Manufacturers Different Warranties.

[alanstanley]

Being laid up at present for a couple of weeks has been sending me stir crazy. So given the number of posts on Warranty claims, being knocked back for – common problems experienced by members I have tried to put together a comparison chart manufacturer to manufacturer. (British main stream vans)
I am fully aware of the protection given by the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and that this usually exceeds what the manufacturer gives. But the differences between manufacturers confidence in their product might just surprise some people and assist others.

All the information has been taken from the web sites. If I got it wrong and in at least one case it is not even published on the manufacturer’s site, which refers you to the ‘handbook’ for full details. (quite how you do that without getting one with a van is not explained.) Just to compound matters some tell what is covered, and some, what is not, you can work on it for hours trying to make it clear. I’ve removed small cost items like bulbs etc. They all have wear and use conditions etc.

Ignoring the eye catching headline 10 years water ingress etc. All manufacturers appear to cover almost everything for 12 months. With the caveat that some items have their own warranty like cookers etc.(why ?)

It is after the first 12 months that things get interesting.

Year two
Bailey – No change
except Microwave – Stereo and speakers. NOT covered.

Swift – Now revert to a list of things covered.
In years 2 and 3 of the Swift SuperSure Warranty, the Warranty will only cover any defect with the following components:
Water system, heater, fresh water tank, water pump, water gauges, taps and shower heads;
Heating system and components;
Main proprietary items (for example fridge, toilet, cooker);
Chassis and associated parts;
Auxiliary electrics ; and
Windows (excluding window furniture and blinds).
· Microwave – Audio and T.V. are NOT covered
.
Explorer group eg. Elddis – Buccaneer – etc.
NOT now covered
Microwaves
Tyres
Windows and glass
Deterioration of exterior paint work
Soft furnishings, carpets and floor coverings
Entertainment equipment
Plastic and GRP exterior panels
Plastic products including A-frame covers, wheel spats and shower trays
Minor adjustment of blinds, hinges, catches, stays and doors
(Quite frankly how they expect people to pay over £30k with this sort of cover is beyond me.)

Lunar
Not on their web site so I called a dealer who read from the Service book. He says the following are NOT covered. I have not seen this document.
Carpets –
Soft furnishings –
windows –
hinges –
A frame cover –
wheel spats – shower tray/cubical –
Front and Back plastic panels.
(Ditto my remarks about Explorer group if what I was told is true, hopefully a Lunar owner can confirm or otherwise what is covered)

Coachman.
The specific exclusions of the Coachman Caravan Company Limited Warranty during years two to five are
tyres,
windows,
paintwork,
brightwork and all similar trims and finishes,
tables,
hinges, knobs and handles,
window catches, stays and associated fittings, adjustment of blinds, catches,
stays and doors,
entertainment/communications system and connected equipment which are covered by the respective manufacturers’ own guarantee.

Year 3
Bailey Now they revert to a list of what is covered
· Chassis: all chassis members including corner steadies · Suspension: axle suspension and braking system (excluding any damage to or faults in brake drums and shoes that are caused through misuse of the braking system or from normal wear and tear)
· Running Gear: road wheels (excluding tyres) · Towing Mechanism: all mechanical components fitted to vehicle (excluding electrics)
· Cooker: the cooker unit including burners, grill, oven, flame failure device and igniter
· Refrigerator: door seal condenser, gas control valve, gas igniter, flame failure device,12 and 230v heater elements, gas thermostat, 230v thermostat and 230v temperature control switch
· Water System: water heater (gas or electric), fresh water tank, water pump, water
· gauges, taps and shower head
· Electrical System: mains hook up input connector, ELCB, battery charger and · distributor unit and interior lighting units (excluding bulbs) · Cassette Toilet: the cassette toilet is covered (excluding seals, valves and glands)
· Heating System: thermostat, motor, switches, control unit, gas heater, flame failure · device and igniter (excluding ducting and fittings)
· Windows: the functionality of the opening and closing system (stays, handles and catches) and a warranty against the cracking of the acrylic
· Upholstery: zips, seams and colour fastness.
A list that appears quite comprehensive.

Swift.
Identical to year 2.

Explorer Group.
No change from year 2.

Lunar
Couldn’t find out.

It beggars belief what some manufacturers are not prepared to cover in a warranty after year 1.

If I've got it wrong please correct. I do not consider quoting their own literature as taking 'a pop' at any manufacturer. But it was and is a consideration on my purchases and will continue to be so.

Perhaps we can convince the Magazine to do an article and get replies from those manufacturers who's warranties are so poor.

 

[Dustydog]

Thank you Alan.
An interesting post.
If the lack of warranty or guarantee onthe main plastic front and rear panels is true I for one would not buy that manufacturers product.
I doubt PCv will write anything on this subject. They don't write anything that may cause a law suit or loss of advertising revenue.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Alan,

Now there's a work of love.

You ask why caravan manufacturers do not cover some OEM items like cookers fridges and heaters. The answer is they don't have to.

As you have probably seen some of my other answers on this subject, the manufacturers warranty is not a statutory requirement, and they only do offer one because other manufacturers started to and a manufacturer that did not offer one would be likely to loose sales.

The fact there is not statutory requirement for a Manufacturers warranty, means the manufacturer can pick and choose what items they will cover, but as most OEM suppliers already offer a manufacturers warranty on their own products, the caravan manufacturer elects not to cover them again.

You also made a comment “I am fully aware of the protection given by the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and that this usually exceeds what the manufacturer gives.” That is not really true. The rights afforded by the CRA do not dependant on the manufacturers warranty in any way, and in fact it does not involve the manufacturer at all, it rest entirely between the seller and the retail customer.

 

[WoodlandsCamper]

If the lack of warranty or guarantee on the main plastic front and rear panels is true I for one would not buy that manufacturers product.

I did, and both front and back split in year 4. They are being repaired under warranty, but still awaiting the parts to arrive at the local dealer for the work to be done.

 

[alanstanley]

We will have to disagree on the Rights given by the Act. They exceed in most areas those given by the warranty by a manufacturer. And in any event they are applicable against the dealer. However they are the only recourse when the dealer has ceased trading. Many a customer does not know of their rights under the act and accept the dealers lies about it being a warranty job etc. When the dealer knows that legally it is his responsibility to repair / replace the fault. And he then has the option to reclaim his costs from the manufacturer. An honest reply from the dealer would be "Sorry about the problem it's our responsibility to fix it and we will. I will be pursuing the warranty to recover my costs ". Not the more usual. "It's a warranty job we'll send of a claim and see what the manufacturer says."

From 35 years in the criminal law I am well aware of how difficult Joe Public finds it under stand the legislation or how to go about enforcing their rights. The warranty is paid for by all of us when we purchase the item, it is built into the costing from day 1. And is often seen by many a customer as the simplest way of resolving their problem. Especially where it may entail returning the van t the manufacturer for remedial work.. They simply either do not know their rights or are frightened of trying to pursue them.

The sort of banner advertising that buyers face together with (I'll be kind) misleading sales patter is intended to mislead and fool the customer in many cases. I wonder how many vans would be sold at the Show by some manufacturers next month if instead of banner proclaiming "10 years body shell warranty" they said something like. "Our warranty will not cover you after 12 months if you have a problem with cracking body panels or cracking shower trays etc."

The exclusions placed by some manufacturers are nothing short of criminal and display the confidence that they have in their own product i.e. Not a lot.

 

[Damian]

When you look more closely at the warranty situation the actual caravan assembler (Bailey, Swift etc) only really cover the bits not already covered by the individual appliance manufacturers.

The fridge, cooker, water heater etc are covered by the individual maker, such as Dometic, Thetford, Truma, Alde etc for 3 years from date of purchase.

It is because of these warranties that it is important that he Third year service is carried out on or before the 3rd anniversary of purchase.

 

[birdman101]

Whilst the appliances are covered by their manufacturer I have no problem,but when the caravan builder of the body cannot give more than 12 months warranty on panels I would never purchase one of their products.

 

[Raywood]

I will have another look at my Lunar warranty to see what it covers. It does not feel a major problem to me as I have not seen any posts regarding problems with the panels unlike Eldiss who seem to have major problems there.
The warranties tend to be three years on the caravan and then six or more for water ingress all subject to an annual service.
As said earlier your rights against the dealer are far stronger but they do rely on you proving your point and the dealer still being there.

 

[ProfJohnL]

We will have to disagree on the Rights given by the Act. They exceed in most areas those given by the warranty by a manufacturer. And in any event they are applicable against the dealer...

Hello Alan,

Ultimately both the Consumer Rights Act and the Manufacturer's Warranty/Guarantee are route which the consumer with a faulty product may get some action. May bee i'm being a bit pedantic but they are very different principally in their contractual arrangements, which is the basis of my comment.

We agree about the rights afforded by the act, especially since it's reincarnation in the Consumer Rights Act, it now really does offer a strong hand to the consumer, if only they knew about it and how to use it.

I totally agree with you about the endemic approach dealers have about handling faulty products, their reluctance to mention to customers about their duty under the CRA and SoGA, principally because it hurts their profit margins.

I actually think it should be compulsory for all retailers to have a highly visible poster telling consumers about the CRA, rather like factories have to have the their statutory HSE and working time, and insurance notices in clear view.

 

[trucker]

If the lack of warranty or guarantee on the main plastic front and rear panels is true I for one would not buy that manufacturers product.

I did, and both front and back split in year 4. They are being repaired under warranty, but still awaiting the parts to arrive at the local dealer for the work to be done.

That is interesting, hopefully wont have to find out if this would be the case for us also, im pleased for you and will keep this info in mind if the worst happens.
Kev

 

[Raywood]

We will have to disagree on the Rights given by the Act. They exceed in most areas those given by the warranty by a manufacturer. And in any event they are applicable against the dealer...

Hello Alan,

Ultimately both the Consumer Rights Act and the Manufacturer's Warranty/Guarantee are route which the consumer with a faulty product may get some action. May bee i'm being a bit pedantic but they are very different principally in their contractual arrangements, which is the basis of my comment.

We agree about the rights afforded by the act, especially since it's reincarnation in the Consumer Rights Act, it now really does offer a strong hand to the consumer, if only they knew about it and how to use it.

I totally agree with you about the endemic approach dealers have about handling faulty products, their reluctance to mention to customers about their duty under the CRA and SoGA, principally because it hurts their profit margins.

I actually think it should be compulsory for all retailers to have a highly visible poster telling consumers about the CRA, rather like factories have to have the their statutory HSE and working time, and insurance notices in clear view.

I do agree that consumers should be advised of their rights. Perhaps this could be a leaflet to be handed to all purchasers or guarantees should also give information as part of the document. I am not sure a notice would work as it may not always be seen by the purchaser. We have had offers to deliver to us on caravans we were looking at when we have visited shows.
In my view the act should also be be applicable to the manufacturer or importer as well as the retailer and is perhaps too hard on the retailer whan it is the manufacturer who is often the real problem.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Ray

I understand the concept of making the manufacture liable as well, unfortunately, that would be very difficult to do in practice, partly because so much of the uk's retail material is sourced from abroad,and that means international laws or law of other countries may thwart such efforts, and fundamentally it's letting the dealer off the hook.

In any business, you set up contracts with your suppliers to deliver goods. Best practice lets parties to a contract agree measures to achieve an acceptable level of Quality Assurance, and when it done properly the number of faults reaching customers at any stage of the supply chain can be very small.

Principally through long term traditional practices, the caravan industry has got away with abysmal quality control such there is no real penalty for a supplier within the chain to be made responsible for non conforming goods. That trickles down to the final trade stage of caravan manufacture to dealer , where part of the dealers duties is to ready the caravan for the end user, and in that process, to also rectify any production faults the manufacture has allowed out of their factory. I decry this set up because the manufacture is let of the hook, but equally the dealer has been given the responsibility and agreed to it, so it is their responsibility to check the caravan for any faults, and correct them before delivery to the end user. They are paid for that and it forms part of their business plan and contractual arrangements.

If a dealer allows a fault through their system, them by virtue of that agreement with the manufacturers and indeed the provisions of the CRA they are responsible for the manufacturer's faults, and it means they have actually failed to do what they are contracted and paid for.

So I totally agree that the manufacturers should be put on the spot, but that is for the dealers to do when they agree their dealership contractual arrangements and not the end user whose contract is only with the seller(s).

It needs end users to insist on their rights far more vigorously, so the dealers then feel the need to press the manufactures for better quality of finished goods.

 

[Dustydog]

Excellent Prof.
Your best post to date.
So good in fact I'd say it's worthy of full publication in a future PCv plus the mandatory Milencos.
This is the type of stuff we want to read and of course a response from Dealers and Manufacturers . :cheer:
Ok. I admit I still believe in fairies :kiss: B)

 

[Gagakev]

Hello Ray

I understand the concept of making the manufacture liable as well, unfortunately, that would be very difficult to do in practice, partly because so much of the uk's retail material is sourced from abroad,and that means international laws or law of other countries may thwart such efforts, and fundamentally it's letting the dealer off the hook.

In any business, you set up contracts with your suppliers to deliver goods. Best practice lets parties to a contract agree measures to achieve an acceptable level of Quality Assurance, and when it done properly the number of faults reaching customers at any stage of the supply chain can be very small.

Principally through long term traditional practices, the caravan industry has got away with abysmal quality control such there is no real penalty for a supplier within the chain to be made responsible for non conforming goods. That trickles down to the final trade stage of caravan manufacture to dealer , where part of the dealers duties is to ready the caravan for the end user, and in that process, to also rectify any production faults the manufacture has allowed out of their factory. I decry this set up because the manufacture is let of the hook, but equally the dealer has been given the responsibility and agreed to it, so it is their responsibility to check the caravan for any faults, and correct them before delivery to the end user. They are paid for that and it forms part of their business plan and contractual arrangements.

If a dealer allows a fault through their system, them by virtue of that agreement with the manufacturers and indeed the provisions of the CRA they are responsible for the manufacturer's faults, and it means they have actually failed to do what they are contracted and paid for.

So I totally agree that the manufacturers should be put on the spot, but that is for the dealers to do when they agree their dealership contractual arrangements and not the end user whose contract is only with the seller(s).

It needs end users to insist on their rights far more vigorously, so the dealers then feel the need to press the manufactures for better quality of finished goods.

Doubt very much the dealers are willing to press the manufacture(s) after all they are getting paid anyway!!
Take away that income and possible loss of franchise (hope thats the right word), do you really believe they would actually commit themselves to possibly going out of business??
It would be nice to think they would stand up to them, but dont hold out any hopes!!

 

[ProfJohnL]

Actually what I wrote is not quite true, The caravan manufacturers do put in place provisions to reject faulty goods back to their suppliers (I know because a company I worked for was on the receiving end of a manufacturer's claim, although the goods as supplied were not faulty, it was the way the manufacturer had mishandled and stored them that caused them to be unusable..Fork lift trucks driving into them, parts robbed from them and rainwater damage. about £25K of manufacture damaged goods!...) So as far as the manufacturers are concerned its take, take, take all the time with very little give.

I really want our caravan industry to do well, but until they get their act together on consistency of production (Quality Control) and actually taking note of customers issues and doing something about them, then they will never gain the paying customers full trust.

Product failures can be reduced, if the manufacturers were to to put in place better production line management.

Perhaps the new CRA will begin to focus their minds on the customer's real experience of their products, when dealers have to start claiming more to cover the costs of manufactures faulty production.

 

[Raywood]

My problem with the dealer being responsible is that this relies on the dealer being there and we all know the failure rate in caravan sales is a problem. I appreciate that the manufacturers do rely on a large number of bought in parts but they have a choice as to who they buy off.
At the moment the manufacturer may simply be going for the cheapest option and ignoring continuing problems to the detriment of the customer and then excluding the product from the guarantee. Basically the caravan manufacturer should be making sure he has recourse against the manufacturer of the equipment rather than just excluding it. The equipment manufacturer could also be responsible where this was an identifiable firm. There have been one or two postings on forums of some pretty bad service from these and it could help cut that out.
I accept that some dealers are missing faults that should be picked up by the PDI, but these should not be there in the first place, but you cannot blame dealers for things like water ingress appearing at a later date as a brand new caravan may not even have been exposed to enough rain for this to show when new.
The only serious fault we have had on collection was a fridge that did not work but the only way to have discovered that was to have run it for probably a couple of hours with a thermometer in it, so this was the fault of the fridge manufacturer and I do not blame the dealer or Eldiss for this as that sort of test would not be reasoanble. The curtains were also missing when it arrived at the dealer and they did spot that and to their credit Eldiss did courier them up next day.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Ray,

I totally agree that manufacturers in general, and because this is a caravan forum especially the caravan manufacturers should be made to stand up and take the flack caused by their incompetence.

But the issue is how do you legislate to do this? Legislation in this area would have to be general and applicable to all products not just caravans. Whilst you may come up with a scheme that might work for the caravan industry, there are plenty of methodologies that would not follow that pattern of trade and contractual arrangements. So logistically it would be a nightmare piece of legislation, and there would be so many exceptions that would make it unworkable or at least very unfair to some people.

In some cases the chain of suppliers would be much longer than the one we see in the caravan industry, and so there could be many different opportunities for a product to be modified or damaged before it reaches the end user. So identifying where the fault actually arose could be very difficult for the end user.

The CRA is very specific as it justifiably only concentrates on retail contracts with end users. This is reasonable as its is an easy group to identify, and the group (i.e retail customers) has no other body to collectively act on their behalf, so in that respect the government has actually worked in the consumer's interests and provide tools for us to use.

But commercial organisations will normally use professional legal advice when setting up their contracts with their suppliers, and in many cases commercial organisations often have trade representative groups that (should) work to strengthen their members bargaining powers with suppliers. These arrangements are often long standing, and tied up with detailed contractual arrangements that do not consider the end users issues.

Ideally I would like to see a similar piece of legislation to the CRA be introduced to give every contract of sale (commercial or retail) automatic rights to reject/return/charge faulty goods to suppliers. By micro engineering this to each contractual stage, it will ensure the problem is highlighted to every stage that has failed to prevent a fault being perpetuated, until it reaches the stage where the fault was actually caused - This might not be the manufacturer, but an intermediary stage.

If each stage in a supply chain has an automatic right to reject/return based on the specific contractual parties, there would be no need for end users to be able to directly challenge manufactures or their intermediaries directly, because the cost of dealing with a problem will be passed back along the supply chain and added to by each stages costs so the true financial pain will be felt by the perpetrator of the fault.

As the cost of faults always hits profits margins, that is make it a very effective way of getting an organisation's attention, and the best way for an organisation to protect its profits, is to ensure its products are fault free.

 

[Raywood]

I appreciate the problems with the manufacturers having a liability for faulty goods but think the idea is workable. My problem with the law being only against the retailer is this is only of any use if the retailer is still there. In general they are often smaller and less financially stable than the manufacturers so your rights can be easily lost.
Having bought an Avondale last time I also appreciate that manufacturers may also go down.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Ray,

I do see your point about dealer responsibilities I agree about the issue of a dealer ceasing. But that is and always has been a potential risk for any business. Fortunately most caravans do have some manufacture warranty which can be carried out by approved workshops etc.

But just because caravan manufacturers are bigger than dealers, It doesn't make then risk free. Again whilst I worked for an OEM supplier to the industry, It would be quite enlightening to tell you about the number of times our accounts restricted deliveries to some of the big names, because their lines of credit were deemed unsafe.

You mention Avondale, add CI and ABI (touring caravans) to the list, both who were declared bankrupt.

There were numerous smaller manufacturers all of whom succumbed either to bankruptcy, or takeovers when the going got tough.

From a legal perspective, its far easier to make the responsibility follow the contract and money.

 

[intransient1]

Unfortunately I have recently learned of a case of an explorer group caravan suffering a crack in an abs panel at 16 months old.
They have refused to repair it as their warranty is only 12 months on said panels.
Having had first hand experience of how easy the panels crack, especially on caravan brands that have a documented history of problems it is absurd to only cover the problem area for 12 months only.
Maybe the owners of said caravans should put the matter into the hands of the press.

 

[woodsieboy]

Hi Intransient
I think there may be a test of what is considered reasonable I know that when some electrical retailers were pushing the sale of extended warranties the buyer was able to claim that if a product failed then the test of what was reasonable could be applied, say a washing machine failing after 16 months when the guarantee was for a year, the thinking was that it was reasonable to expect a washing machine to last longer than 16 months and the buyer was entitled to repair or replacement. I would consider it reasonable for the panels of a caravan to last longer than 16 months,and the claim would need to be made against the supplier not the manufacturer, I suspect it is probably easier said than done however, and would probably rely on case law that had set a precedent, if the case got as far as court.

 

[Raywood]

I am afraid that you have to go back to the dealer and quote The Sale of Goods Act. The fact that the guarantee does not cover it is irrelevant if the panel was faulty although a bit more detail is needed to be clear on the age and exact problem here. The act makes the dealer responsible for defective goods and a front panel should last many years so it sounds as if yours was defective. I have seen posts on Eldiss having the same exclusion but once the act was quot5ed the panel was replaced so get tough.
If you are a member of either club they have a legal helpline who will be familiar with the problem and household insurance and unions often provide this.
Any HP or credit card payment will give you rights against the company concerned.t

 

[alanstanley]

Unfortunately I have recently learned of a case of an explorer group caravan suffering a crack in an abs panel at 16 months old.
They have refused to repair it as their warranty is only 12 months on said panels.
Having had first hand experience of how easy the panels crack, especially on caravan brands that have a documented history of problems it is absurd to only cover the problem area for 12 months only.
Maybe the owners of said caravans should put the matter into the hands of the press.

Yes and I would suggest that people read the warranty before they sign on the line and if it does not stand up ?
A Do not buy
B Tell in them I did (my case elddis and Lunar) why I would not be purchasing their product.

Consumer power will get through we hope,

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Alan,

As I have previously stated: manufacturers are not required to offer any form of warranty or guarantee to end users. Consequently if they do decide to offer one, they can be very specific about what they will cover and the terms and conditions they expect caravanners to follow to keep the warranty active.

If you are offered and accept a warranty, it is a legal contract, and by accepting it you also accept the terms and conditions laid down for it. If you fail to keep to those terms and conditions, you are in breach of the contract, and the manufacturer may decline any or all claims you make. Equally if the manufacturer does not fully comply with the contract. they are in breach of contract, and you may have a legal claim through the courts to recover any losses their breach may have cost you.

The fact the warranty is a contract, means it could be subject to a claim if any of the terms are unfair under the "unfair contract terms act 2015" As far as I know no caravan warranty has been challenged under this or previous enactments.

So it is yet to be shown if the limited bodywork cover manufacturers offer is challengeable or not.

This leaves possible action under CRA or SoGA. Whilst the details of the two act may differ slightly, the underlying moral principles are essentially the same. The acts only covers your contract of sale with your seller, not the manufacturer.

In essence the acts requires All goods must be:
as described
of satisfactory quality and
fit for purpose.

When purchasing a new caravan, you have every right to expect it to be in tip top perfect condition. However because you cannot inspect the inside of moulded panels the law will accept that some faults may not be visible at the time of purchase, even though they are actually there. For this reason if a fault becomes apparent within the first 6 months of ownership, it is assumed the fault or underlying condition was present at the time of purchase, and the seller is held liable to cover the cost of repair or replacement.

If a fault takes longer than 6 months to become apparent, then the customer has to provide enough evidence such that on the balance of probability the underlying cause of the fault was present at the time of sale.

But another aspect the CRA and SoGA, is the "satisfactory quality and
fit for purpose" bit. This in essence says that if the product should fulfil its purpose for a reasonable length of time. Now clearly what is a reasonable length of time will depend on the type of product, an ice cream would be a few minutes, but I think a caravan front panel should last many years, so a panel that develops a crack at 18 months has not been durable enough.

That may seem a clear cut argument, but the seller may cast doubt about the cause of the crack, something may have put undue strain on the panel, just as an example it could be stone thrown up by the tow vehicles wheels, or too much force used on a grab handle, but here's a thought; the front panel of a caravan will always be in the firing line of stones from the car wheels, and what are grab handles meant for?

I cannot recall it being specifically mentioned on this forum, but we do know from discussions about nose loads, the actual weight or load of a component (for example a front panel) is multiplied by the acceleration of vibrations and shocks. It is therefore important that the front panel fixings are designed to cope with these instantaneous forces. Poor design in this area can and will lead to fatigue failures.

A quick (and incomplete) function list for a front panel should include :-
Provide a front closure to the caravan structure.
Provide an aerodynamic solution for the initial air flow around the caravan.
Provide a surface that can be coloured for aesthetic appearance .
To resist rain and road spray entry to the caravan.
To support the front manual handling handles.
.
.
.
To resist stone chips from the tow vehicle wheels and other road hazards.......

Rain and spray are normal and expected hazards, so why not stone chips. I can't remember the company, but one manufacturer received lots of complaints about the damage from stone impacts to the front of their caravans, and they did make a design change to improve resistance to damage. So it's not an unreasonable expectation for all manufacturers to undertake similar considerations.

A caravan should be able to survive all normal towing conditions without permanent of penetrating damage. But of course there is the possibility of abnormal events and stresses such a heavy impacts or collisions. It would unreasonable to expect a product to remain fit if exposed to abnormal service conditions and where this has happened a seller would not be liable for any resultant damage or faults.

As it's not possible to monitor the whole range of conditions a particular caravan has been exposed to, it becomes very difficult for a customer to raise sufficient evidence to swing the balance of probability in their favour. And inevitably the older a caravan is the more chance it has had of being exposed to abnormal conditions.

So there's the dilemma: You may have a SoGA or CRA case against your seller but you need to be able to prove your front panel has not been over stressed. .... Tricky!

 

[alanstanley]

The Van with the stone dent problems were early Alu-tech from Bailey. They quickly provided thicker protection and on later models changed to GRP end of problem. The cracks that have been appearing in ABS panels for decades are usually from poor moldings or from fixings that have been put through the panel without clearance holes being made first. In either case the facts are clearly established as impact damage causes a different type of damage as does stresses caused be excessive body twist due to miss handling. The effect on GRP are different but similarly easy to identify.

And impact damage certainly does not apply to the rear panels that crack, more usually on the roof area. Without being a brand supporter. For example Bailey do not Use ABS for their body front and rear Protection. They use a BAREX based plastic. You can subject it to massive stresses it will not crack let alone split in normal use. You know the sort of stuff that you need a chainsaw to get into when wrapped about your new purchase from B & Q.

One of the pushes behind Alu-tech was to remove ABS moldng from production. SWIFT are now making a big play of no longer using it as well. I have never advocated pursuing a Manufacturer through court over the terms of their warranty you would be on a hiding to nothing. As far as I am concerned any manufacturer who is only prepared to warranty a plastic component for 12 months has little or no faith in the component they have chosen to use and will not be getting my money. However if they had provided a reasonable warranty and the dealer was bust then I would advocate pursuing a warranty claim and that is all I said.