-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Lunar Caravans.....In Administration
Page 6 - Passionate about caravans & motorhome? Join our community to share that passion with a global audience!
The sale has gone through today. Lunar Automotive Caravans Ltd.
Hope that the new owners can make it a success although with pound where it is and possibly going lower the costs of imported parts will be a challenge for all makers but especially one with a history of recent problems. Credit insurance is often a difficult thing to obtain at a reasonable price for higher risk companies.
Looks hopeful but not sure who the new owners are.
The cost of foreign parts might be a problem but on foreign built caravans the problem is the same in that they have to allow for that in their pricing. Buying home grown bits might help where they are available.
The big advantage the UK builders have is the labour costs should be lower and for those exporting that is an advantage at the moment but could all go wrong after Brexit or if that does not go ahead.
Given the new name I assume warranties will no longer be valid.
The cost of foreign parts might be a problem but on foreign built caravans the problem is the same in that they have to allow for that in their pricing. Buying home grown bits might help where they are available.
The big advantage the UK builders have is the labour costs should be lower and for those exporting that is an advantage at the moment but could all go wrong after Brexit or if that does not go ahead.
Given the new name I assume warranties will no longer be valid.
It seems the new Company which was formed and registered on the 1st August 2019 has now taken Lunar Caravans out of Administration. Technically , I think, that means the company has never actually ceased trading nor has it been put in receivership. Therefore maybe there is a chance all existing and future sales of caravans prior to 1st August will have their manufacturer warranty honoured. Anyone know??
Dustydog said:
It depends on what actually happened. The change of name would suggest that a new company has been formed to take over the business and we need to know what they actually bought. If the bought the old limited company then they would be buying the debts and liabilities and if the old company was insolvent this would seem unlikely. I assume they have bought the name and assets but not the liabilities which would mean the guarantees are probably worthless. Time will tell but I would not hold out much in the way of hope.
EH52ARH said:
Until the terms of the new companies purchase are known, we will not know if it offers any support to pre collapse customers.
EH52ARH said:
I'm not sure what your trying to say here, but if a caravan fails in a way the CRA defines as a breach, then dealers have no where to hide. If they keep denying their responsibility then the consumer should invoke the CRA and be prepared to take the dealer to the small claims court. Each owner will have balance the pros and cons of the situation in their own way.
Dealers may fight but at the end of the day they will know their responsibilities and most will give in before you get to court. I do worry though that if they are doing the repair because of the threat of legal action they may be inclined to rush it to get it out of the way and a few years down the line you may have the same problems.
The press release shows that the new company has bought the trade and assets which suggests that the guarantee is no longer any use.
The press release shows that the new company has bought the trade and assets which suggests that the guarantee is no longer any use.
Raywood said:
I think the errant caravan has now been traded in and sold on within a few days. The OP is now a proud Swift owner.
Raywood said:
Ray if they take that attitude, then they're making an even bigger problem for themselves, becasue the CRA only allows them one chance to effect a good repair, and if they fail, then they are obliged to offer a refund to compensate for loss of value.
I have to add that this is going to be another bit of a grey area of the CRA, becasue its not clear if that only applies if the goods are not fit for purpose or if it applies with just a cosmetic issue.
Prof, I accept the law is clear on faulty items so dealers should at least offer a repair. Not all dealers will easily accept their responsibility and the problem could also be the numbers involved and the dealers worrying about the cost. In that case I am sure they will try to fob people off.
I think that cracks would generally be regarded as a potential damp issue and therefore the item is unfit for purpose, but cosmetic problems would make probably not make an item unfit for purpose,
I think that cracks would generally be regarded as a potential damp issue and therefore the item is unfit for purpose, but cosmetic problems would make probably not make an item unfit for purpose,
Hello Ray,
I full accept that dealers may not be happy with the situation, but neither are their customers, If dealer's don't want the risk to their profits for warranty claims, then they shouldn't have started dealing!
It has been the case since SoGA was introduced, so it's nothing new, and their legal advisors should have warned them about such risks as part of their due diligence process when setting up their business.
Some companies (one of whom I worked for) actually took out a claims insurance, which could be called on to help cover unusual events such as product recalls, major customers failing to pay invoices (like Lunar going into administration) and other extraordinary events.
I'm not unsympathetic to the problems these sorts administration events create, but its business out there, and if a party see's a way to mitigate any expenses they will take it! - So why shouldn't customers follow through, who have paid their hard earned money for a product that falls within the remit of their legal rights?
There are a few traders who have a very positive approach to dealing with customers, and they tend to be well respected in their field. Caravan dealers should be prepared to handle the problems with products they sell. It's been within their capability to reject faulty goods back to manufacturer's. They have had the opportunity to insure themselves for events such as Lunars demise. If they then make it extra hard for customers to exercise their legal rights, then shame on them. You can be certain the courts would take a dim view of a seller who obstructs a customer's rights.
As for what criteria are used for the definition of "Not fit for purpose" I do recall a case several years ago where from memory, a relatively new caravan had developed water ingress at one end, and the case went to court becasue the customer wanted a full refund on the basis it was not fit for purpose. The court decided the case was not proved becasue despite the presence of damp in the caravan, the caravan could still be towed and used all be it in a restricted manner. The court direct the caravan should not taken back by the seller for a full refund, but it should be repaired and a calculation was done that subtracted the use the owner had had of the caravans against its repaired market value and a compensation adjustment paid to the customer. The CRA may change some aspects of that solution these days.
I full accept that dealers may not be happy with the situation, but neither are their customers, If dealer's don't want the risk to their profits for warranty claims, then they shouldn't have started dealing!
It has been the case since SoGA was introduced, so it's nothing new, and their legal advisors should have warned them about such risks as part of their due diligence process when setting up their business.
Some companies (one of whom I worked for) actually took out a claims insurance, which could be called on to help cover unusual events such as product recalls, major customers failing to pay invoices (like Lunar going into administration) and other extraordinary events.
I'm not unsympathetic to the problems these sorts administration events create, but its business out there, and if a party see's a way to mitigate any expenses they will take it! - So why shouldn't customers follow through, who have paid their hard earned money for a product that falls within the remit of their legal rights?
There are a few traders who have a very positive approach to dealing with customers, and they tend to be well respected in their field. Caravan dealers should be prepared to handle the problems with products they sell. It's been within their capability to reject faulty goods back to manufacturer's. They have had the opportunity to insure themselves for events such as Lunars demise. If they then make it extra hard for customers to exercise their legal rights, then shame on them. You can be certain the courts would take a dim view of a seller who obstructs a customer's rights.
As for what criteria are used for the definition of "Not fit for purpose" I do recall a case several years ago where from memory, a relatively new caravan had developed water ingress at one end, and the case went to court becasue the customer wanted a full refund on the basis it was not fit for purpose. The court decided the case was not proved becasue despite the presence of damp in the caravan, the caravan could still be towed and used all be it in a restricted manner. The court direct the caravan should not taken back by the seller for a full refund, but it should be repaired and a calculation was done that subtracted the use the owner had had of the caravans against its repaired market value and a compensation adjustment paid to the customer. The CRA may change some aspects of that solution these days.
At this juncture it is worth reminding everyone that whilst the CRA 2015 is a great piece of legislation, backed and introduced to Parliament by Jo Swinson MP, there are still fairly strict timescales involved.
Take your time and read this https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/consumer-rights-act
Take your time and read this https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/consumer-rights-act
BryonySymes
Administrator
Hi Everyone!
We've just had an update on Lunar's situation, in case anyone is interested...
https://www.practicalcaravan.com/news/196336-lunar-caravans-has-been-bought-out-of-administration
We've just had an update on Lunar's situation, in case anyone is interested...
https://www.practicalcaravan.com/news/196336-lunar-caravans-has-been-bought-out-of-administration
This company has zero experience in caravan manufacture? Also Googled company name and also name of director and there is no information. The only thing that comes up is that both companies were registered in the UK in the past month. Does not bode well for Lunar caravans, but hope I am wrong!
Buckman said:
Hopefully, it is not as bad as you fear. It is not unusual for a new company to be set up to deal with an acquisition such as this. In the early days, the Companies' House information is often vague until the people who are going to operate the business on a day to day basis are put in place.
The article does say "Lunar, which went into administration in July due to cashflow problems, has been bought by Lunar Automotive, a company specially formed to acquire the company which is part of MEWA, a South African based specialist engineering group founded by Cecil Marks in the early part of the last century.
Nicholas Marks, the founder's grandson, who is currently Lunar Automotive's sole director, said: "We have acquired a very experienced caravan manufacturing team whose expertise was instrumental in our decision to invest in the business. The MEWA group has been involved in specialist engineering and component manufacture for 100 years and this experience bodes well for Lunar to not only celebrate its 50th anniversary but to look forward to the next 50 years."
He said all existing orders were being fulfilled, while, through working with wholesale finance partner DF Capital, the company has managed to retain all bar two of its old dealer network of around 50 dealers.
Lee Roberts, sales director of the old Lunar, will continue to head sales for Lunar Automotive.
Following two rounds of redundancies while the company was in administration, the workforce Lunar Automotive has acquired at acquisition numbers 85. However, Mr Marks said that, with production of the new 2020 season due to start in September, the company was likely to start recruiting again soon, including people who have only recently been laid off.
Dustydog said:
A check shows that if a company in South Africa makes profit of a million rand a year that is only £54000. I wonder if the auditors were hoodwinked? Taking into account it is supposed to be a large engineering company in South Africa strange that there is no mention of it or the Nick Marks? I wonder how much background research was done by PC before printing the article? See https://suite.endole.co.uk/insight/company/12134294-mewa-industrial-holdings-limited Nicholas Marks is also British and born in 1967 and is only active in one company and is an accountant. Something does not smell right.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
Mandatory eye tests for drivers over 70 being proposed by HMG. Good or bad?
- Started by Dustydog
- Replies: 201
-
-
-
