If there is a sticker by the door AND one in the gas locker you will find that the one by the door doesn't comply with legal requirements that apply to a statutory plate, so that answers the validity question.
If there is a sticker by the door AND one in the gas locker you will find that the one by the door doesn't comply with legal requirements that apply to a statutory plate, so that answers the validity question.
Lutz, to better understand the reasons for that very clear response, is that because a clause in the legal requirements specifies where the data label must be located?
Thus, here by the door doesn't comply, but a location at the front does, so in a front located gas locker meets the requirements?
For further clarity, if that gas locker was other than at the front, a label in there would not?
No, it's not the location that is specified, it's the content of the label that counts.
A statutory label for a caravan built after 2014 (the year when whole vehicle type approval was introduced) must display:
The name of the manufacturer
The VIN number of the vehicle
The vehicle type approval number
All weight limits (MTPLM, axle load limit, noseweight limit - this is quoted as an axle 0 limit)
Labels by the door do not normally include all of the above. On the other hand they usually give details of MIRO and tyre pressures, etc., none of which are required by law. Such details are permissible on a statutory plate as well, but they must be distinctly separated from the details that legislation requires.
The weights are given on the label by the door but seem to have confused the dealer who quoted the maximum weight for the chassis when the MTPLM was lower. It was only 30 kg on ours, but it could be far more on some models so it pays to check for yourself.
Where did the dealer get the maximum weight for the chassis from? A weight plate applied by the chassis manufacturer is irrelevant. Only a plate carrying the name of the caravan manufacturer has any relevance to the end user (and therefore to the powers-that-be, too).
It is quite possible that the statutory plate quotes a lower MTPLM than the maximum axle load on the same plate.
This was from the manufacturers plate by the n/s wheel. It does show both the chassis limit and the MTPLM, it does look like someone misunderstood the plate when adding the caravan to the stock list and web site. I can see how it happened as the plate shows numbers against the weights rather than the detail of what these weight are.
Probably these plates should show Max chassis weight and MTPLM rather than numbers to avoid mistakes or possibly fraud.
Probably these plates should show Max chassis weight and MTPLM rather than numbers to avoid mistakes or possibly fraud.
The reason why there is no text to identify each of the values is to make it possible for anyone to read them if the caravan is taken abroad. For example, one can't expect the police on the other side of the Channel to know what MTPLM means, but they would all know that it is item 1 and item 3 applies to the max. axle load, because that's how they are internationally specified in the regulations.
Last edited:
I see the problem, but it would be simple enough to show both the number and what it stands for.
Unfortunately, the regulations do not allow any such format. The only option would be to repeat the details underneath and separate them distinctly from the main body of the statutory plate.
Even without ever seeing the statutory instrument, only the plates themselves, it is IMO far from challenging to understand the meaning, or have I been caravanning for too long to miss what novices find difficult?.
Actually, it's not that difficult to read the statutory plate. The details should always be displayed in the following order:
Name of manufacturer
Vehicle type approval number
Vehicle identification number
MTPLM (or GVW)
The max. gross train weight in the case of a motor vehicle
OR
0 = noseweight limit in the case of a trailer
1 = Max. permissible front axle load
2 = Max. permissible rear axle load (in the case of a car, or the rear axle of a twin axle trailer)
Any further information must be separated distinctly from the above.
I suppose it is another example of the "laws an ass". I can read the plate, and had to point out to the dealer who sold us ours that they had got it wrong. If the dealers get it wrong, what chance have the novices.
May not be applicable to your particular caravan but Bailey were having issues with under specced axles on some vans. When correctly loaded the axles were collapsing and the tyres were fouling the wheelarches.
Unless grossly overloaded, and I mean by several hundred kilogrammes, tyres should never touch the wheelarches. Obviously Bailey did not take into account adequate wheel clearance under maximum possible wheel travel when they designed the wheelarches.
If axles were collapsing, then then weren't underspecced, but it must have been due to a material quality issue
It’s been a long running saga with Baileys with neither Bailey or AlKo seeming to want to take responsibility.
It's got to be Bailey, because you don't have any recourse against AlKo even if it were their fault. You bought a Bailey caravan, not an AlKo. AlKo is just a supplier to Bailey.
I agree. The ‘designers’ at Bailey would have specified a particular rated axle. Been done to death now though on other forums.
If ALKO axles were not capable of managing the weight specified then ALKO could be sued, The initial claim would normally be against the dealer but manufacturers cannot avoid their liability if they supply faulty goods that causes a loss. You have to go back to Donoghue v Stevenson, as the end user would be someone reasonably in the contemplation of the end user.
One can equally argue that Bailey didn't do their job in checking the quality of incoming material from AlKo if it was due to a material fault or that they, Bailey, didn't provide enough clearance between the tyre and the wheelarches to ensure that a foul condition is not possible even in the case of an axle failure. The onus is definitely on Bailey. They may have cause for recourse action against AlKo if it can be proved that AlKO were to blame, but that has nothing to do with the end user.
Last edited:
Reading back it seems to be a combination of axle rating being marginal and a design fault(surprise surprise) by Bailey on the wheel boxes. Replacement axles were apparently mounted to give an additional clearance between tyre and wheelarch.
For such a fault to happen, the axle rating would have to be more than marginally off the design load. A caravan should easily be able to accommodate a 15 to 20% overload without a foul condition happening. A bump stop should be provided so that a foul condition won't occur even if the rubber suspension element in the axle fails completely.
I have never been able to establish if the problem is insufficient clearence in the Bailey design or they had ordered axles or the wrong specification or if ALKO had supplied faulty axles or more than one of these.
If ALKO had produced faulty axles then they would have some liability here, but I assume that Bailey buy in the same axles as everyone else, which would suggest that the fault lays with Bailey. It needs an expert report to sort it out, and I have not seen one.
The problem as far as I know affects only Bailey models which again suggests that they are the culprits, but I cannot be sure.
In the UK though, if the product sold is faulty, the seller is the one who is first in the firing line, and if you can show that it is faulty they and possibly any finance company have to deal with the claim. You can then leave the seller to pursue Bailey and for Bailey and ALKO to fight it out between themselves, or at least that is the theory.
The matter is complicated because both Bailey and ALKO give you a guarantee, so there are more lines of attack there, and common law allows you to pursue anyone who causes you to suffer a loss through their negligence.
I cannot give a complete answer as I have no definite evidence as to what caused the problems, but given the numbers involved it would seem that using these numbers you can show fault, meaning you would not have to show if it was Bailey or ALKO that caused the problem.
If ALKO had produced faulty axles then they would have some liability here, but I assume that Bailey buy in the same axles as everyone else, which would suggest that the fault lays with Bailey. It needs an expert report to sort it out, and I have not seen one.
The problem as far as I know affects only Bailey models which again suggests that they are the culprits, but I cannot be sure.
In the UK though, if the product sold is faulty, the seller is the one who is first in the firing line, and if you can show that it is faulty they and possibly any finance company have to deal with the claim. You can then leave the seller to pursue Bailey and for Bailey and ALKO to fight it out between themselves, or at least that is the theory.
The matter is complicated because both Bailey and ALKO give you a guarantee, so there are more lines of attack there, and common law allows you to pursue anyone who causes you to suffer a loss through their negligence.
I cannot give a complete answer as I have no definite evidence as to what caused the problems, but given the numbers involved it would seem that using these numbers you can show fault, meaning you would not have to show if it was Bailey or ALKO that caused the problem.
One Bailey owner who was successful in having the axle replaced under warranty has written in detail of the length that he had to go to in order to get redress. I very much doubt that there are many owners who have the skill or diligence to pursue their claim. I had a new axle fitted as the suspension rubber had started to extrude from its bushings, causing the offside clearance to reduce. Mine wasn’t a warranty issue as the caravan was five years old since first registration and purchased as a pre owned unit. Cost around £1200.
Hope you've taken it all in ! Way back when we used to recon that around 7 to 8% of the MGW - ( MTPML or whtever) was a good guide for towing stabilty - doubtless some other vetran will provide the exact figure - or the car towball limit whichever we the higher.
Like most of us i guess you will be getting fairly close to the limits.
Couple of tips for later on. Bag in box wine can be pretty good and stows more easily than bottles. 3 litres weighs little more than 3 kg, whereas 4 bottles, particularly of cava or champagne will be a LOT heavier. The packing density is much higher too.
If you carry some water for handwashing et in transit, use a 10 litre container with a good lid. You can then experiment with moving this forward or rearward.
Balance which seems fine in calm conditions can feel very insecure in high winds, so if in doubt increase the nose weight.( The maths of this are complex)
Like most of us i guess you will be getting fairly close to the limits.
Couple of tips for later on. Bag in box wine can be pretty good and stows more easily than bottles. 3 litres weighs little more than 3 kg, whereas 4 bottles, particularly of cava or champagne will be a LOT heavier. The packing density is much higher too.
If you carry some water for handwashing et in transit, use a 10 litre container with a good lid. You can then experiment with moving this forward or rearward.
Balance which seems fine in calm conditions can feel very insecure in high winds, so if in doubt increase the nose weight.( The maths of this are complex)
Facebook
Twitter