Poor quality caravans

[Buckman]

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.

The week before it was traded in the caravan was at a well known large dealership in the West Midlands and a damp test was done and the caravan was given the all clear by the MD at the dealership. I am also wondering why they still have the trade in which has a popular layout. Maybe they are trying to sell it at too high a price or therre is an obvious issue with it?
Unfortunately Citizens Advice were totally out of their depth on this and could not offer any real advice. they were not even aware of clauses 11 and 12 of section 20 of the CRA 2015. However thanks for reminding me about the home insurance as I am sure it covers legal help.

 

[ProfJohnL]

I have been giving this thread more thought, and it really is quite complicated

First of all Buckmaster, may I suggest you revisit your posts and remove/ replace any named references to the dealer and the finance house, to avoid any problems with the policy of the Haymarket about naming companies with which you are involved with a personal dispute. It's OK to name the make of the caravan (As long as its not defamatory) , because you do not have a personal dispute with manufacturer only the seller and or the finance house.

The complications Buckmaster is having in receiving a full refund may arise becasue there two pieces of consumer legislation in play here. The first is the Consumer Rights Act (CRA) and the second is the Consumer Credit Act (CCA) and there are three parties involved, the customer, the caravan dealer and the finance provider. This cannot be a unique situation as there are many people who by caravans using a PX and a finance agreement.

So why has it apparently gone silly this time. To be honest I'm not sure.

If you haven't done so already, I would strongly suggest you joint the Consumer Association (Publishers of Which) and take advantage of their legal advice service. Unlike general solicitors, "Which?" use specialist advisers well versed in consumer finance matters and has a good track record of helping its members getting a legal and fair result.

 

[Dustydog]

I have to agree with the Prof although I notice The Finance Company name has been requited in disguise .
No problem but to be fair I am sure we have all named the main caravan financier many times hmy:
Reference to a West Midlands Dealer who deals with Buccaneer is so obvious ; no need to name!!
The fact is poor Buckman has spent a King's Ransom on a defective caravan that has not performed.
IMO in view off the complexities, as rightly pointed out by the Prof, and the amount of hard cash involved. Buckman go and see a top notch solicitor with teeth and seek full financial redress asap.

 

[Parksy]

I edited the name of the finance company Dusty, the Prof had pointed out a potential breach of forum etiquette when he mistakenly added his reply to a different thread which he later added to this correct one.
Rules is Rules as they say
Buckman didn't deliberately set out to break the rules, he didn't actually name the dealership but if he's in dispute with the finance company it's better if the name doesn't appear on the message boards.

 

[Buckman]

I have to agree with the Prof although I notice The Finance Company name has been requited in disguise .
No problem but to be fair I am sure we have all named the main caravan financier many times hmy:
Reference to a West Midlands Dealer who deals with Buccaneer is so obvious ; no need to name!!
The fact is poor Buckman has spent a King's Ransom on a defective caravan that has not performed.
IMO in view off the complexities, as rightly pointed out by the Prof, and the amount of hard cash involved. Buckman go and see a top notch solicitor with teeth and seek full financial redress asap.

The dealer referred to was the one that dealt with the trade in caravan and checked it is not the same as the Buccaneer dealer and Buccaneer dealership is not in the West Midlands.

 

[Buckman]

I edited the name of the finance company Dusty, the Prof had pointed out a potential breach of forum etiquette when he mistakenly added his reply to a different thread which he later added to this correct one.
Rules is Rules as they say
Buckman didn't deliberately set out to break the rules, he didn't actually name the dealership but if he's in dispute with the finance company it's better if the name doesn't appear on the message boards.

Unfortunately the name of the finance house appears in a quote by the Prof. Can you amend please as I don't want to infringe any rules. I don't think I mentioned the dealership or even hinted where they are located. BTW the dispute is till ongoing however they are updating me on Friday. In the meantime we are caravanless and missing out on the wonderful sunshine! :S

In addition I have come across that although the purchase was in excess of £30K, it may be covered under Section 75A of the CCA. I have also been advised that there is a possibility that due to waiting period the caravan may have been under the 30 day rejection period in which case all repayments will need to be returned as no deduction can be made for use.

 

[ProfJohnL]

I edited the name of the finance company Dusty, the Prof had pointed out a potential breach of forum etiquette when he mistakenly added his reply to a different thread which he later added to this correct one.
Rules is Rules as they say
Buckman didn't deliberately set out to break the rules, he didn't actually name the dealership but if he's in dispute with the finance company it's better if the name doesn't appear on the message boards.

Unfortunately the name of the finance house appears in a quote by the Prof. Can you amend please as I don't want to infringe any rules. I don't think I mentioned the dealership or even hinted where they are located. BTW the dispute is till ongoing however they are updating me on Friday. In the meantime we are caravanless and missing out on the wonderful sunshine! :S

In addition I have come across that although the purchase was in excess of £30K, it may be covered under Section 75A of the CCA. I have also been advised that there is a possibility that due to waiting period the caravan may have been under the 30 day rejection period in which case all repayments will need to be returned as no deduction can be made for use.

I looked but couldn't find it, on a ref by initials, which I have changed.

I googled
"section 75a consumer credit act" and found a lot of interesting stuff, of particular note was a link to the Financial Ombudsman service which gave an example for the motor trade, and I suspect exactly the same points would apply to a caravan purchase.

Sadly it's up to Buckman to put all this into action. It should have been straight forward, but it does seem the finance house is trying to be clever.

Just thinking on a bit, you must have spent time and money on dealing with these faults, so for example if you have spent any money that can be shown to be specifically related to these faults for example, phone calls , letters, journeys to dealers or workshops, your time, if you are in employment and had to have time off. If you use a professional for legal advice, their fees, are all the responsibility of the seller under the CRA. I also expect you should be able to claim for teh costs you must have incurred for teh Paint Seal process which exposed the faults.

One of the key principles underpinning the CRA, is the concept that the customer should be inconvenienced as little as possible, (and being a year on without a resolution is certainly an inconvenience) . - This not charter to make wild or inflated claims, and I'm not suggesting you are, but it does seek to be fair to all parties, and in effect after the resolution the customer should be no worse off than if the product had been fault free. The fact the seller has failed to supply a fault free product is reflected by the costs and teh hit on their profits they have to meet. That is one of the risks of business, and its in their hands to put it right.

 

[Buckman]

I never knew about section 75(A) so it was a bit of an eye opener. The issue is now with the FOS however on Monday the finance house contacted me to say that they were doing a revised analysis of the offer and will present us with a new offer on Friday. It seems that the mention of the "waiting period" and the 30 day rejection clause has galvanised someone. In addition, by not conforming with any legislation relevant to this issue they may be committing a criminal act.

 

[Buckman]

I have to agree with the Prof although I notice The Finance Company name has been requited in disguise .
No problem but to be fair I am sure we have all named the main caravan financier many times hmy:
Reference to a West Midlands Dealer who deals with Buccaneer is so obvious ; no need to name!!
The fact is poor Buckman has spent a King's Ransom on a defective caravan that has not performed.
IMO in view off the complexities, as rightly pointed out by the Prof, and the amount of hard cash involved. Buckman go and see a top notch solicitor with teeth and seek full financial redress asap.

The reference was to Chichester caravans who checked the Lunar caravan before we traded it in at a Buccaneer dealership somewhere in the south. There is no issue with the dealership in Gloucestershire who are a reputable dealership.

However time for an update. The finance house offered us £2500 for depreciation thereby admitting the condition had changed however the trade in value of the traded in Lunar caravan according to Glasses guide is only £10000 if there is no damp. Accepting this offer would still leave us out of pocket and with a caravan we cannot use. It also does not comply with CRA2015 Section 20(11).
We offered to pay ourselves for an independent approved NCC MCEA technician to inspect the traded in caravan and although the offer was put across over a week ago, the finance house has not come back to us advising that that accept the offer.
Strangely enough the investigator at the FOS basically said to us that even if the caravan was riddled with damp, the finance house should offer more for depreciation and we should take back the caravan! I always thought that the FOS should be neutral and not take sides?
Regarding the offer of paying for the inspection, the investigator also told both the finance house and ourselves that we must sort out the inspection between ourselves as he was going on holiday! Unfortunately as the finance house has to take instruction from the FOS, this last instruction to sort it out between ourselves is contrary to how the FOS should operate and the finance house have said this to us as they say they have now been left in limbo!
We are now in a Catch 22 situation and trying to negotiate an amicable settlement of the issue but so many obstacles are being put in our way. So much for companies complying with legislation. Why do they bother to write legislation if it cannot be enforced?

 

[Buckman]

Another update;
We have been successful and FOS has ruled in our favour once the case was passed to another Ombudsman and we are being refunded.

 

[otherclive]

That's good news, but what a long haul to obtain your rights.

 

[Buckman]

If more people took our stance maybe the message will get across and we will see an improvement in the quality of the caravans sold to the public! Pigs may also fly. :lol:

 

[KeefySher]

If more people took our stance maybe the message will get across and we will see an improvement in the quality of the caravans sold to the public! Pigs may also fly. :lol:

Wholeheartedly agree.

I've said many times the holy trinity of the abysmal quality of caravans is:

Repeat buyers over decades not wanting to upset those awfully nice dealers that have sold us several caravans with faults, but we've booked our holidays and don't want to upset those dealers, so we have continually accepted poor quality.

Said dealers playing the game knowing those silly old farts will be back next year or in the future to buy yet another poor quality caravan in time for their holiday. If by chance they do complain, we'll fob them off.

The worst of the lot, the assemblers of thrown together poor quality parts masquerading as caravans who rely on the dealers to take the flak safe in the knowledge those silly old farts of buyers won't be bothered going through all the hoops we put in the way and the arms length cartel we operate by not contracting directly with the buyers... sorry can't finish a long reply, got to get more crap out the door. We only have a minute to get the next one off the line and on some mugs tow ball.

The message will get across. Apathy will not prevail.