Latest annual survey results.

[Parksy]

Why does Practical Caravan have a magazine and a forum if the two have to be totally separate?

In what way would you say that they are totally separate Roger?
This forum is just a small part of the Practical Caravan website, on which is shown much of the same content that's found in the magazine.
The forum allows it's members to add real time comments and advice, which can be helpful if you're stuck in the middle of nowhere with your caravan and something happens that you can't resolve without outside help or advice.
The magazine can write an article about it which might appear some weeks later, but it doesn't help at the time.
You're very unlikely to read any forum comment that wouldn't appear in the pages of Practical Caravan magazine.
This is why we don't allow even mild swearing, political or religious material, off colour humour, risque pictures, any of the 'isms' that now govern our speech or online personal attacks upon each other.
Quite often, forum comments appear in Practical Caravan magazine, this forum is considered to be the 'online voice of PCv readership' so we're not as totally seperate as you may think.

 

[RogerL]

In what way would you say that they are totally separate Roger?
This forum is just a small part of the Practical Caravan website, on which is shown much of the same content that's found in the magazine.
The forum allows it's members to add real time comments and advice, which can be helpful if you're stuck in the middle of nowhere with your caravan and something happens that you can't resolve without outside help or advice.
The magazine can write an article about it which might appear some weeks later, but it doesn't help at the time.
You're very unlikely to read any forum comment that wouldn't appear in the pages of Practical Caravan magazine.
This is why we don't allow even mild swearing, political or religious material, off colour humour, risque pictures, any of the 'isms' that now govern our speech or online personal attacks upon each other.
Quite often, forum comments appear in Practical Caravan magazine, this forum is considered to be the 'online voice of PCv readership' so we're not as totally seperate as you may think.

The survey published in the Practical Caravan is whitewashing the difficulties experienced by some caravan owners - the idea that all brands on sale get a gold or silver award is taking the mickey and leads me to assume that the magazine and it's journalists totally ignore the forum, otherwise they wouldn't publish such an inaccurate and one-sided "survey".

 

[Parksy]

The survey published in the Practical Caravan is whitewashing the difficulties experienced by some caravan owners - the idea that all brands on sale get a gold or silver award is taking the mickey and leads me to assume that the magazine and it's journalists totally ignore the forum, otherwise they wouldn't publish such an inaccurate and one-sided "survey".

As far as I know Roger, the survey is the result of the responses received from touring caravan owners who took part.
As far as the magazine editorial staff are concerned their published survey is an accurate reflection of the information given to them by those who decided to respond.
Nobody is preventing forum members from adding their own responses if they want to.
In my earlier post I mentioned the rose tinted viewpoints of magazine editorial staff, but those who write reviews of new caravans don't see the issues experienced by real buyers, they only provide first impressions.
The magazine depends upon the goodwill of dealerships to provide caravans on loan for reviews. which is why these meaningless awards are given, but any individual who spends a very substantial sum based solely on surveys or awards needs help.
What evidence is there to suggest that those who completed the magazine survey are not telling the truth?
The nature of online caravan forums means that we see a lot of comments expressing disatisfaction, but perhaps the overwhelming majority of caravan buyers are happy with their purchase?

 

[ProfJohnL]

.... perhaps the overwhelming majority of caravan buyers are happy with their purchase?

I have no doubt that some caravan owners are entirely happy with their purchases, and if nothing else it might show that the caravan manufacturers have got the basic design right. but I also know that any manufacturer that sees up to 20% of their production generating warranty claims, often for repeat reasons, should be ashamed of that level of failure, and should be resolving the the most common issue so it does do not arise again. then move to resolve the next most common problem and so on, to continually be working to reduce the number problems.

Its adding insult to injury when the manufacture has to inflate the cost a product to cover the cost of their manufacturing incompetence that has to be resolved through the warranty scheme. It would be better if they invested that excess charge to fund properly focused technical research and development.

 

[Buckman]

Well said!

 

[RogerL]

As far as I know Roger, the survey is the result of the responses received from touring caravan owners who took part.
As far as the magazine editorial staff are concerned their published survey is an accurate reflection of the information given to them by those who decided to respond.
Nobody is preventing forum members from adding their own responses if they want to.
In my earlier post I mentioned the rose tinted viewpoints of magazine editorial staff, but those who write reviews of new caravans don't see the issues experienced by real buyers, they only provide first impressions.
The magazine depends upon the goodwill of dealerships to provide caravans on loan for reviews. which is why these meaningless awards are given, but any individual who spends a very substantial sum based solely on surveys or awards needs help.
What evidence is there to suggest that those who completed the magazine survey are not telling the truth?
The nature of online caravan forums means that we see a lot of comments expressing disatisfaction, but perhaps the overwhelming majority of caravan buyers are happy with their purchase?

I'm not questioning the marking - it just defies logic that the bottom marks gets a silver award and makes me question everything that these "journalists" produce.

 

[Buckman]

I'm not questioning the marking - it just defies logic that the bottom marks gets a silver award and makes me question everything that these "journalists" produce.

Most journalists are employed to make sensational news that sell newspapers etc. Truth does not sell anything!

 

[Boff]

If you want to see an example of whitewash look at the CAMC survey of a few years ago. They didn’t even publish the names of the manufacturers. So did not allow its membership to make any sort of informed decision on what is a substantial purchase.

Separately. I really annoys me. The attitude we’ve got an acme wobble box and to be be honest mate I can’t fault it, and somehow this rules out all the people who have problems.

In my book one satisfied customer does not neutralise one dissatisfied customer. To give an extreme example the vast majority who flew on Boeing 737 max had absolutely no problems. Would you have wanted to fly on one?

 

[Parksy]

I'm not questioning the marking - it just defies logic that the bottom marks gets a silver award and makes me question everything that these "journalists" produce.

Rightly so, only a fool would accept everything that is written in newspapers, magazines or on the internet without question.
Nevertheless, the results of these surveys are published on this website of which this forum is only a small part, so the magazine and the website/ forum are not as 'totally separate' as you may think.
Surveys, reviews, recommendations etc. are simply opinions, this website hosts a wide spectrum of opinion on a variety of subjects, and it's for the individual to decide for themselves what to believe and what to ignore.
As far as caravan surveys are concerned, personally I ignore them, but that doesn't prevent me from using and enjoying the forum because it's owned and administered by Practical Caravan, the publishers of these surveys.
You're preaching to the converted on this forum, write to the editorial staff to let them know what you think about their surveys.

 

[Dustydog]

I have no doubt that some caravan owners are entirely happy with their purchases, and if nothing else it might show that the caravan manufacturers have got the basic design right. but I also know that any manufacturer that sees up to 20% of their production generating warranty claims, often for repeat reasons, should be ashamed of that level of failure, and should be resolving the the most common issue so it does do not arise again. then move to resolve the next most common problem and so on, to continually be working to reduce the number problems.

Its adding insult to injury when the manufacture has to inflate the cost a product to cover the cost of their manufacturing incompetence that has to be resolved through the warranty scheme. It would be better if they invested that excess charge to fund properly focused technical research and development.

Excellent script Prof.
May I just add this reinforcement of your points.
All the U.K. makers have to legally declare in their Annual Accounts the amount of cash ring fenced to cover Warranty claims. Hanging out your dirty washing! Further proof the 21 st Century caravan is still poor .

 

[Raywood]

Having dealt with libel claims for a major insurer, I do understand what Parksy says on the subject. The last claim I dealt with settled for £25,000 but when costs were included cost us about £200,000 because of the way they work and the specialist advice we needed. Small forums like this have to be very careful with what they allow and delete things that could be problematic promptly.
The surveys are factual and publishing the results is simple news, so is not a problem. Which buys the test products and tests very thoroughly and therefore can report things they find wrong without fear as long as they are fair and correct. I suspect the caravans provided to the magazines have been checked and are probably the best examples which might explain some of the lack of criticism.
We do have a Lunar a much criticised make, but to be fair ours has had no major problems so far although the workshop director did say we were lucky with ours when it was serviced so there are satisfied customers out there. All the makes do turn out some perfectly good models, but what you have to look at is the proportions that go wrong and how well the makers deal with these problems and that seems to be the problem.
Looking at the survey results the UK ones are doing very badly. If this was a one off then the argument, this was just one survey might be valid, but the same firms appear in near the same order every time, which tends to show the results are valid.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Excellent script Prof.
May I just add this reinforcement of your points.
All the U.K. makers have to legally declare in their Annual Accounts the amount of cash ring fenced to cover Warranty claims. Hanging out your dirty washing! Further proof the 21 st Century caravan is still poor .

I'm sure the figures on the financial statements are very carefully prepared to satisfy the financial reporting standards, and I don't believe them. I am certain their real warranty and rework costs are lawfully buried in their manufacturing costs and in total will be considerably more than the statement reveals.

As you will know the caravan manufacturers fit many OEM supplied products and in such cases they instruct dealers to direct claims on those products to the relevant appliance manufacturer. Those warranty cost will not appear on the caravan manufacturers balance sheets.

 

[RogerL]

Having dealt with libel claims for a major insurer, I do understand what Parksy says on the subject. The last claim I dealt with settled for £25,000 but when costs were included cost us about £200,000 because of the way they work and the specialist advice we needed. Small forums like this have to be very careful with what they allow and delete things that could be problematic promptly.
The surveys are factual and publishing the results is simple news, so is not a problem. Which buys the test products and tests very thoroughly and therefore can report things they find wrong without fear as long as they are fair and correct. I suspect the caravans provided to the magazines have been checked and are probably the best examples which might explain some of the lack of criticism.
We do have a Lunar a much criticised make, but to be fair ours has had no major problems so far although the workshop director did say we were lucky with ours when it was serviced so there are satisfied customers out there. All the makes do turn out some perfectly good models, but what you have to look at is the proportions that go wrong and how well the makers deal with these problems and that seems to be the problem.
Looking at the survey results the UK ones are doing very badly. If this was a one off then the argument, this was just one survey might be valid, but the same firms appear in near the same order every time, which tends to show the results are valid.

The published survey didn't stop at being factual - the magazine then classified manufacturers into Gold and Silver grades with no "lower" grade being published - that itself is distinctly unhelpful to their readers.

The reality is that specialist magazines are quite unsuited to carrying out or publishing product quality surveys as they rely on those same product manufacturers for their advertising revenue - but poor jounalism of this nature does give the impression that their readers matter more than their advertisers.

I think Which? magazine is the only magazine that relies on reader subscriptions rather than advertisers revenue - sadly caravanning is such a niche pastime for them to bother with us.

 

[Dustydog]

I'm sure the figures on the financial statements are very carefully prepared to satisfy the financial reporting standards, and I don't believe them. I am certain their real warranty and rework costs are lawfully buried in their manufacturing costs and in total will be considerably more than the statement reveals.

As you will know the caravan manufacturers fit many OEM supplied products and in such cases they instruct dealers to direct claims on those products to the relevant appliance manufacturer. Those warranty cost will not appear on the caravan manufacturers balance sheets.

Not quite true. The FCA and Independent Auditors will not allow anyones Accounts to be false. The item in the sets of Accounts relates solely to the Caravan Manufacturers water ingress guarantee/ warranty, nothing else. The OEM products fitted usually have a three year warranty , covered by the product manufacturer but as we know CRA puts the Dealer in the immediate firing line. They are not included in the Accounts.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Not quite true. The FCA and Independent Auditors will not allow anyones Accounts to be false. The item in the sets of Accounts relates solely to the Caravan Manufacturers water ingress guarantee/ warranty, nothing else. The OEM products fitted usually have a three year warranty , covered by the product manufacturer but as we know CRA puts the Dealer in the immediate firing line. They are not included in the Accounts.

Firstly I feel very annoyed that you should interpret and suggest what I wrote said that any illegal activity was taking place. I specifically stated there are legitimate ways that some warranty costs could appear as normal operating costs.

Whilst water ingress faults are a major cost for manufacturers, there are plenty of other warrantable problems and costs, so the stated figures in the accounts do not represent the whole cost of warranty to the business.

But in all of this the biggest let down is the way the manufacturers make it difficult to get real problems resolved and the enormous stress it puts customers under. They should be bending over backwards to help.

 

[Dustydog]

Firstly I feel very annoyed that you should interpret and suggest what I wrote said that any illegal activity was taking place. I specifically stated there are legitimate ways that some warranty costs could appear as normal operating costs.

Whilst water ingress faults are a major cost for manufacturers, there are plenty of other warrantable problems and costs, so the stated figures in the accounts do not represent the whole cost of warranty to the business.

But in all of this the biggest let down is the way the manufacturers make it difficult to get real problems resolved and the enormous stress it puts customers under. They should be bending over backwards to help.

Only you mentioned illegal activity. I too feel very very annoyed you should feel very annoyed. If you studied the sets of public audited accounts your annoyance should diminish

 

[Sam Vimes]

The English language can be tricky at times and we often read what we want to see and that's occassionally between the lines. More so in written posts and emails.

There will always be differences of interpretation but when misunderstanding occurs those involved have to accept that maybe everyone involved was not overly clear in expressing what they meant or read.

Shake hands, wish people a Merry Christmas and move on.

 

[Raywood]

I take what is said about the caravan builders not including figures for defective appliances and the like but as they all more or less fit the same things these should balance out between the makers and the results for problems reported for different caravan companies should reflect the quality of their own products. If say 1%of fridges are faulty then that figure applies to all of the makes.

 

[ProfJohnL]

I take what is said about the caravan builders not including figures for defective appliances and the like but as they all more or less fit the same things these should balance out between the makers and the results for problems reported for different caravan companies should reflect the quality of their own products. If say 1%of fridges are faulty then that figure applies to all of the makes.

Whilst I agree most manufacturers will use a similar mix of OEM products in their vans but the failure rate of those products is highly defendant on how the caravan manufacturers treat those products after the OEM manufacture delivers them to the assembly facilities.

Having worked for an OEM supplier, I am well aware of how poorly our products were treated in the hands of teh caravan manufacturers. The vast majority of warranty costs we were saddled with were the result of damage or incorrect installation of those products by the caravan manufacturer.

On one occasion we had 20+ pallets of product (probably worth about £40,000 returned from one manufacture all claimed to be faulty on installation. The reality was the load consisted of some product going back over 5 years from the point of delivery, some had never been fitted, some had been stored were they had got wet, some were still in their sealed boxes but they had punched a hole into the box to take out fitting kits, some boxes had fork lift truck fork holes going right through them, some product had clearly never been fitted but dropped and damaged,
...All damaged by poor storage and handling.

Having visited most of the caravan manufacturer's production facilities during the 1990s I witnessed our products haphazardly stacked in production areas, very close to moving forklifts trucks and other moving machinery and people, fittings parts loose on the floor, Painted panels face down on the floor, a reject area where damaged product was stacked near the production line.

We knew that a proportion of our products are picked up by dealers in their PDI's becasue we saw the warranty orders for the typical manufacturing installation faults.

It is within the manufacturers capability to prevent these gross abuses of OEM products in their product facilities.

 

[Dustydog]

Whilst I agree most manufacturers will use a similar mix of OEM products in their vans but the failure rate of those products is highly defendant on how the caravan manufacturers treat those products after the OEM manufacture delivers them to the assembly facilities.

Having worked for an OEM supplier, I am well aware of how poorly our products were treated in the hands of teh caravan manufacturers. The vast majority of warranty costs we were saddled with were the result of damage or incorrect installation of those products by the caravan manufacturer.

On one occasion we had 20+ pallets of product (probably worth about £40,000 returned from one manufacture all claimed to be faulty on installation. The reality was the load consisted of some product going back over 5 years from the point of delivery, some had never been fitted, some had been stored were they had got wet, some were still in their sealed boxes but they had punched a hole into the box to take out fitting kits, some boxes had fork lift truck fork holes going right through them, some product had clearly never been fitted but dropped and damaged,
...All damaged by poor storage and handling.

Having visited most of the caravan manufacturer's production facilities during the 1990s I witnessed our products haphazardly stacked in production areas, very close to moving forklifts trucks and other moving machinery and people, fittings parts loose on the floor, Painted panels face down on the floor, a reject area where damaged product was stacked near the production line.

We knew that a proportion of our products are picked up by dealers in their PDI's becasue we saw the warranty orders for the typical manufacturing installation faults.

It is within the manufacturers capability to prevent these gross abuses of OEM products in their product facilities.

Did you recover any of the £40k?

 

[ProfJohnL]

Did you recover any of the £40k?

At the time I was not party to the financial arrangements, so I can't be sure. However i do know the caravan company involved was moved from normal commercial credit terms to cash before delivery, and only a few months later it went bankrupt.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Getting back to the root of this thread about surveys. Only a survey that takes responses from every one can be called accurate. But getting everyone to respond is in practice impossible, so surveys that only do samples testing can never be given a 100% certainty factor. There are good statistical processes that can provide 95% probabilities by using small sample cohorts, but the organiser has to show the sample cohort is a true representation of the total population. Any bias in the sample will skew and reduce the level of certainty in the outcomes.

Particularly in the case of seeking opinions about consumer products, it is a well known human trait that you are far more likely to illicit a response from a subject if the product or service has caused concern or has failed in some way. Subjects who have not experienced any problems are far less likely to be prepared to offer a response of any kind, after all why should they if you by a product to do a job and it does it without problems, then what is ter to talk about? it has done what it should do. Consequently consumer surveys are far more likely to have a negative bias.

However manufacturers do have the data about warranty claims and that is a far less opinionated process and will show what percentage of new product generates a warranty claim, and by drilling down into the data they can also determine any common or serious faults which should be prioritised by their product design and production teams.

In the case of the PCV survey report, the subjects and scope used to generate opinions are journalist's and they have job security pressures and are therefore unlikely to get anywhere near a true representation of all caravan owners and their long term experiences of caravans.

 

[Dustydog]

People are fickle , prejudiced and enjoy a good moan on surveys. As an aside back in the 90s most Company Cars were Ford , Vauxhall . I admit as a user I too was hyper critical of every minute feature. Yet without doubt my SRi Cavalier was one the very best cars I’ve ever had. 100k over 3 years. Never failed and delivered ceaselessly. Ford and Vauxhall listened and hence their cars were excellent. Sadly caravans and the bits fitted still fail.
Why are the same old fridges , heaters etc still fitted . Inferior metals , same old tech most of the time.
Must be the makers desire for a fast buck. Frankly I doubt anything will change but I’d love to know how many warranty claims are made, type and cost. That would be a good survey!

 

[Raywood]

Getting back to the root of this thread about surveys. Only a survey that takes responses from every one can be called accurate. But getting everyone to respond is in practice impossible, so surveys that only do samples testing can never be given a 100% certainty factor. There are good statistical processes that can provide 95% probabilities by using small sample cohorts, but the organiser has to show the sample cohort is a true representation of the total population. Any bias in the sample will skew and reduce the level of certainty in the outcomes.

Particularly in the case of seeking opinions about consumer products, it is a well known human trait that you are far more likely to illicit a response from a subject if the product or service has caused concern or has failed in some way. Subjects who have not experienced any problems are far less likely to be prepared to offer a response of any kind, after all why should they if you by a product to do a job and it does it without problems, then what is ter to talk about? it has done what it should do. Consequently consumer surveys are far more likely to have a negative bias.

However manufacturers do have the data about warranty claims and that is a far less opinionated process and will show what percentage of new product generates a warranty claim, and by drilling down into the data they can also determine any common or serious faults which should be prioritised by their product design and production teams.

In the case of the PCV survey report, the subjects and scope used to generate opinions are journalist's and they have job security pressures and are therefore unlikely to get anywhere near a true representation of all caravan owners and their long term experiences of caravans.

Prof, I do understand what you say but these surveys have been very consistent over the years with Adria and Coachman the top two every year until now except one, with Eldiss bottom except, on two instances where the ones involved had been out of production for some time. This consistency does mean the figures must be realistic opinions because of this. The inclusion of Knaus and Eriba are new this year and must be on very low numbers so we will have to see if these are maintained.
I agree that those who have problems are more likely to complain but this has to be the same across the different brands and it possibly means the satisfaction level is higher than shown but the order should still be the same.
I also agree that the magazines can be biased but that on this subject would normally be in the lack of criticism of the poor results in the articles covering the results rather than presenting factually wrong figures. Basically satisfaction figures around 75% are poor even allowing for the figures being skewed a bit with the unhappy ones being more likely to respond. What the figures seem to say in my books s that the criticism seen on here and other forums is probably realistic.

 

[ProfJohnL]

I agree with most of what you have written, And i don't doubt the accuracy of the published results, The results give you the answer 42 but what exactly was the question?

Unless you know the scope of the question, answers mean very little.

For example if you were answering a survey question Does your caravan have a water ingress problems, your answer might quite honestly answer be "no But if the question were to ask does the caravan have any history of damp issues, you might might have to say "yes" even though presently it does not.

That is why understanding what the question is is so important, but also the multiple answers need to be able to accurately express your own point of view.

I have often been asked to complete questionnaires, and part way through I have to withdraw because I don't find the answer options correctly reflect my feelings or experience.