer they would be using the caravan extensively and more than might be normal, The dealer should have told the customer about the limitations on usage. Conversely if the seller had clearly marked the limitation on usage in the sales information the buyer might have chosen a more durable model.

However I get a hint there may be more to this story and that is a business element. If the caravan was purchased as an aide or part of a business process, then all consumer law goes by the way as it is no longer a consumer matter. The CRA is consumer only not business.
 
Jul 18, 2017
11,947
3,326
32,935
Visit site
I'm not a lawyer either, but my thoughts on the second scenario are:
Who decides what is 'extensive use' for a touring caravan?
Unless a manufacturer states in their warranty T&C's a limit to the number of nights a touring caravan can be used I don't see how a claim can be refused on the grounds of extensive use, unless the dealer or manufacturer can prove that the caravan has been used as a full time dwelling rather than for leisure purposes.
First Scenario:
This is slightly more difficult.
Can it be proven that the cracked skylight is due to a faulty factory installation?
If the crack is a known fault, why hadn't it been dealt with before damp became an issue?
Have other similar cases have come to light, and did a court judgement decide in favour of the claimant?
In either case, a warranty or conditions imposed on the warranty shouldn't affect statutory rights, the CRA trumps any manufacturers warranty, but if a caravan has been neglected or used for other purposes than for leisure then a claim is unlikely to succeed.

The cracked skylight is a known issue and has been since 2016. Numerous people including ourselves have had the replacement done under warranty. Ours was done at two years and again at 3 years. The manufacturer never followed the installation process by not installing a wooden frame as per the instructions of the skylight manufacturer. IMHO it is an inherent fault that was there since day one and before delivery. People who bought privately or skipped a service IMHO are being treated unfairly as no comeback on private sale and secondly skipped service warranty refused even though the service would have no bearing on the cracked skylight.

In second scenario, owner was refused exchange of seats which had collapsed as they had already had 3 - 4 sets exchanged and the argument was that they used the caravan too extensive. They spent a lot of time in Spain plus touring Europe. The caravan was a 2015 however I think post Oct 2015.

In both cases caravans were only used for leisure. Question revolves around consumer rights re skipped service. Unsure about if bought privately as CRA does not apply however it should be a recall.

There is no true definition defining a leisure vehicle and usage so feel that the consumer in this case has an ongoing issue whether under SOGA or CRA 2015.
 
Mar 29, 2021
277
146
735
Visit site
100 years ago I managed the family business, not huge, we ran 2 transit type vans, one missed its second service by weeks, the engine broke in a serious fashion.
Fiat UK not the dealer paid half, we paid half of the repair bill which was about £3k if memory serves.

No idea about terms placed on caravans usage
 
Last edited:
Mar 14, 2005
17,557
3,051
50,935
Visit site
...

In both cases caravans were only used for leisure. Question revolves around consumer rights re skipped service. Unsure about if bought privately as CRA does not apply...
...
The CRA does apply to private sales. If goods are incorrectly described the seller is still liable. The problem is the chances of getting a complete remedy is less likely.
 
Jul 18, 2017
11,947
3,326
32,935
Visit site
The CRA does apply to private sales. If goods are incorrectly described the seller is still liable. The problem is the chances of getting a complete remedy is less likely.
That is incorrect as CRA 2015 does not apply to private sales even if the description is incorrect. The Misrepresentation Act 1967 is used instead.
 
May 7, 2012
8,491
1,753
30,935
Visit site
Basically the Prof has summed up the position . I would add that if this is a known fault and you can show this then that would almost certainly be enough to get your claim against the dealer through. In trying to defend it would be very difficult for the dealer to deny this was not a manufacturing fault with you have the evidence to show it is one.
The danger is if the dealer has gone bust, in which case you ae left at the makers mercy. You could try the unfair contract terms approach but like the Prof I am not convinced on that one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Buckman
Mar 29, 2021
277
146
735
Visit site
Basically the Prof has summed up the position . I would add that if this is a known fault and you can show this then that would almost certainly be enough to get your claim against the dealer through. In trying to defend it would be very difficult for the dealer to deny this was not a manufacturing fault with you have the evidence to show it is one.
The danger is if the dealer has gone bust, in which case you ae left at the makers mercy. You could try the unfair contract terms approach but like the Prof I am not convinced on that one.
In my Fiat van case, years ago admittedly, I argued with Fiat UK successfully that the dealer had been negligent in not informing me of the service due on this particular van.
So if I understand correctly a caravan was sold with a manufacturing fault, known, I would argue negligence on part of the seller to pass on that crucial piece of information
 
May 7, 2012
8,491
1,753
30,935
Visit site
The dealer has a liability for defects under the CPU but the dealer needs to be still in business for this to work. The vehicle maker cannot be held responsible for anything said or not said by the dealer.
The maker gives you a guarantee but you have to follow the requirements, and if you do not they do not have to honour it. this means rather oddly that if the breach of the guarantee is totally irrelevant to the claim they can still avoid the claim.
 

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts