Lunar Caravans.....In Administration

[woodsieboy]

Hi Dusty
Thank you for that,most people I have spoken too have said the same, back with Swift which was our original make 9 caravans ago, still think our Wyoming was the best van we ever had, no problems in 6 years apart from new radio and battery charger under warranty no quibble from CS so the new one will be the third Swift, 3 Abbeys, 1x Bailey 1x Coachman 1x Lunar, Bailey was best, Coachman worst, and some dealers were better than others, seems to be a rush to do a deal, but back up does not always match.

 

[Buckman]

Hello Buckman,

I haven't repeated what you have written, Your comment says the dealer does not have to collect faulty goods under the CRA. That is incorrect, as the seller is responsible for the recovery of faulty goods with the minimum of inconvenience to the customer.

It is only the manufacturer's warranty that usually requires the owner to cover costs.

Technically you are correct but IMHO it seems some people like to show that they are better than others! Most of the time you offer good advice and then let it all fall down when you get too pedantic. Please stop trying to belittle others.

 

[CustardAvenger]

Hi Dusty
Thank you for that,most people I have spoken too have said the same, back with Swift which was our original make 9 caravans ago, still think our Wyoming was the best van we ever had, no problems in 6 years apart from new radio and battery charger under warranty no quibble from CS so the new one will be the third Swift, 3 Abbeys, 1x Bailey 1x Coachman 1x Lunar, Bailey was best, Coachman worst, and some dealers were better than others, seems to be a rush to do a deal, but back up does not always match.

Interesting you say Coachman was the worst. I thought they were one of the better UK brands.

 

[otherclive]

What Prof J stated in his last post was correct.

 

[DaveA1]

Hi Dusty
Thank you for that,most people I have spoken too have said the same, back with Swift which was our original make 9 caravans ago, still think our Wyoming was the best van we ever had, no problems in 6 years apart from new radio and battery charger under warranty no quibble from CS so the new one will be the third Swift, 3 Abbeys, 1x Bailey 1x Coachman 1x Lunar, Bailey was best, Coachman worst, and some dealers were better than others, seems to be a rush to do a deal, but back up does not always match.

Interesting you say Coachman was the worst. I thought they were one of the better UK brands.

Y pays y money tek y chance. It seems with all makes.

 

[Raywood]

Update

Dealer has today repeated in writing that they will only repair our caravan as gesture of goodwill, they do not seem to think the CRA counts for anything, as a result we have decided to part ex the Lunar and cut our losses,and let someone else be responsible for the repair,mainly due to fear of future problems with repairs,and the value has dropped like a stone, as dealers are offering new Lunars at less than 2018 prices with a knock on to used prices, needless to say we are not using the dealer in question, mind you if any body likes a gamble there are great prices to be had on new Lunars.

I understand your position but I would stick with my earlier idea and let the dealer do the repair before selling, as anyone taking it in as a part exchange will probably be looking at the cost of doing this, and deduct the cost from their offer.

 

[Parksy]

What Prof J stated in his last post was correct.

Apologies Other Clive
Because a previous post from a different forum user was a personal attack I removed it from the message board.
This means that I had no other choice but to edit your own reply which quoted the removed post and the build up to it.
You did nothing wrong Clive, if I could have removed the original personal jibe before your reply I'd have removed it there and then but it can be a bit difficult when pushing a supermarket trolley around.
To the other person who's post was removed, you should know by now that we won't tolerate any personal attacks, insults, jibes call them what you will.

To All Forum Members
We'd like this forum to continue to be a nice, friendly and fun place to visit.
It's all too easy to become hot under the collar if one is a wee bit too sensitive or protective of their own online musings.
If there's a real problem that mods have missed, there are ways to contact us and we'll put things right if necessary.
Please don't be tempted to dash off a barbed reply, because no matter who is 'right' the barbed reply will be taken down no matter what.

 

[ProfJohnL]

This may help. Maybe no one has got it correct?
Recovery of a vehicle under the Consumer Rights Act 2015

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 states “the trader must bear any reasonable costs of returning them, other than any costs incurred by the consumer in returning the goods in person to the place where the consumer took physical possession of them” therefore, if the vehicle is driveable then you can request that the consumer brings the vehicle back to your premises.

But, if the vehicle cannot be driven then “reasonable costs” of recovering the vehicle should be incurred by yourself. This obviously can be costly.

If you do not have repair facilities then it may be easier for both parties to have the vehicle diagnosed/repaired at a local VAT registered independent garage near them.

However, If your sales invoice states it is the consumers responsibility to return the vehicle to the trader in the event they wish to exercise their statutory rights, this becomes an express clause of the agreement.

Lawgistics Members can get advice on all consumer related issues from the legal team, we also sell a full range of stationery to help your business be legally compliant.

Hello Dusty,

Its important to read your quoted text in the correct way. From its wording, it would appear to be a text directed to vehicle traders not consumers, so the reference to "yourself" in the second paragraph is directed at the trader not the consumer.

This might have been directed at motor traders. but it may have repercussions for caravanners and owners of other large items, when dealing with faulty large items.

As with any Act of Parliament, its interpretation will only be ultimately ratified if it is challenged in court.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Buckman,

In the light of the information that Dustydog has posted it seems that some retail purchase contracts can include a requirement for the customer to return rejected goods to the point of purchase or the place where the customer took possession of the goods, so on that count I do apologise.

It will depend on circumstances whether the customer can reclaim any tangible losses uncured in returning the good to the POS.

 

[Dustydog]

This may help. Maybe no one has got it correct?
Recovery of a vehicle under the Consumer Rights Act 2015

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 states “the trader must bear any reasonable costs of returning them, other than any costs incurred by the consumer in returning the goods in person to the place where the consumer took physical possession of them” therefore, if the vehicle is driveable then you can request that the consumer brings the vehicle back to your premises.

But, if the vehicle cannot be driven then “reasonable costs” of recovering the vehicle should be incurred by yourself. This obviously can be costly.

If you do not have repair facilities then it may be easier for both parties to have the vehicle diagnosed/repaired at a local VAT registered independent garage near them.

However, If your sales invoice states it is the consumers responsibility to return the vehicle to the trader in the event they wish to exercise their statutory rights, this becomes an express clause of the agreement.

Lawgistics Members can get advice on all consumer related issues from the legal team, we also sell a full range of stationery to help your business be legally compliant.

Hello Dusty,

Its important to read your quoted text in the correct way. From its wording, it would appear to be a text directed to vehicle traders not consumers, so the reference to "yourself" in the second paragraph is directed at the trader not the consumer.

This might have been directed at motor traders. but it may have repercussions for caravanners and owners of other large items, when dealing with faulty large items.

As with any Act of Parliament, its interpretation will only be ultimately ratified if it is challenged in court.

Thanks Prof.
There is no ambiguity. The CRA 2015 does not discriminate in anyway. My reference did not mention “vehicle” traders.. vehicle in the context of CRA is equally a caravan, motor home car etc. There is no differentiation.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Dusty

I would like to know the source of the document you refer to, as it seems at slightly at odds with others I have seen.

In particular I have found this,
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/notes?view=plain

These the government's own explanatory notes, and I must stress that these are Whitehall mandarins interpretations of ACT and not the law its-self. The Law can only be confirmed when a court rules on a particular case.

However the document states :

110.Subsection (7) provides that when the right to reject is exercised by the consumer, the trader has a duty to refund the consumer and from this time the consumer must make the goods available for collection by the trader, or if agreed, return the rejected goods to the trader.

111.Subsection ( 8 ) clarifies that any reasonable costs of returning rejected goods to the trader (except where the consumer returns the goods in person to where they obtained physical possession of them) is to be borne by the trader. This includes the trader paying postal costs. This applies whether or not the consumer has agreed to return the goods, as mentioned in subsection (7).

112.Subsection ( 8 ) does not prevent a consumer from pursuing a damages claim. For example, a consumer might wish to do so in circumstances where returning the goods to the place that the consumer obtained physical possession of them does incur quite substantial costs for the consumer.

This leaves the door open for caravanners who have to make special journeys to return to base, and to claim expenses if they have rejected the caravan for faults under the CRA.

What seems to have happened is the raw CRA 2015 legislation left a number of loose ends in some of the details, and it is now having some of the rough edges cleaned up. However it does seem some of its teeth such as the consumers rights to not be inconvenienced or bear any of the cost directly connected to effecting a remedy are being curtailed.

 

[Buckman]

What Prof J stated in his last post was correct.

Apologies Other Clive
Because a previous post from a different forum user was a personal attack I removed it from the message board.
This means that I had no other choice but to edit your own reply which quoted the removed post and the build up to it.
You did nothing wrong Clive, if I could have removed the original personal jibe before your reply I'd have removed it there and then but it can be a bit difficult when pushing a supermarket trolley around.
To the other person who's post was removed, you should know by now that we won't tolerate any personal attacks, insults, jibes call them what you will.

To All Forum Members
We'd like this forum to continue to be a nice, friendly and fun place to visit.
It's all too easy to become hot under the collar if one is a wee bit too sensitive or protective of their own online musings.
If there's a real problem that mods have missed, there are ways to contact us and we'll put things right if necessary.
Please don't be tempted to dash off a barbed reply, because no matter who is 'right' the barbed reply will be taken down no matter what.

I am the other person whose intelligence seemed to be insulted and this is not the first time this has happened and every occasion it was the same person having a dig at my posting so yes I do take offence. Not sure why they are not told to wind in their necks as others have also been attacked in the same way and humiliated.
I appreciate that my posting may have been a bit over the top, but it is time someone told the person in question to be a bit more diplomatic and to use common sense. I will try and behave myself more in future and will be careful about what I post. Thank you.

 

[Parksy]

I am the other person whose intelligence seemed to be insulted and this is not the first time this has happened and every occasion it was the same person having a dig at my posting so yes I do take offence. Not sure why they are not told to wind in their necks as others have also been attacked in the same way and humiliated.
I appreciate that my posting may have been a bit over the top, but it is time someone told the person in question to be a bit more diplomatic and to use common sense. I will try and behave myself more in future and will be careful about what I post. Thank you.

It's not insulting you when someone disagrees with you Buckman.
If you don't agree with the points that others make in response to your own ideas on a given subject, use cogent counter argument and evidence to demonstrate that your own point of view is accurate
Play the ball, not.the man.
As I stated earlier, if you feel that you were insulted or subjected to a personal online attack it's easy for you to contact myself or Damian.
I haven't noticed any personal attacks aimed at you otherwise I'd have taken action..
The forum isn't a platform for personal vendetas.

 

[Dustydog]

Hello Dusty

I would like to know the source of the document you refer to, as it seems at slightly at odds with others I have seen.

In particular I have found this,
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/notes?view=plain

These the government's own explanatory notes, and I must stress that these are Whitehall mandarins interpretations of ACT and not the law its-self. The Law can only be confirmed when a court rules on a particular case.

However the document states :

110.Subsection (7) provides that when the right to reject is exercised by the consumer, the trader has a duty to refund the consumer and from this time the consumer must make the goods available for collection by the trader, or if agreed, return the rejected goods to the trader.

111.Subsection ( 8 ) clarifies that any reasonable costs of returning rejected goods to the trader (except where the consumer returns the goods in person to where they obtained physical possession of them) is to be borne by the trader. This includes the trader paying postal costs. This applies whether or not the consumer has agreed to return the goods, as mentioned in subsection (7).

112.Subsection ( 8 ) does not prevent a consumer from pursuing a damages claim. For example, a consumer might wish to do so in circumstances where returning the goods to the place that the consumer obtained physical possession of them does incur quite substantial costs for the consumer.

This leaves the door open for caravanners who have to make special journeys to return to base, and to claim expenses if they have rejected the caravan for faults under the CRA.

What seems to have happened is the raw CRA 2015 legislation left a number of loose ends in some of the details, and it is now having some of the rough edges cleaned up. However it does seem some of its teeth such as the consumers rights to not be inconvenienced or bear any of the cost directly connected to effecting a remedy are being curtailed.

Thanks Prof,
We are of one mind here! I too have always considered the CRA is wide enough to include return costs at the Suppliers sellers expense. Let’s hope some victims do use the CRA and recover delivery costs etc.

 

[Raywood]

This has gone a long way off course and it might be better to start a new thread on this as it applies far more widely than to Lunar models.

 

[otherclive]

I’ve used CRA 2015 successfully (or the threat of) on a number of occasions to remind sellers of their obligations in law. The most expensive was a complete main dealer rebuild of my daughters Ford Powershift gearbox. But having to use it for a position as complex as a newish caravan where the maker has gone into administration brings different facets to bear. I think I’d accept the dealers offer of a repair and then seek to quickly trade or sell the caravan.

 

[Brasso530]

I've got to say,if I had a problem with my nearly new caravan,and the manufacturer went into administration,and someone was going to repair it for free so long as I took it to them,I'd be towing it there asap.Whether you've got CRA on your side or not,imagine if you're the workshop manager and someone comes in spouting the rules so to speak,you aren't exactly going to bend over backwards are you?

 

[ProfJohnL]

I've got to say,if I had a problem with my nearly new caravan,and the manufacturer went into administration,and someone was going to repair it for free so long as I took it to them,I'd be towing it there asap.Whether you've got CRA on your side or not,imagine if you're the workshop manager and someone comes in spouting the rules so to speak,you aren't exactly going to bend over backwards are you?

I quite agree that would not be the way to start a relationship, but as soon as a seller seems to be avoiding their obligations, then that's the time to sotart considering the CRA and making sure the seller knows you know.

 

[Brasso530]

You seem to be missing my point.Surely it would be better to spend a few quid on diesel and tow it there,rather than stand firm and demand they come and pick it up so as not to inconvenience yourself?How much time and stress(and cost)would it inconvenience yourself to go and sort a solicitor out?

 

[ProfJohnL]

You seem to be missing my point.Surely it would be better to spend a few quid on diesel and tow it there,rather than stand firm and demand they come and pick it up so as not to inconvenience yourself?How much time and stress(and cost)would it inconvenience yourself to go and sort a solicitor out?

It is of course a matter of personal choice, and it would depend on the individual circumstances, and as I agreed above its not necessarily the first or even second step, but if the seller is giving you the run around about getting a job done then the CRA is a perfectly reasonable approach, after all that is exactly what its there for.

Don't forget that the power of the CRA is not widely known by the general public, so some sellers try to play on that ignorance and avoid their obligations to their customers. After all, if they can wriggle out of it, it saves them money and effort. Why should the customer pay for faulty goods that the seller should have checked before selling them.

Equally there are some sellers who don't know about the CRA, and they need to be educated!

You don't always need a solicitor to invoke the CRA.

 

[Raywood]

I agree that the Prof is right in law but other considerations do apply and the first is will the dealer survive if they have sold a lot of Lunars and they cannot stand the cost of putting them right if they get a lot of claims. My feeling is that the realistic approach is get the repair done, and if you are worried trade it in.

 

[ProfJohnL]

I agree that the Prof is right in law but other considerations do apply and the first is will the dealer survive if they have sold a lot of Lunars and they cannot stand the cost of putting them right if they get a lot of claims. My feeling is that the realistic approach is get the repair done, and if you are worried trade it in.

If a dealer had carried out their obligations correctly under the CRA when they sell a caravan, the caravan will be fault free, so there shouldn't be lots being returned with faults. So the risk to the dealership will have been largely mitigated.

If the dealership has chosen to omit the checks on incoming stock then why should the customer suffer for it? The dealers profits are at risk if the dealer plays fast and loose with consumer rights.

 

[otherclive]

I agree that the Prof is right in law but other considerations do apply and the first is will the dealer survive if they have sold a lot of Lunars and they cannot stand the cost of putting them right if they get a lot of claims. My feeling is that the realistic approach is get the repair done, and if you are worried trade it in.

If a dealer had carried out their obligations correctly under the CRA when they sell a caravan, the caravan will be fault free, so there shouldn't be lots being returned with faults. So the risk to the dealership will have been largely mitigated.

If the dealership has chosen to omit the checks on incoming stock then why should the customer suffer for it? The dealers profits are at risk if the dealer plays fast and loose with consumer rights.

Surely the dealer can't be necessarily faulted as in the case in point it is a one year old caravan that has developed panel fault. This is not such an unusual occurrence as I had to have two panels replaced in a 2005 S5 Bailey Bordeaux due to cracks arising from manufacturing issues. These would not have been visible at the time of purchase. In my current van i had the rear panel replaced under warranty in year 5. Yet previous main dealers services hadn't spotted any cracks. So to quote chapter and verse of the CRA 2015 isn't really that relevant in Wodsieboys case. The dealer seems to me to have been satisfactory wrt their obligations under consumer law as they have offered to have the panel repaired. I can't see anything in the CRA 2015 the says such an offer is unacceptable. In fact for a caravan that has had one years usage I would expect any claims court to agree on the side of the Dealer. However if the repair should fail then it would be a different ball game. But one not particularly easy to pursue, or even to be considered worth pursuing. I would be looking at my other options to see if the Dealer can give a reasonable deal on another purchase.

 

[Raywood]

The problem for the dealer is that no matter how well they examine the caravan before they sell it they will not be able to predict things like the panel cracking but under the CPA they can still be liable for the repair. They can probably repair it very cheaply and will want to do that if possible although I cannot say if this will work long term, and certainly for the moment replacement parts may not be available.
A new front panel and the bits they would need would run well into four figures, if they can get them, and to insist on this you would have to show that a repair was not suitable, which could be difficult.
A few of these claims for replacement, along with other things and some dealers would not survive so you have to think carefully about which way you go. Having said that if you are going to trade it in, and the old dealer will do a repair, then that seems to be your best option. Any dealer taking in the caravan unrepaired would need to charge for the rectification, and that would almost certainly be the repair.

 

[Hutch]

Surely "Lunar" do not make the Front and rear panels they are brought in to the final assembly people. So therefore will be able to be found.
But getting back to the answer, Take the repair and then think about selling the van if you want to,. IF it stays as a dry Van and you like it, then keep it.,.