Hello Buckman.
As I point out in my signature lines, its up to the reader to verify any advice found in forums (or even on the internet) before acting. In such matters it is best to use professional legal advice from a fully qualified legal expert.
The CRA is a one of the most powerful pieces of consumer law almost anywhere in the world. It is absolutely right that consumers should have clear cut rights and use them to remedy unfair or dishonest retail practices. It has been the case that too many unscrupulous retailers have played on the public's general lack of knowledge about their rights to avoid their legal liabilities. Despite its teeth, the CRA is not there to give an unfair advantage to either party, it's there to level the playing field. Historical judgements have shown incredible fairness, and over exaggerated claims have been reigned in or even totally rejected.
However given the context of this case, and in particular the age of the caravan, I expressed my reasons and opinion about the likelihood of a failure of a CRA claim in the absence of any corroborative evidence that directly points to a manufacturing fault. The time line of the failure is very different to most of the successful claims, and that casts significant doubt on the cause of the cracking being the failure mode you refer to.
Without a professional engineering report on this installation that categorically identifies it as a manufacturing fault, the history of faults in similar models is merely hear say and not evidence of a fault in this case.
I also expressed my opinion the cost of obtaining such a report and the effort to pursue it is likely to be more than any remedy, and more likely to due to the particular circumstances to end in failure which might incur the other parties legal costs. It is my opinion the chance of success is less than 33% and with those odds I would not chance using the CRA. Ultimately the choice is the OP's
Of course this might all be academic if the dealer accepts liability, but I seriously doubt they will.
As I point out in my signature lines, its up to the reader to verify any advice found in forums (or even on the internet) before acting. In such matters it is best to use professional legal advice from a fully qualified legal expert.
The CRA is a one of the most powerful pieces of consumer law almost anywhere in the world. It is absolutely right that consumers should have clear cut rights and use them to remedy unfair or dishonest retail practices. It has been the case that too many unscrupulous retailers have played on the public's general lack of knowledge about their rights to avoid their legal liabilities. Despite its teeth, the CRA is not there to give an unfair advantage to either party, it's there to level the playing field. Historical judgements have shown incredible fairness, and over exaggerated claims have been reigned in or even totally rejected.
However given the context of this case, and in particular the age of the caravan, I expressed my reasons and opinion about the likelihood of a failure of a CRA claim in the absence of any corroborative evidence that directly points to a manufacturing fault. The time line of the failure is very different to most of the successful claims, and that casts significant doubt on the cause of the cracking being the failure mode you refer to.
Without a professional engineering report on this installation that categorically identifies it as a manufacturing fault, the history of faults in similar models is merely hear say and not evidence of a fault in this case.
I also expressed my opinion the cost of obtaining such a report and the effort to pursue it is likely to be more than any remedy, and more likely to due to the particular circumstances to end in failure which might incur the other parties legal costs. It is my opinion the chance of success is less than 33% and with those odds I would not chance using the CRA. Ultimately the choice is the OP's
Of course this might all be academic if the dealer accepts liability, but I seriously doubt they will.
Facebook
Twitter