Lunar Caravans.....In Administration

[ProfJohnL]

As everyone is saying that any warranty work is the responsibility of the dealer then, provided the dealership manager put this in writing, ( preferably in blood) and there was a massive discount on the van, then MAYBE it is OK.
Not sure that I would buy one though.
Mel

Hello Mel.
The trader who sells a caravan to a consumer has conducted a retail sale. The contract that has been created by the sale is covered by consumer rights act. The trader is the seller and they cannot in anyway remove themselves from the liability the CRA places on them. Fundamentally the seller must ensure the goods they sell are described accurately, free from design, material and workmanship defects. They must be fit for purpose and be of sufficient quality to last a reasonable amount of time.

Any product they sell that fails those criteria, they are legally obliged to supply a remedy that does not leave the consumer any worse off than the same product without failures.

In providing a remedy, the seller must inconvenience the consumer as little as is reasonably possible.

Any seller that fails in these matters is in breach of the CRA, and the customer would have a strong case to sue for damages.

 

[Icaru5]

As everyone is saying that any warranty work is the responsibility of the dealer then, provided the dealership manager put this in writing, ( preferably in blood) and there was a massive discount on the van, then MAYBE it is OK.
Not sure that I would buy one though.
Mel

Hello Mel.
The trader who sells a caravan to a consumer has conducted a retail sale. The contract that has been created by the sale is covered by consumer rights act. The trader is the seller and they cannot in anyway remove themselves from the liability the CRA places on them. Fundamentally the seller must ensure the goods they sell are described accurately, free from design, material and workmanship defects. They must be fit for purpose and be of sufficient quality to last a reasonable amount of time.

Any product they sell that fails those criteria, they are legally obliged to supply a remedy that does not leave the consumer any worse off than the same product without failures.

In providing a remedy, the seller must inconvenience the consumer as little as is reasonably possible.

Any seller that fails in these matters is in breach of the CRA, and the customer would have a strong case to sue for damages.

I’m quite sure that all of the above is correct Prof, but it all becomes meaningless and of no consolation to the consumer if the trading company is dissolved and a new one is registered with an almost identical name, with the same Directors and staff and even trading from the same premises ... A perfectly legal and common practice across all industries in such circumstances, with virtually negligible costs or loss of business.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Icaru5,

It most certainly is not meaningless, because the consumer has no automatic rights against the manufacturer, only against the seller.

I believe the vast majority of dealers are independent trading organisations, and only franchise the caravan makers marque.
Consequently if the manufacturer folds, consumers haver their legal rights through the CRA against the seller it's far from meaningless it's actually highly relevant to any caravan owner who has a faulty van as they still have a means to have faults put right even if the manufacture no longer has a valid warranty scheme.

 

[Icaru5]

Hello Icaru5,

It most certainly is not meaningless, because the consumer has no automatic rights against the manufacturer, only against the seller.

I believe the vast majority of dealers are independent trading organisations, and only franchise the caravan makers marque.
Consequently if the manufacturer folds, consumers haver their legal rights through the CRA against the seller it's far from meaningless it's actually highly relevant to any caravan owner who has a faulty van as they still have a means to have faults put right even if the manufacture no longer has a valid warranty scheme.

I’m afraid I would have to disagree and maintain that it truly would become meaningless Prof, as using the same terminology as your good self, by referring to the “trader”, I was in fact referring to the seller (read “Caravan Dealer”) and not the manufacturer !

In such circumstances, the consumer would not be able to exercise any legal rights against a company (read “trader”, “seller” or “caravan dealer”) that has been dissolved with companies house and subsequently ceased to be a legal entity.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Point taken about wording, but the thread is about the demise of the manufacture.

Dealers are independent businesses and just because a manufacture closes it does not follow the dealers will close, so customers are still likely to have a legal route to a remedy if their dealer has sold a faulty caravan.

 

[Icaru5]

Point taken about wording, but the thread is about the demise of the manufacture.

Dealers are independent businesses and just because a manufacture closes it does not follow the dealers will close, so customers are still likely to have a legal route to a remedy if their dealer has sold a faulty caravan.

I completely agree and apologise for any confusion as like you say, the thread is about the demise of the manufacturer, but the point I was making was that by performing such a simple and quick exercise, any caravan dealer, or any other retailer can and often do very easily exonerate themselves from any burden or liability under the CRA.

Of course, let’s hope Lunar do find an investor, meaning that such unscrupulous, albeit perfectly legal practices don’t need to be be cared out.

On another note, whilst I admittedly haven’t analysed the accounts, having read so many posts on here from people ranting on about how the UK caravan manufacturers need a to implement a complete change of culture and working practice, could this be an opportunity for us all to pitch in and lead by example ? :evil:

Edit: I’ve just had a cursory glance and the information available would suggest that debt is the reason for their demise (Both Lunar Holdngs Limited and Lunar Caravans Limited). However, their turnover is healthy and subsequently my initial thoughts are that an investor will soon be found, unless their annual accounts which are now due reveal some hidden surprises !

 

[Dustydog]

Prof and Icaru,
I too fully understand the CRA. However where it fails is the customers loss of the 5/10 year water ingress Guarantee when the manufacturer goes bust.
A reincarnation using the same people and premises does not become legally liable for the defunct company’s past liabilities. That is an anathema to me!

 

[Raywood]

I think that dealers selling the remaining new caravans can get round their legal liability to problems provided they make it absolutely clear to the customer that Lunar are in administration and that they can no longer give any warranty or guarantee parts. You would need it in writing to show the agreement but I doubt anyone would buy on that basis without a big discount and an independent report. Alternatively dealers might be able to get an insurance policy to cover the warranty risks but that would take away most of any profit.
I think most will be bought with the use of a credit card or HP and if so the finance company would be a better line of attack on ones sold before the administration which includes ours.
I do wonder though what the basis of the agreement between the dealer and Lunar states. Presumably in most cases the dealers will not have paid for the caravans and might simply go through them with a fine tooth comb and reject them for any fault found and they all have some. This would be possibly the safest route.
If you have one ordered I would cancel on the basis that the contract included a three year guarantee and six year water ingress one and this is no longer available rendering the contract void.
Possibly without the warranty costs hanging over the company it might now be viable but time will tell.

 

[ProfJohnL]

I think that dealers selling the remaining new caravans can get round their legal liability to problems provided they make it absolutely clear to the customer that Lunar are in administration and that they can no longer give any warranty or guarantee parts. You would need it in writing to show the agreement but I doubt anyone would buy on that basis without a big discount and an independent report. Alternatively dealers might be able to get an insurance policy to cover the warranty risks but that would take away most of any profit.
I think most will be bought with the use of a credit card or HP and if so the finance company would be a better line of attack on ones sold before the administration which includes ours.
I do wonder though what the basis of the agreement between the dealer and Lunar states. Presumably in most cases the dealers will not have paid for the caravans and might simply go through them with a fine tooth comb and reject them for any fault found and they all have some. This would be possibly the safest route.
If you have one ordered I would cancel on the basis that the contract included a three year guarantee and six year water ingress one and this is no longer available rendering the contract void.
Possibly without the warranty costs hanging over the company it might now be viable but time will tell.

Hello Ray,

A retailer cannot absolve themselves of their obligations to the customer under the CRA. It is immutable and has no bearing whatsoever on the status of the manufacturer.

If the manufacturer is no longer in business, then the manufacturer’s warranty may not work, BUT some companies actually sub out the warranty management and costs to an insurance company, and they may still be liable under the contracted terms of the warranty. Review your warranty documentation for details.

The fact it might risk the sellers profits is a necessary risk the seller needs to factor into their budgets. That is a natural risk of business, and if the dealer has not prepared for that eventuality then frankly they should not be trading.

In point of fact many of the items fitted to caravans are OEM parts made by suppliers to the caravan manufacture. Most will have their own warranty schemes and customers can usually call on them to help. Only the parts made specifically by the caravan manufacturer are likely to be risky.

I do agree that if a caravan has been ordered, and has not yet been delivered, there might be just cause to cancel the order.

 

[otherclive]

I think that dealers selling the remaining new caravans can get round their legal liability to problems provided they make it absolutely clear to the customer that Lunar are in administration and that they can no longer give any warranty or guarantee parts. You would need it in writing to show the agreement but I doubt anyone would buy on that basis without a big discount and an independent report. Alternatively dealers might be able to get an insurance policy to cover the warranty risks but that would take away most of any profit.
I think most will be bought with the use of a credit card or HP and if so the finance company would be a better line of attack on ones sold before the administration which includes ours.
I do wonder though what the basis of the agreement between the dealer and Lunar states. Presumably in most cases the dealers will not have paid for the caravans and might simply go through them with a fine tooth comb and reject them for any fault found and they all have some. This would be possibly the safest route.
If you have one ordered I would cancel on the basis that the contract included a three year guarantee and six year water ingress one and this is no longer available rendering the contract void.
Possibly without the warranty costs hanging over the company it might now be viable but time will tell.

Hello Ray,

A retailer cannot absolve themselves of their obligations to the customer under the CRA. It is immutable and has no bearing whatsoever on the status of the manufacturer.

If the manufacturer is no longer in business, then the manufacturer’s warranty may not work, BUT some companies actually sub out the warranty management and costs to an insurance company, and they may still be liable under the contracted terms of the warranty. Review your warranty documentation for details.

The fact it might risk the sellers profits is a necessary risk the seller needs to factor into their budgets. That is a natural risk of business, and if the dealer has not prepared for that eventuality then frankly they should not be trading.

In point of fact many of the items fitted to caravans are OEM parts made by suppliers to the caravan manufacture. Most will have their own warranty schemes and customers can usually call on them to help. Only the parts made specifically by the caravan manufacturer are likely to be risky.

I do agree that if a caravan has been ordered, and has not yet been delivered, there might be just cause to cancel the order.

Many years ago now I bought a 12 month old new unused ABI after they had gone bust. I got it at a very good discount plus a dealer warranty. Of course in those days caravans didn’t have long damp warranties. But neither did they have front and rear panels that seem to have a propensity to crack. They could be critical parts whereas the old ABI could be repaired relatively easily if it showed damp.

Just fir information my present van had a comprehensive aftermarket warranty backed by a reputable insurer. But the small print excluded damage or defects to plastic panels. Fortunately the Swift 6 year warranty was still in place and valid.

 

[Dustydog]

I think that dealers selling the remaining new caravans can get round their legal liability to problems provided they make it absolutely clear to the customer that Lunar are in administration and that they can no longer give any warranty or guarantee parts. You would need it in writing to show the agreement but I doubt anyone would buy on that basis without a big discount and an independent report. Alternatively dealers might be able to get an insurance policy to cover the warranty risks but that would take away most of any profit.
I think most will be bought with the use of a credit card or HP and if so the finance company would be a better line of attack on ones sold before the administration which includes ours.
I do wonder though what the basis of the agreement between the dealer and Lunar states. Presumably in most cases the dealers will not have paid for the caravans and might simply go through them with a fine tooth comb and reject them for any fault found and they all have some. This would be possibly the safest route.
If you have one ordered I would cancel on the basis that the contract included a three year guarantee and six year water ingress one and this is no longer available rendering the contract void.
Possibly without the warranty costs hanging over the company it might now be viable but time will tell.

Hello Ray,

A retailer cannot absolve themselves of their obligations to the customer under the CRA. It is immutable and has no bearing whatsoever on the status of the manufacturer.

If the manufacturer is no longer in business, then the manufacturer’s warranty may not work, BUT some companies actually sub out the warranty management and costs to an insurance company, and they may still be liable under the contracted terms of the warranty. Review your warranty documentation for details.

The fact it might risk the sellers profits is a necessary risk the seller needs to factor into their budgets. That is a natural risk of business, and if the dealer has not prepared for that eventuality then frankly they should not be trading.

In point of fact many of the items fitted to caravans are OEM parts made by suppliers to the caravan manufacture. Most will have their own warranty schemes and customers can usually call on them to help. Only the parts made specifically by the caravan manufacturer are likely to be risky.

I do agree that if a caravan has been ordered, and has not yet been delivered, there might be just cause to cancel the order.

The CRA 2015 is crystal clear. You sell it , as a dealer, you are bound by this Statute.
The water ingress Guarantee is dead.
The warranty on the habitation kit is also defunct. Those manufacturers certainly had a contract with the caravan manufacturer but that does not transfer to the new purchaser.
So would I buy one? Yes!
Subject to a very very close detailed inspection, knowing the Dealer , like it or not , is governed by the CRA, I ‘d give it a punt if the price was attractive.
I am not sure if a dealer can sell a caravan demanding the purchaser relinquishesthe CRA protection.
Then there is still the Consumer Credit Act as a fall back too. Imo worth a punt. Lunar like all the others weren’t all rubbish. Just be very careful in your choice and fully understand your rights of recourse, if any , when things go wrong

 

[otherclive]

The market is reacting already. Looking at the nice Lunar Clubman ES one dealership advertises them as used even though they are 2019 and look brand new. Substantial advertised discount which I am certain could be further enhanced. There is an advertised three year guarantee on the “used”models.

Another dealership again healthy discount on “2019 demonstration model” but no mention of guarantee.

I suspect there will be some very keen deals to be had and as long as buyers approach them with their eyes open there could be some happy caravanners. Apart from those who may have recently bought a new or very recent Lunar and will probably see their investment drop in value.

A nice aspect of the Clubman ES is that Lunar have given some thought to payload. It’s a not unreasonable 143 kg. But can be upgraded by 100 kg to the chassis maximum of 1500kg. What a shame that the maker of such nice looking and good layout caravans the first in UK to give decent payload upgrades has now fallen down financially. Sitting here in a Premier Inn in Leicester with zilch all else to do I must resist the temptatio.

 

[otherclive]

The market is reacting already. Looking at the nice Lunar Clubman ES one dealership advertises them as used even though they are 2019 and look brand new. Substantial advertised discount which I am certain could be further enhanced. Three year guarantee on the used models. Another dealership again healthy discount on “2019 demonstration model” but no mention of guarantee.

I suspect there will be some very keen deals to be had and as long as buyers approach them with their eyes open there could be some happy caravanners. Apart from those who may have recently bought a new or very recent Lunar and will probably see their investment drop in value.

A nice aspect of the Clubman ES is that Lunar have given some thought to payload. It’s a not unreasonable 143 kg. But can be upgraded by 100 kg to the chassis maximum of 1500kg. What a shame that the maker of such nice looking and good layout caravans the first in UK to give decent payload upgrades has now fallen down financially. Sitting here in a Premier Inn in Leicester with zilch all else to do I must resist the temptatio.

 

[Damian]

Quote " The warranty on the habitation kit is also defunct."

No it is not defunct, it is still live and will be honoured by the various maker of the items, such as Thetford, Dometic, Al-Ko, Alde etc.
That is the reason why the third year service MUST be carried out before the 3 year anniversary.

In all my time as a caravan engineer I , and every engineer I know of, carried out warranty work on appliances with direct involvement with the maker, never the supplying dealer or van maker.

 

[ProfJohnL]

.....
I am not sure if a dealer can sell a caravan demanding the purchaser relinquishesthe CRA protection....

Definitely not. No seller can usurp the customers rights, That is why they are rights not options.

However a seller can refuse to contract to sell goods if the deal is not to their satisfaction and provided the reason is not contrary to any discrimination laws.

 

[Dodger524]

The carrying capacity up-grade that otherclive refers to does vary across the range and is simply a reflection of the chassis weight limit.

That available on my Lunar Clubman SB is a rather more modest, but still very useful 55kg.

 

[Dustydog]

Quote " The warranty on the habitation kit is also defunct."

No it is not defunct, it is still live and will be honoured by the various maker of the items, such as Thetford, Dometic, Al-Ko, Alde etc.
That is the reason why the third year service MUST be carried out before the 3 year anniversary.

In all my time as a caravan engineer I , and every engineer I know of, carried out warranty work on appliances with direct involvement with the maker, never the supplying dealer or van maker.

Thanks Damian,
That makes the potential purchase of a new Lunar more attractive. I hadn’t realised those items were guaranteed for three years by the OEM.

 

[ProfJohnL]

The carrying capacity up-grade that otherclive refers to does vary across the range and is simply a reflection of the chassis weight limit.

That available on my Lunar Clubman SB is a rather more modest, but still very useful 55kg.

Unfortunately, MTPLM upgrades are not always available, even if the bare chassis has a greater axle capacity. The ability to upgrade is dependant on the design of the caravan which may have some other structural feature that the manufacture knows would be operating beyond its safe limits if the MTPLM is raised.

As the MTPLM can only be set by the manufacturer, and the option to upgrade is often limited to the original purchaser, or there may be a time limit for applications (both limitations which I think could be challenged as unfair contract terms, but that's for another thread) if the manufacturer has ceased trading then increasing the MTPLM is also lost, as I don't think the DVSA will accept changes to model approvals without a lot of other structural and design evidence which only the manufacture would have.

 

[ProfJohnL]

...
Thanks Damian,
That makes the potential purchase of a new Lunar more attractive. I hadn’t realised those items were guaranteed for three years by the OEM.

I must remind you there is no obligation for a manufacturer to offer a warrant to end users. Most do offer them, and in some cases it would be commercial suicide if they didn't. Consequently the terms of warranties can and do vary.

Several years ago there was a lot of pressure put on OEM suppliers by caravan manufactures to get them to align parts warranties. Whilst I believe most OEMs did, it's quite possible some didn't, so don't assume all caravan equipment items are warranted for 3 years. You have to check the items individual warranty terms and conditions.

 

[otherclive]

Quote " The warranty on the habitation kit is also defunct."

No it is not defunct, it is still live and will be honoured by the various maker of the items, such as Thetford, Dometic, Al-Ko, Alde etc.
That is the reason why the third year service MUST be carried out before the 3 year anniversary.

In all my time as a caravan engineer I , and every engineer I know of, carried out warranty work on appliances with direct involvement with the maker, never the supplying dealer or van maker.

Thanks Damian,
That makes the potential purchase of a new Lunar more attractive. I hadn’t realised those items were guaranteed for three years by the OEM.

Some of those items require the unit to be serviced within the guarantee period and they aren’t within the normal service schedule. But normally they are pretty trouble free and not that expensive to sort out. Could there be new “used” Lunar having its maiden voyage to the Woosie Fest. ?

 

[Dustydog]

I must remind you there is no obligation for a manufacturer to offer a warrant to end users.

That’s what I thought Prof but Damian takes a different view. As you rightly point out there is a difference between commercial considerations and the legal contractual position.

 

[ProfJohnL]

I must remind you there is no obligation for a manufacturer to offer a warrant to end users.

That’s what I thought Prof but Damian takes a different view. As you rightly point out there is a difference between commercial considerations and the legal contractual position.

To be fair, and as far as I know, virtually all OEM products in caravans will have a manufacturers warranty that can be called on, and that is what Damian stated. But you should check the details for each product because the terms for each warranty might be different, for example how to claim, and the labour rates paid for warranty work, and of course the warranty period, is it from date of sale or date of manufacture, which considering how caravans are manufactured could be quite different.

I shall give you an example; I particularly remember this one because of the key dates were all 2 years apart. A range of products that a business I worked for were all serially numbered and we could identify the date it was manufactured, the date it was delivered to the caravan manufacturer. A warranty claim was lodged by a dealer in 1995. The caravan was purchased new in 1993, but it had been manufactured in 1991. The serial number of the appliance proved it had been delivered to the manufacture in 1989!!! We did honour the claim as a gesture of goodwill even though it was twice as old as our warranty policy offered.
Caravan manufacturers were very poor at date based stock rotation.

(Addition) Whilst the caravan manufacturers had some leverage over UK based companies, the same was not necessarily true of foreign suppliers. Some may have had UK distributors who would carry the warranty, but other who supplied direct from abroad probably would not have a UK after sales system.

 

[Dustydog]

I must remind you there is no obligation for a manufacturer to offer a warrant to end users.

That’s what I thought Prof but Damian takes a different view. As you rightly point out there is a difference between commercial considerations and the legal contractual position.

To be fair, and as far as I know, virtually all OEM products in caravans will have a manufacturers warranty that can be called on, and that is what Damian stated. But you should check the details for each product because the terms for each warranty might be different, for example how to claim, and the labour rates paid for warranty work, and of course the warranty period, is it from date of sale or date of manufacture, which considering how caravans are manufactured could be quite different.

I shall give you an example; I particularly remember this one because of the key dates were all 2 years apart. A range of products that a business I worked for were all serially numbered and we could identify the date it was manufactured, the date it was delivered to the caravan manufacturer. A warranty claim was lodged by a dealer in 1995. The caravan was purchased new in 1993, but it had been manufactured in 1991. The serial number of the appliance proved it had been delivered to the manufacture in 1989!!! We did honour the claim as a gesture of goodwill even though it was twice as old as our warranty policy offered.
Caravan manufacturers were very poor at date based stock rotation.

(Addition) Whilst the caravan manufacturers had some leverage over UK based companies, the same was not necessarily true of foreign suppliers. Some may have had UK distributors who would carry the warranty, but other who supplied direct from abroad probably would not have a UK after sales system.

Thank you Prof,
If you or I bought a Lunar now, do you believe we could rely on the habitation equipment suppliers to deal with warranty claims? And if so for how many years?
I fully take on board the reference to contractual Ts & Cs.

 

[Raywood]

The Lunar handbook lists the manufacturer warranty of the parts affected so there can be no argument as to their inclusion. The guarantee detail are also included with the handbook for these items.
As only the manufacturer can upgrade the MTPLM and if Lunar are in administration this would be difficult where it is possible. I did notice that most 1919 models had the MTPLM down graded to nearer those of most competitors without the MIRO changing which suggests there is room for an upgrade. Presumably if the make survives it will be with a new company and we will have to see if they can and will upgrade existing models.

 

[Raywood]

I think you can sell with no warranty where you have made this clear as administrators of several companies have done this of late. Basically it seemed the purchaser has to specifically agree to this and be aware of the reason why. Having said that where dealers have received the caravans and have not paid for them there best bet is to send them back unless the administrator agrees to a warranty.
There is nothing in the Lunar one to say that it is anything other than Lunar's responsibility so chasing another firm looks doubtful there.