Poor quality caravans

[DrZhivago]

... say in the instance of cars that they sell 50,000 or even 100,000 of these cars a year and have been doing so for say 4 or 5 years you start to see a better picture percentage wise i mean a 100 complaints about a car with a so called "known problem" out of 50 000 made yearly is hardly a major problem ,is it?

Are you saying that that if there were only 100 complaints there were therefore only 100 faulty cars out of 50,000? Because that would not be true : only a tiny fraction of people experiencing a fault with a car (or anything else) go onto an internet forum and describe it, even if they grumble about it to acquaintances.

There are said to be three quarters of a million caravans in the UK*, but consider how few we are on this forum, maybe just a few hundred regular posters and not all of those discuss problems. Even taking other forums into account that is still a very small percentage who would post complaints on the internet.

* http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/771231/caravan-motorhome-numbers-Britains-soar-new-figures

 

[DrZhivago]

What I don't understand is build quality should be better now, better materials available, different construction methods, newer cutting techniques for inside and out the list is endless. ...... Why [isn't build quality better]???

Because of cost cutting and weight reduction, and to some extent to certain things (like lead based paint and some preservatives) being banned over the years. Some materials are better, but that is not the main factor in manufactures' choices, cost is. Nothing sells as well as undercutting your rivals' prices.

 

[thosoneill]

I've watched several you tube videos of uk tourers being built/assembled in the factory - to be perfectly honest most of the workers didn't appear to be remotely interested in the task on hand - obviously a case of complete and get it out the door - I realise folk are in it for a wage - we all have commitments in life however the assemblers looked lacklustre in my opinion - are the workers being paid the minimum wage hence no pride in there work ?

 

[Damian]

Quote " are the workers being paid the minimum wage hence no pride in there work "

No, they are paid piecework rates so the more they get out of the factory door the better,,,,,,,,,for them.

When you consider just how long on each fitting station the van stationary for it is no wonder bad build quality is like it is.
Just an example, the workers have 3 minutes to install all the gas water and electrics.
Whilst a lot of work is done away from the van in preparing items for fitting this is still, in my opinion, too short a time to be 100% every time.

 

[ProfJohnL]

At risk of boring everyone by repeating myself (again) my Royale, has never had any major complaints, ..............

The fact that you have sought to mention no major complaints sort of implies you have had some minor ones, which is a perfect example of the point I made. You have become conditioned to accept the probability that your caravan will have faults!

It really should not have any faults,not even minor ones. Principally becasue the seller is in breach of contract if they sell a product that has fault unless teh faults are specified in teh description as might be teh case with secondhand gear.

If you have found any part of a caravan that is less than perfect, (i.e the designer's expectation of the four f's form, fit, function and finish) it's a fault and it means the dealer has not found it, and most likely the manufacturer has screwed up.

Unless you specified as part of your contract to buy that you wanted a faulty item, why has the dealer sold you one!

Don't go soft on your dealer and let them off, it just means they'll do it again and again and again....

 

[ProfJohnL]

Can the dealer make you take the old caravan back if you reject the new model, is one I cannot be sure of, but provided they still have it, and it is still in the same condition, then it certainly is possible, but I do not know of any case coming to court on that point. It occurs to me that if the new caravan is rejected even after a month, the trade in may have been sold and cannot therefore be returned, but if not then you are getting back what you used as part payment so it must be a realistic possibility. Unless you actually wanted rid of it, then it is probably a sensible idea to take it back and you still have a caravan.

I think the issue has got a little confused.

If a customer purchased an item and used a PX, but decided as is their right to simply reject the goods within 30 days becasue they have changed their mind, there maybe case for the dealer to say lets just undo the dealer we made. The dealer is not at fault.

But he crucial difference here is the customer has not rejected the goods becasue of a change of mind, but becasue the goods are faulty. The rejection is becasue the the seller has sold faulty goods, not that the customer has changed their mind. As I previously suggested I cannot see a CRA judgement forcing a customer to take back as PX in lieu of the full market value.

 

[Buckman]

Given the number of caravans rejected over the past year, I wonder if there are any statistics of show the amount rejected. Somehow I doubt it.
Also I wonder what they do with a rejected caravan as second hand our caravan has a value of nearly £28000 and is in demand? Do they "fix" it up and then resell the unit on some poor unsuspecting consumer?

 

[Jaydug]

Also I wonder what they do with a rejected caravan

Probably sell it as an ex-showroom model.....

 

[Martin24]

One of the manufacturers close to me and whom I've had three of their vans used to be very proud of their 58 minutes max to assemble each van. I believe I have heard they're even quicker now.

 

[Raywood]

If a customer purchased an item and used a PX, but decided as is their right to simply reject the goods within 30 days becasue they have changed their mind, there maybe case for the dealer to say lets just undo the dealer we made. The dealer is not at fault.

But he crucial difference here is the customer has not rejected the goods becasue of a change of mind, but becasue the goods are faulty. The rejection is becasue the the seller has sold faulty goods, not that the customer has changed their mind. As I previously suggested I cannot see a CRA judgement forcing a customer to take back as PX in lieu of the full market value.[/quote]

Hi Prof, As I said I do not know the answer to this one, and can find no legal precedent for this, although there must be many thousands of rejected caravans and caravans. Basically to undo the original deal you should be returning the trade in, but as you say a court could easily take the view that was not correct, but how it would view the fact that the trade in was increased rather than giving a discount on the list price is a problem. I think that basically the difficulties are so great that very few people would risk the costs involved and cases are simply compromised.

 

[Buckman]

Right to reject. Section 20 clauses 10, 11, 12;

(9)The consumer’s entitlement to receive a refund works as follows.

(10)To the extent that the consumer paid money under the contract, the consumer is entitled to receive back the same amount of money.

(11)To the extent that the consumer transferred anything else under the contract, the consumer is entitled to receive back the same amount of what the consumer transferred, unless subsection (12) applies.

(12)To the extent that the consumer transferred under the contract something for which the same amount of the same thing cannot be substituted, the consumer is entitled to receive back in its original state whatever the consumer transferred.

Don't forget that either way the consumer loses out to a degree as a certain amount can be deducted for use. In this case the finance house want to deduct the full amount what we have repaid in the past year if the caravan is resold at the going rate, they are in the pound seats.

 

[emmerson]

At risk of boring everyone by repeating myself (again) my Royale, has never had any major complaints, ..............

The fact that you have sought to mention no major complaints sort of implies you have had some minor ones, which is a perfect example of the point I made. You have become conditioned to accept the probability that your caravan will have faults!

It really should not have any faults,not even minor ones. Principally becasue the seller is in breach of contract if they sell a product that has fault unless teh faults are specified in teh description as might be teh case with secondhand gear.

If you have found any part of a caravan that is less than perfect, (i.e the designer's expectation of the four f's form, fit, function and finish) it's a fault and it means the dealer has not found it, and most likely the manufacturer has screwed up.

Unless you specified as part of your contract to buy that you wanted a faulty item, why has the dealer sold you one!

Don't go soft on your dealer and let them off, it just means they'll do it again and again and again....

Prof, I obviously did not buy my caravan new, so can't comment on faults as delivered, but the way it is still holding together so well after 38 years tells its own story.
Last year a group of us went on a visit to Vanmaster caravans, whose base(?) model starts at £71,000. This puts them in the same category as my Royale was when new. (It cost £12,700 in 1979; I'm sure someone can work it out!). The care taken, and the enthusiasm for the product came across at all stages of the build, but they only build to order, and not more than two a week!
But, as in all things, quality tells in the end.

 

[Gagakev]

One of the manufacturers close to me and whom I've had three of their vans used to be very proud of their 58 minutes max to assemble each van. I believe I have heard they're even quicker now.

Thats BONKERS,................Takes me longer just to wash mine

 

[ProfJohnL]

Right to reject. Section 20 clauses 10, 11, 12;

(9)The consumer’s entitlement to receive a refund works as follows.

(10)To the extent that the consumer paid money under the contract, the consumer is entitled to receive back the same amount of money.

(11)To the extent that the consumer transferred anything else under the contract, the consumer is entitled to receive back the same amount of what the consumer transferred, unless subsection (12) applies.

(12)To the extent that the consumer transferred under the contract something for which the same amount of the same thing cannot be substituted, the consumer is entitled to receive back in its original state whatever the consumer transferred.

Don't forget that either way the consumer loses out to a degree as a certain amount can be deducted for use. In this case Finance Company want to deduct the full amount what we have repaid in the past year if the caravan is resold at the going rate, they are in the pound seats.

Thank you Buckman for finding this.

I stand corrected. It seems that if part of the value of purchased product is covered by a goods other than cash, in the event of a refund the seller can use the unaltered item, as part of the refund arrangement.

In the Acts covering notes:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/notes/division/3/1/3/4/2

it covers the case where if a an item is PX'd, and between the seller receiving it and the fault arising in the new product, the seller has sold or disposed of the old item, then the seller is not obliged to make up the difference with cash. It falls on the customer to pursue a damages claim for any loss for which they cannot claim a “refund” (of money or property) under section 20.

 

[Buckman]

This morning I contacted the finance company to inquire when they are going to come and collect the caravan and was told by them that the finance house will not be collecting the caravan until I agree to their offer. I feel as if I am being blackmailed into accepting an offer which leaves us at a severe financial disadvantage as we will then lose £1000's through no fault of our own.
Maybe another way to look at it is that the dealership knowing sold us a caravan with a faulty front panel as an attempt had been made to paint over the crack which is why we missed it on collection of the new caravan. We have pictures of the painted over cracks and also have an independent witness. Isn't it a criminal offence to sell goods that you know are faulty and not to inform the buyer?
Unfortunately this whole issue is leaving a very bad taste and making the wife very upset as she now wants to give up caravanning altogether.

 

[Raywood]

If you do not believe the offer is reasonable then you should put in an official complaint detailing why you feel the offer is unreasonable, in your case I assume the use you obtained is less the the sums paid to the finance company and stating that if this is not accepted then the matter will be referred to the Ombudsman. You should get a reply within their complaints procedure timescale with details of the Ombudsman procedure within in that time. It is then up to you as to whether you take whatever is offered or continue with a complaint.
You will need to detail the use you have had from the caravan and then compare its value with what you have paid to the finance company to justify your position. If you can show the value is less than the payment then you do have a case.

 

[Buckman]

I have been searching and reading up on the law and trying to understand it. it transpires that although nearly a year has passed we are still in the waiting period. I came across this which may help others.

"If within the first 30 days, the consumer requests a repair or replacement (whether they or you propose this remedy), a waiting period is entered into during which time the 30 day period stops running. The waiting period begins on the day the consumer asks for a repair or replacement, and ends with the day the consumer receives the goods back from you. On return of the goods, the consumer then has the remainder of the 30 day period, or 7 days (whichever is the longer period of time) still to exercise their short-time right to reject, if the goods still do not meet the requirements of the Act, either because of the same or a further issue."

The major faults with the panels was reported within the first 30 days however it took to late May 2017 for them to complete the repairs. Once the repairs were completed the waiting period ended however the rejection was requested within less than two weeks after receiving back the caravan.
Unfortunately it still does not help us regarding the deposit money and monetary value of the caravan. The gentleman Prof has summed it up nicely because reading the HP agreement, you have the Cash price of the goods, less the deposit leaving a balance of finance.

 

[JonnyG]

... say in the instance of cars that they sell 50,000 or even 100,000 of these cars a year and have been doing so for say 4 or 5 years you start to see a better picture percentage wise i mean a 100 complaints about a car with a so called "known problem" out of 50 000 made yearly is hardly a major problem ,is it?

Are you saying that that if there were only 100 complaints there were therefore only 100 faulty cars out of 50,000? Because that would not be true : only a tiny fraction of people experiencing a fault with a car (or anything else) go onto an internet forum and describe it, even if they grumble about it to acquaintances.

There are said to be three quarters of a million caravans in the UK*, but consider how few we are on this forum, maybe just a few hundred regular posters and not all of those discuss problems. Even taking other forums into account that is still a very small percentage who would post complaints on the internet.

* http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/771231/caravan-motorhome-numbers-Britains-soar-new-figures

hi and there lies the problem i do not have any idea how many or what percentage of people actually complain about a problem fault ect ect.. but neither do you but you are suggesting without any decent data only a small amount of folks would complain on the internet and yet on many car forums many join for that reason only they are having problems and need advice.of course i cannot know how many or what the percentage is, but Dr you seem to think it has to be only a small number.how

 

[ProfJohnL]

This morning I contacted the finance company to inquire when they are going to come and collect the caravan and was told by them that the finance company will not be collecting the caravan until I agree to their offer. I feel as if I am being blackmailed into accepting an offer which leaves us at a severe financial disadvantage as we will then lose £1000's through no fault of our own.
Maybe another way to look at it is that the dealership knowing sold us a caravan with a faulty front panel as an attempt had been made to paint over the crack which is why we missed it on collection of the new caravan. We have pictures of the painted over cracks and also have an independent witness....

Hello Buckman,
Given the information you supplied about the CRA t&c's, it seems your seller (the dealer and the finance house) are acting in accordacne with the Act.

I was wrong about the the way the act views part exchange deals, and it is part of the act as described in the clauses you highlighted that the seller is only obliged to return to you, what you used to pay the dealer. So in terms of cash, its the cash sum you paid (or used finacne for) and the retrun of any other items you used to pay for the goods.

The cash sum repaid can be reduced if the goods, despite being faulty, have enabled the customer to use them in a substantive way.

If you read the act's supporting note I linked to, this is explaind, and, if the items you had exchanged had subsequently been modified or sold, the dealer is not required retrun the goods, or to refund the cash difference. Instead you would have to take a sperate action against the seller to recover the loss you have taken.

In your situation, you have still encountered a loss, both in costs of getting the new caravan inspectd and travelling to and from the dealer, and the loss of value of your old caravan due to time, and any further deterioration it may have suffered. This is outside the scope of the CRA, but I suspect the loss if it can be realistically calculated, could be claimed from the deaelr in a small claims action. It is highly likley the small claims court would take the circumstabnces and the CRA action as substantive evidence.

.... Isn't it a criminal offence to sell goods that you know are faulty and not to inform the buyer? .....

When you buy a "new" caravan from a dealer it should be exactly as described in the brochure and free from faults. You are reasonable in expecting that to be so in your case.

However the fact you have discovered faults, does not necearilly mean the dealer knew about them before it was passed to you. If 'as you tell us' the cracks had been painted over to deliberately concel them, then whoever did it is guilty of fraud, but the problem is who did it?

was it a production line worker acting of their own initative.
was it under instruction from the productin line manager or a director
was it the transport company who deliverd the caravan to the dealership,
was it some one at the dealership
and of course becasue you discoverd the cracks some time after taking control of the caravan, it could be argued you might have done it.
So the big problem is being able to prove who coverd up the cracks.

The point being for example if the cracks were found during production and painted over before it reached the dealer, and presumably the cracks were not obvious because of the work to cover them up, is it reasonable for a dealer not to find them. I suspect it may be, in which case the dealer is not guilty of fruad, as they have not deliberately tried to decieve the customer.

However, Whilst the dealer may not be guilty of fraud for the reason above, the evidence strongly suggests the cracks were present when the caravan was sold to you, so in the context of the CRA, the product was faulty at the point of sale, which is in breach of the dealers responsibilities under the CRA.

Your problem will be to find some way of proving the dealer knew about the cracks before you took control of the caravan, if you want to pursue a fraud claim.

 

[ProfJohnL]

The caravan industry does have an abysmal record of managing customer complaints and especially those where a fault has arisen.

It is likely the impact of a fault on a caravan will be perceived very differently by a customer than say a fault on a car. Both are high value items, and if either is out of commission it becomes a major issue for the customer, but where as if a car is out of commission there are usually other work around, such as public transport, or lifts with friends or colleagues, if a caravan goes out of commission , the impact is actually far more stressful becasue there are often no realistic alternative work around.

There are usually plenty of garages able to repair a car, in a matter of days but there are far fewer caravan workshops, often meaning work can take much longer to start, which can make a very major bite into the available and very precious holiday time.

It is also It is also very galling to think of how relatively simple caravans are and in general how little use they get compared to cars, so why do they fail so more frequently!.

The caravan industry principally exists because of holidays, yet they don't seem to realise the impact of their failings on the customer and their families, and how important it is to get a faulty caravan back up and running as quickly as possible. One can get the impression that some dealers and manufacturers feel they will fit a repair in as a favour rather than being one of their prime responsibilities to their customers.

If as the industry would like us to believe, that quality is improving (where's the evidence?) then fault rates should be coming down. If a fault rate is so low as to be considered an insignificant issue, then surely a manufacture could afford to use the unused resources to better serve those few with faults. They should also be far more proactive in getting repairs carried out, and to compensate customers who have been so unfairly disadvantaged by the faults in their products.

 

[Hutch]

When I bought my last caravan, Coachman 560 VIP, I managed to get it for £1000 less than at the NEC for a showroom model. This I had checked over and more so so did Mrs H. No faults etc. A friend bought the same model same time waited 5 months and had several problems. Maybe the showroom models are supplied to a better overall standard. As they are "On show" Only two minor faults, and one Major, in 4 years . Keeping this one.

 

[Buckman]

Prof Johnyou raise some valid points however if a proper PDI had been done, the paint over would have been seen plus the marks on the back panel. There were other issues that should have been picked up at the PDI stage.
Section 20 (11) and (12) of the CRA 2015 seems to make it quite clear that if the value of the traded in goods has depreciated, the consumer is entitled to a monetary payout for the value of the trade in caravan.
I would like to clear; your contract for the purchase of the caravan was with the finance company. It is therefore the finance company. who supplied you with the caravan in exchange for your previous caravan, deposit of £1,000 and payments you were due to make under the hire purchase agreement. This is called consideration.

By accepting the rejection of the caravan I am entitled to have returned to me any consideration I have provided. The finance company can make a deduction to reflect the use I have had of the caravan over the period of time I have had it but the starting point is that I should receive back all I have paid for it. As mentioned before I am entitled to seek the monetary value of the trade in value of the previous caravan from the finance company rather than the caravan itself.

 

[Raywood]

The point here seems to be, is the finance company entitled to deduct the sum paid to them for the use of the caravan? In simple terms this is unlikely. The deduction should reflect the availability and use made of the caravan, which is unlikely to be exactly the contract payments. As I said it is necessary to check what the use and availability was and see what then looks reasonable and see if it is higher or lower than the payments made and only then can a decision be made on this as to what to do next.

 

[Buckman]

It took me awhile but after checking etc I have found that we used the caravan for just over 100 days between July 2016 and June 2017. Legislation states that there should be a full or part refund of repayments made to the supplier which in this case is the finance company.
I am investigating the 30 day rejection legislation as it seems that even after 11 months the caravan was still in the 30 day rejection period. However I am not sure if this changes anything or will have any influence in receiving a monetary payout for the trad ein caravan instead of having to take it back.

 

[Raywood]

Given that it is over a year since you traded in the caravan I do wonder if the trade in is still there as most dealer would want to move it on far quicker than that.
Using the caravan for one hundred days is a relatively heavy use of it so I suspect a fair discount could be taken for that but not knowing what the payments made to the finance company were it is not possible to say if their approach is right.
If you do not have access to a legal helpline through either of the clubs, your house insurance or a union, then Citizens Advice helpline might be useful.