If you need to read between the lines, then that's the same as taking the reports with a pinch of salt!
I think most people understood what I was trying to get across, but it seems you missed it again? However your choice if you do not want to use Trustpilot.
Where would you look Prof ? I know nothing is perfect but at our ages we can see the wheat and chaff. Hence Buckman’s comment read between the lines. Or let’s say don’t take it at face value😉
This is the second time reported on the forum that a caravanner has had a product failure, which has put the seller in breach of contract, and the customer has ended up paying to have the repairs done.
That is not a win win.... Did the customers ask the dealer's to supply faulty goods when they placed their orders for the caravans? The CRA is very clear that retailers must supply new goods, that are free from design, material or workmanship defects.
If the dealer fails to ensure the goods are in good condition, that is their failure not the customers.
Of course in reality it would be unreasonable and impractical for a dealer to inspect every part down to the nails and screws that go into a caravan, which is why when they become a dealer for a brand, as part of their contact with the manufacturer they should seek assurances from the manufacturer about the quality of the goods they receive, such that it does not require the dealer to strip every part down to its base level. But the law expects and requires that level of diligence in a retail sale.
The fact that faulty goods get through the dealership to the end user, point to the conclusion the dealership has failed in their duty to ensure the goods are fault free. And that is the breach of contract under the CRA.
As far as the customer is concerned, the dealer has not performed their legal duty which has led to the faulty parts being delivered.
The Dealer either needs begin to be more diligent when preparing goods for sale, or to be more forceful in their own contractual arrangements with their own suppliers or manufactures about the quality assurances of supplied goods, and how suppliers will be held responsible for faults they allow through their own hands.
Consider this scenario:-
Two customers decide to purchase identical caravans from the same dealer at the same time. Both caravans are delivered and are used identically. One caravan develops a fault which the manufacture accepts was their responsibility and they supply replacement parts foc, but the dealer charges the customer to fit them.
Is it fair or reasonable that this customer should end up paying more for his caravan than the other customer who has not suffered the inconvenience of the fault? Why should the customer end up paying not only for the incompetence of the manufacturing fault and the dealers failure to prevent the faulty goods from being delivered, The CRA is designed to level the playing field such that neither customer should disadvantaged.
Bear in mind The CRA is immutable, and nothing in a retail contract can diminish your rights under the CRA. If it ensures the repairs are carried out then pay dealer, but after completion, consider starting a CRA claim through the small claims court to recover the money you paid.
You the customer have been wronged, why should you pay anything when it's the dealer that has failed in their duty.
I strongly advise you seek professional advice on this matter.
That is not a win win.... Did the customers ask the dealer's to supply faulty goods when they placed their orders for the caravans? The CRA is very clear that retailers must supply new goods, that are free from design, material or workmanship defects.
If the dealer fails to ensure the goods are in good condition, that is their failure not the customers.
Of course in reality it would be unreasonable and impractical for a dealer to inspect every part down to the nails and screws that go into a caravan, which is why when they become a dealer for a brand, as part of their contact with the manufacturer they should seek assurances from the manufacturer about the quality of the goods they receive, such that it does not require the dealer to strip every part down to its base level. But the law expects and requires that level of diligence in a retail sale.
The fact that faulty goods get through the dealership to the end user, point to the conclusion the dealership has failed in their duty to ensure the goods are fault free. And that is the breach of contract under the CRA.
As far as the customer is concerned, the dealer has not performed their legal duty which has led to the faulty parts being delivered.
The Dealer either needs begin to be more diligent when preparing goods for sale, or to be more forceful in their own contractual arrangements with their own suppliers or manufactures about the quality assurances of supplied goods, and how suppliers will be held responsible for faults they allow through their own hands.
Consider this scenario:-
Two customers decide to purchase identical caravans from the same dealer at the same time. Both caravans are delivered and are used identically. One caravan develops a fault which the manufacture accepts was their responsibility and they supply replacement parts foc, but the dealer charges the customer to fit them.
Is it fair or reasonable that this customer should end up paying more for his caravan than the other customer who has not suffered the inconvenience of the fault? Why should the customer end up paying not only for the incompetence of the manufacturing fault and the dealers failure to prevent the faulty goods from being delivered, The CRA is designed to level the playing field such that neither customer should disadvantaged.
Bear in mind The CRA is immutable, and nothing in a retail contract can diminish your rights under the CRA. If it ensures the repairs are carried out then pay dealer, but after completion, consider starting a CRA claim through the small claims court to recover the money you paid.
You the customer have been wronged, why should you pay anything when it's the dealer that has failed in their duty.
I strongly advise you seek professional advice on this matter.
All I have suggested is that you should not take what appears in review sites to be gospel.
You may look wherever you like, and I'm sure you will make your own judgments about which to believe or not based on your own filtering.
Apologies Prof who has stated the goods were faulty and who has accepted responsibility. No we're in my thread has anybody admitted anything . And legal advice got me no we're. Good old nouse and negotiation got me we're I am
Let's get in the real world everything manufactured has a tolerance be it a couple of microns or + or - 10mm. Just because it in tolerance does not mean it cannot fail. Then we can introduce the human factor of manufacture on top of this . We have to accept this as fact of were we are .Otherwise the world would be unindated with return. and repair centres
Effectively when the manufacturer offers parts FOC, that is tantamount to an acknowledgement that the goods should not have failed.
We have heard of situations where high street solicitors have not understood the implications of the CRA, where as organisations like Which? have and got results accordingly.
The CRA only applies to the the UK, though there is similar legislation in many countries.
The fact is some manufactures have got away with producing shoddy goods for years becasue they have no contract with the end user and in many cases the end users are ignorant of their rights. Retailers have no incentive to remind customers of their rights, so many cases where a CRA claim would be upheld, are simply never presented.
Good design takes into account of the tolerances, limitations and capabilities of supplied materials or sub assemblies, and good manufacturing should reduce the incidence of failure to very low levels, such the number of items needed to be returned should be very low. Manufacturers should be working towards Zero Defects.
Yes there will always be some risk of failure, and if its is genuinely a small risk, te the supply chain should be quite capable of handling every claim that comes along efficiently and with minimum inconvenience to the customer at any point in the supply chain.
Sadly the UK caravan industry almost universally has a long long long way to go before it can consider itself to be a world class industry.
I'm just appalled at the way you and others have been treated by an industry that takes thousands of pounds from so many customers and despite having over 100 years of experience they still can't get the basic assembly of caravans right first time everytime. And then have the audacity to charge customers to rectify their failures of design and manufacturing mistakes!
I'm not against you, but I do disagree that you have won when it has cost you time inconvenience and money to have a repair that shouldn't have been necessary.
I was happy with my outcome and it seems you are happy with your outcome even though we each made a small contribution towards costs so I am not sure why that seems to have upset some people?
Prof has cogently again clearly set out the CRA. On the face of it he is right that the OP should not have paid anything for the repair. The provision of the parts is an undoubted affirmation the. Caravan was defective and the Dealer under CRA would have to pay 100%.
I suspect the Dealer is being paid something by the manufacturer to cover Labour but not the full rate??
At the end of the day I may have gone the extra mile and invoked CRA via the Court. I would expect nothing short of a 100% win.
But I respect the OP decision. Sometimes for a few hundred pounds knowing the repairs will be carried out correctly with no animosity you get peace of mind.
There may be other factors we don’t know that also persuaded the OP to agree a contribution.
Overall I thank the OP for keeping us informed and wish him well in his future caravan trips.
I suspect the Dealer is being paid something by the manufacturer to cover Labour but not the full rate??
At the end of the day I may have gone the extra mile and invoked CRA via the Court. I would expect nothing short of a 100% win.
But I respect the OP decision. Sometimes for a few hundred pounds knowing the repairs will be carried out correctly with no animosity you get peace of mind.
There may be other factors we don’t know that also persuaded the OP to agree a contribution.
Overall I thank the OP for keeping us informed and wish him well in his future caravan trips.
Taking into consideration the age of the caravan and the usage, using CRA 2015 in court may result in the the consumer being the loser as the consumer would have had some benefit from the goods.
TBH although in a sense Prop may be correct, do you really want the hassle of going to court in the hope that you may or may not be successful with your CRA 2015 claim? After all paying £600 for a repair that could have cost the consumer over £9000 is surely a win win.
I don’t disagree . I did say. See below.Clearly each case on its own merits. As a matter of interest as someone who has been at the sharp end did you ever think you were at risk of losing?
“But I respect the OP decision. Sometimes for a few hundred pounds knowing the repairs will be carried out correctly with no animosity you get peace of mind.”
“But I respect the OP decision. Sometimes for a few hundred pounds knowing the repairs will be carried out correctly with no animosity you get peace of mind.”
Of course each person has to make up their own mind about the way a situation is resolved, and whilst I may not agree with your choices, I do hope the outcome is good for you.I was happy with my outcome and it seems you are happy with your outcome even though we each made a small contribution towards costs so I am not sure why that seems to have upset some people?
But by not holding the retailer to their legal obligations, you are perpetuating the present unsatisfactory status quo where retailers actively try to evade their legal obligations, and manufacturers still do not feel the pain their carelessness in design and manufacture causes end users.
If each entity in the supply chains were automatically (by legislation) forced to be responsible for the failures they create or allow through to their respective customers, product quality in all areas would improve, becasue no organisation likes to see its profitability reduced, not only through the cost of repairs and rework, but also through loss of customer confidence and sales.
The UK (and possibly other countries also) caravan industry needs to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st Century's where failure becomes a costly reality for them.
It needs to be remembered that if you go overboard using CRA 2015 whether right or wrong, more than likely you still need to use the same dealer for any other warranty work.
Prof you are correct, but when facing the realities of life some people just cannot face the delays and anguish involved. I think that possibly the agreement here was unjust but understandable and was possibly as good as they were going to get without the delays and risks of litigation.
Spot on as we did not want to have the issue drag out for months as we would not have been able to use the caravan in that time. Going to court is not a case of booking a court date next week, but can be months before you can appear in court on a civil case.
For an issue like this where an unjustified charge has already been made and paid, the chances are the mere threat of using the CRA would be enough to result in a refund, and it's unlikely to ever go to court.
But as I have said its up to each individual to balance their own pros & cons about such a course of action.
Having used the CRA in court successfully, I would agree that is a very powerful tool. Having said that, in @caravan john 's situation I think I would have been very tempted to pay some money to get it resolved and not drag out. Yes, it seems highly likely that CRA would have meant zero or very low cost to him to get it resolved, but by agreeing to the payment the situation is hopefully resolved earlier. I assume it could also help in that paying something should get the work guaranteed for the next time that it fails.
In support of the decision made by the OP there’s nothing worse than having bad blood with someone doing the work for you. And where do you find a dealer who you can use in the future .
Like the Prof, from what we know, I am confident CRA would have succeeded but probably not within a reasonable time scale.
Like the Prof, from what we know, I am confident CRA would have succeeded but probably not within a reasonable time scale.
I agree completely that it is better to try to resolve issues in a collaborative manner if possible.
Yet the CRA also says work should be completed within a reasonable time frame!
I'm certain if more people stood up for their rights, the retail sector would have to reform. There's an interesting article in the latest issue of Which about the way retailer are failing to give correct advice about faulty goods and customer rights.
You got to be kidding. In the real world most times the dealer will either ignore that CRA 2015 exists or continue to fob you off. and use as much delaying tricks as they can. Been there twice.
I meant the time taken to achieve a win using CRA and the Courts long before any work starts it could drag for many months
Mel
Moderator
Absolutely agree. In an ideal world the caravan industry would cough up quickly, but in this case my mental health and emotional well being would be more than worth the few hundred quid of the settlement.
mel
Just viewed a 2020 Elddis xplorer 422. Found fine stress cracks on rear panel where it meets side walls. Look at top side corners, were also lower down. Wasn't impressed with sealant at bottom corners, was coming away and needed replacing. For 4 yr old van hadn't aged well on outside.
Didn't buy it for other reasons.
Didn't buy it for other reasons.
PXd our lightly used 3 year old Elddis last year after the side started falling off and elddis washed their hands of it (it was our fault apparently).
Wouldn't touch an Elddis / Edwin Hymer group product with a barge pole.
Wouldn't touch an Elddis / Edwin Hymer group product with a barge pole.
Facebook
Twitter