It just gets worse!

[Dustydog]

This thread from another Forum echoes everything we say on PCv regarding caravan build quality. Aftercare service is no better!

Log into Facebook

Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.

www.facebook.com

 

[GaryB]

Unfortunately you have to be a member of the group to view the posts but I suspect I know what it's going to be like! I only ever had one bad dealer experience (after lining their pockets with the purchase of four new caravans from them!) so now stick to a dealer that I know will look after their customers.

 

[Raywood]

Afraid I do not use face book but like Gary I think I know what is on it.

 

[Dustydog]

Shame. This poor chap bought a brand new caravan last year. Bed has collapsed twice causing collateral damage. Worse something has gone wrong with the structure requiring the Bristol Factory to repair it. 12 weeks on nothing!
This is a truly sad state of affairs . My AWS told me Saturday the new caravans he sees are junk compared to the older ones! He should know!

 

[Mel]

You will find it little different on the Swift Owners Facebook page, but if you really want to see the worst of it go on the Elddis owners facebook page.
mel

 

[Gagakev]

You will find it little different on the Swift Owners Facebook page, but if you really want to see the worst of it go on the Elddis owners facebook page.
mel

Oh no Mel why did you have to remind me!!

 

[Buckman]

You will find it little different on the Swift Owners Facebook page, but if you really want to see the worst of it go on the Elddis owners facebook page.
mel

Very little difference in complaints between all the brands. A lot depends on the quantity a brand sells. If they sell a lot there will probably be more complaints for that brand.

 

[ProfJohnL]

I am certain the numbers of reported complaints is just the tip of the iceberg. How many issues just get put right by the proud new owner or just ignored?

Until all new owners make dealers stand up to thier legal obligation under the CRA not to sell defective goods, an dealers rejecting goods back to the manufacturers we are unlikely to see any real change to antiquated design and production practices that allow faulty goods to leave the factories.

If you want to see better built caravans, complain about every minute problem you find. Even if it's just a loose screw, or bits of scrap plastic packaging you find on the floor write to the dealer so they are least have some evidence to show the manufacture the quality is not good enough. Anything more serious raise a warranty claim, and if that fails escalate it to a CRA claim.

The only gauranteed way to make manufacturer's take customer satisfaction seriously is to boycott their products... But that isn't going to happen as long as customers have the preconception that caravans will have faults and that's as good as they'll get.

 

[Buckman]

I am certain the numbers of reported complaints is just the tip of the iceberg. How many issues just get put right by the proud new owner or just ignored?

Until all new owners make dealers stand up to thier legal obligation under the CRA not to sell defective goods, an dealers rejecting goods back to the manufacturers we are unlikely to see any real change to antiquated design and production practices that allow faulty goods to leave the factories.

If you want to see better built caravans, complain about every minute problem you find. Even if it's just a loose screw, or bits of scrap plastic packaging you find on the floor write to the dealer so they are least have some evidence to show the manufacture the quality is not good enough. Anything more serious raise a warranty claim, and if that fails escalate it to a CRA claim.

The only gauranteed way to make manufacturer's take customer satisfaction seriously is to boycott their products... But that isn't going to happen as long as customers have the preconception that caravans will have faults and that's as good as they'll get.

I agree 100%. Consumers let suppliers get away with far too much. It the consumer put more pressure onto the supplier, it is the supplier, which includes CC & finance houses, that can put pressure on the manufacturer to improve the product.

Pigs may also fly as too many consumer believe the fob off tales from many suppliers in whom they place too much trust because the person is "nice".

 

[Raywood]

Possibly the company owners think why improve when we are just he same as the rest. If no one is demonstrably better or worse so why worry.

 

[Dustydog]

I agree with the Prof. It’s the customer putting up with the shoddy workmanship. There are people on here , me included, who really can’t be dragging the caravan back to the dealer 30 miles away for what are minor faults. Rightly or wrongly I have fixed many things in the knowledge I’ve done a better job. Rerouting cables and warm air pipes has featured on here many a time. The real damp problems should become a mandatory total refund from the Dealer. Also it should be the Dealer‘s responsibility to collect and re deliver .
I wonder if bosses read these pages🤪

 

[ProfJohnL]

Possibly the company owners think why improve when we are just he same as the rest. If no one is demonstrably better or worse so why worry.

That is not how businesses work. ...well in theory. Most businesses try to find something different the customers will go for and grow sales. Ultimately the businesses are there to generated capitol growth to pay dividends to shareholders, whether publicly quoted or private companies.

If the shareholders were genuinely aware how their share of profit was being wasted by the amount of production line rework, scrapage, and warranty work, I'm sure they would want to appoint new directors with a remit to improve the reliability record of their products.

There really is no excuse for the problems we continually read about and see. Caravans have been around for over a century, That should be more than enough time for them to understand how to make them so they don't fall apart when they see a pothole. and leak when a spot of rain falls.

Reliability and quality is something that has to be designed into a product and the way its constructed, you can't paint it on after its built .

 

[Raywood]

I do agree but showing better quality in the showroom as a sales feature is difficult.

 

[longtailtit]

Elddis are by far the worst - they don't care lying to customers. Their facebook pages are full of serious woes.

I think the CRA2015 message is slowly getting through to those new to caravanning via facebook pages etc.

I am on several online pages (including Swift basecamp ) and I am not the only one banging on about the CRA2015 & customers' right to have all manner of manufacturing defects fixed at their dealer's expense.

So there is hope that people are becoming more informed - it just takes a lot of effort from those in the know to keep spreading the word; worth it in the end.

 

[Buckman]

Not sure why you state Elddis are the worst when every manufacturer has issues, but your contract lies with the supplier and not Elddis.

We had a front panel replaced on our 5 year old Buccaneer so they came through for us and we are happy with the repair.

It is my understanding that your caravan was purchased several years ago and purchased under the Sale of Goods Act and not CRA 2015. Is this correct?

 

[otherclive]

Not sure why you state Elddis are the worst when every manufacturer has issues, but your contract lies with the supplier and not Elddis.

We had a front panel replaced on our 5 year old Buccaneer so they came through for us and we are happy with the repair.

It is my understanding that your caravan was purchased several years ago and purchased under the Sale of Goods Act and not CRA 2015. Is this correct?

But to achieve satisfaction for your caravan repair didn't you have to put in an awful lot of work to prove that it was an unsatisfactory product.

 

[Buckman]

But to achieve satisfaction for your caravan repair didn't you have to put in an awful lot of work to prove that it was an unsatisfactory product.

Yes I had to advise the dealer of my rights under CRA 2015 and offer proof, but I dealt with the dealer who was the supplier and not Elddis. Elddis then authorised the work to be done.

When I rejected a 2016 caravan in 2017 using the 30 day and also 6 months windows, I had a real hard uphill battle on my hands as neither the dealer or the finance house would accept the rejection. However Elddis were not involved.

It was very difficult but perseverance and using CRA 2015 eventually paid off. In comparison the claim for the front panel was easy.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Yes I had to advise the dealer of my rights under CRA 2015 and offer proof, but I dealt with the dealer who was the supplier and not Elddis. Elddis then authorised the work to be done.

Your comment is confusing!

A CRA claim can only exists between a customer and seller. It does not involve the manufacture as they're not a party to the contract, and thus a manufacturers acceptance or rejection of the course of action has no relevance and cannot "authorise" or decline the work to be done.

It is the responsibility of the seller to cover the cost of the remedy. How they fund the cost , and whether the manufacturers helps and cannot affect any of the work to be carried out.

 

[otherclive]

Your comment is confusing!

A CRA claim can only exists between a customer and seller. It does not involve the manufacture as they're not a party to the contract, and thus a manufacturers acceptance or rejection of the course of action has no relevance and cannot "authorise" or decline the work to be done.

It is the responsibility of the seller to cover the cost of the remedy. How they fund the cost , and whether the manufacturers helps and cannot affect any of the work to be carried out.

I don’t think that you understand the real world relationship between manufacturers and dealers. You are putting forward the “ legal” position wrt CRA 2015, but in my experience in having three ABS panels replaced under warranty, the dealers provided the makers the service records and the maker then authorised the dealer to proceed. Presumably the maker was agreeing that they the maker would underwrite the cost of Labour and materials to all, or some extent. Had the maker not come to this agreement with the dealers I think my task in gaining redress would have been made significantly harder by having to use CRA 2015 or the SOGA. I recognise that there’s the legal contractual obligations between buyer and seller, but in the real world the linkage between dealer and maker has a significant influence on how a customer is treated.

 

[ProfJohnL]

I don’t think that you understand the real world relationship between manufacturers and dealers. You are putting forward the “ legal” position wrt CRA 2015, but in my experience in having three ABS panels replaced under warranty, the dealers provided the makers the service records and the maker then authorised the dealer to proceed. Presumably the maker was agreeing that they the maker would underwrite the cost of Labour and materials to all, or some extent. Had the maker not come to this agreement with the dealers I think my task in gaining redress would have been made significantly harder by having to use CRA 2015 or the SOGA. I recognise that there’s the legal contractual obligations between buyer and seller, but in the real world the linkage between dealer and maker has a significant influence on how a customer is treated.

I do understand, and probably more than you know.

CRA claims do not rely on the authorisation by a third party other than the courts.

Most CRA claims never actually go as far as court, It's the threat of court action which could result in having a judgment recorded against a business and facing all the additional costs which clarifies the retailers mind. So technically the CRA action is dropped.

Whilst the offer by the manufacture to cover some elements of the cost may have changed the retailers mind about defending a CRA claim, It's totally separate matter, and the authorisation and payment has avoided the CRA case rather than meeting the costs awarded by a judgement.

 

[Dustydog]

What the heck. Here we go again! Look , we all know the Statutory position with the Consumer Rights Act 2015. For the record , check it on here, it was I who brought it to your attention!! Buckman related the historic facts of his claims not who did or who said what.
At the end of the day he had two kites flying , CRA against the Dealer but a Warranty given to him foc under his purchase contract with the Dealer underwritten direct by Elddis. He got the result required through hard work , determination and using all the available legal routes he had available. I really don’t understand what the points being made are about. He got the right result!

 

[Buckman]

I don’t think that you understand the real world relationship between manufacturers and dealers. You are putting forward the “ legal” position wrt CRA 2015, but in my experience in having three ABS panels replaced under warranty, the dealers provided the makers the service records and the maker then authorised the dealer to proceed. Presumably the maker was agreeing that they the maker would underwrite the cost of Labour and materials to all, or some extent. Had the maker not come to this agreement with the dealers I think my task in gaining redress would have been made significantly harder by having to use CRA 2015 or the SOGA. I recognise that there’s the legal contractual obligations between buyer and seller, but in the real world the linkage between dealer and maker has a significant influence on how a customer is treated.

Spot on Clive. The obligation was on the supplier and Elddis supplied the parts at their cost. I thought that was easy to understand?

 

[longtailtit]

This is what happens in practice: Once there is an issue: -

The dealer submits a "Warranty Claim Form" to Elddis on which the Dealer writes in a specific box the "cause" of the fault e.g "panels too tight" ; "fittings not drilled"

Importantly, the customer does not see this form at all - except via a much later Subject Access Request, should the customer decide to make one.

If Elddis approves the claim (i.e. the Warranty Claim form) - all well and good. Except that the dealer refers to any remedial work as a "good will gesture" - which is disingenuous and untruthful bearing in mind that the "causes" were manufacturing defects all along. (Here in lies a claim under section 32 of the Limitation Act for those in the know.)

If Elddis does not approve the claim - then the dealer is left high and dry and often resists attempts to be made to do the work at their expense under the CRA2015/SoGA - but the dealers can't escape their legal obligations if the customer choses to assert them.

Does this help?

 

[Buckman]

This is what happens in practice: Once there is an issue: -

The dealer submits a "Warranty Claim Form" to Elddis on which the Dealer writes in a specific box the "cause" of the fault e.g "panels too tight" ; "fittings not drilled"

Importantly, the customer does not see this form at all - except via a much later Subject Access Request, should the customer decide to make one.

If Elddis approves the claim (i.e. the Warranty Claim form) - all well and good. Except that the dealer refers to any remedial work as a "good will gesture" - which is disingenuous and untruthful bearing in mind that the "causes" were manufacturing defects all along. (Here in lies a claim under section 32 of the Limitation Act for those in the know.)

If Elddis does not approve the claim - then the dealer is left high and dry and often resists attempts to be made to do the work at their expense under the CRA2015/SoGA - but the dealers can't escape their legal obligations if the customer choses to assert them.

Does this help?

If your caravan is 8 or more years old, it would have been under SOGA and that has long since expired even with Limitations Act. I fear you have a an uphill battle that is unlikely to win despite throwing money at it? However your choice and your argument is with the dealer and not Elddis.

 

[longtailtit]

btw: If a dealer engages in "unconscionable conduct i.e. out and about lying" - then he/she should not be entitled to rely on the 6 year rule for a latent defect either.