"(1) ... for the benefit of the persons ..." covers it - but sadly that conflicts with "(4) ... promote leisure ... products ... "
IMO, the CC promotes the industry more than supports members' needs.
"(1) ... for the benefit of the persons ..." covers it - but sadly that conflicts with "(4) ... promote leisure ... products ... "
IMO, the CC promotes the industry more than supports members' needs.
Years ago both the AA and RAC championed good causes for the motorist. Other bodies eg RSPCA did the same but were accused of misdirecting funds away from their primary objective of looking after animals. In these litigious times it is hardly surprising no Club or magazine wants to criticise another party, manufacturer, for fear of being sued!
IMO also, that is at the root of it.
The real reason our vans are so "poor" lies squarely with our fellow owners, they buy them, often one after another in a hope of getting a better one next time.
With that gullible market where is the incentive to change?
Precisely my point in # 36
“Surely the industry swim in the same sea as the clubs and the users. So if the industry cannot recognise the concerns voiced re quality and image is it really practical to expect the clubs to exert influence. After all an industry able to sell increasing number of products isn’t going to be swayed by mere words. It’s the buying public that exerts pressure. But what evidence is there of such pressures at a level that will effect the changes desired?”
However as a manufacturer you should be acting on feedback from dealers and consumers. Makes you wonder if dealers are proactive at highlighting issues to manufacturers.
On more than one occasion with us the dealer has blamed the manufacturer for the delay in getting parts, but when contacting the manufacturer they have no knowledge of the request.
More and more people are now realising they thay cna reject their caravans under CRA 2015 and are taking advantage of this legislation. In some cases this also involves the finance house so the dealer and finance house lose out financially.
Both these organisations should be putting pressure on the manufacturer to improve the quality of goods with the caravan clubs representing their members who have issues. However as far as clubs are concerned pigs will fly first!
There are too few of us prepared or skilled enough to push things even now with the powers of the CRA 2015, credit to those among us who have on genuine cases.
It's far easier to be seduced by "a get out of jail" level part exchange offer, to rid oneself of the immediate issue(s), and avoid the hassle and potential hurt on the dealer's side, all for a slight loss on their margins.
It's far easier to be seduced by "a get out of jail" level part exchange offer, to rid oneself of the immediate issue(s), and avoid the hassle and potential hurt on the dealer's side, all for a slight loss on their margins.
I agree it is an uphill battle on your own, but you have very clear legislation on your side. We rejected at 11 months and the dealer wanted us to take back our traded in caravan which had been on their courtyard for nearly a year plus £1000 compensation.
We obviously refused and got a deadlock letter from finance house and it went to Ombudsman who also sided with dealer/finance house. Eventually I got a report on the disputed caravan from an AWS technician who picked up issues that we had missed. To resolve the issues would have cost approximately £5000 as in addition to front and rear needing replacement, the dealer had damaged the skylight in front. There were also other issues.
The AWS report was not accepted so through the CAMC we booked a MCEA technician to check the traded in caravan and also the new caravan. Within 48 hours finance house/dealer caved in and we got a refund plus some heavy compensation. The MCEA inspection never went ahead.
Wholeheartedly agree with you, just need to convince my wife.
That pressure might might well be exerted by individuals but with surprisingly little affect on the product. As you infer.
But how much greater would that affect be if it had the possible influence of organisations behind them?
I am not blind to the fact that the definition of ‘club’ only includes groups of like minded people. Also that is reflected in their T&C’s. But that does not fulfil my expectations of what a club with balls might manage.
John
Possibly this comes down to cost. If the club were to pursue issues for members they would need more staff which would put up their costs and increase fees. members though would love the service so may be it would work if the club took up issues and did a preliminary assessment and initial correspondence. assuming they then published the results that would then make the caravan builders and dealers take note as the damage a really bad report could do would be very serious given the number of members involved.
A cheaper option might be to set up a set of engineers and other experts who members could use in the event of a dispute. At the moment there is a problem there, this could solve things like cracked panels where the defence is being given as impact damage, but the owner thinks it is not.
A cheaper option might be to set up a set of engineers and other experts who members could use in the event of a dispute. At the moment there is a problem there, this could solve things like cracked panels where the defence is being given as impact damage, but the owner thinks it is not.
I am not impressed with Which. I think they spread themselves too thinly over too many product lines with many variations amongst them.
I occasionally take out a temporary membership to investigate specific purchases. I have just bought a new printer, WHICH had not tested it, but was insistent on recommending printers tested in 2016 and not available now. I also have investigated two recent big purchases, American fridge freezer and a double oven. Very little help with them either. But I noticed they had great info on log burners which my son was investigating.
But perhaps for legal advice like Buckman had, they could be great. I don’t know.
John
I occasionally take out a temporary membership to investigate specific purchases. I have just bought a new printer, WHICH had not tested it, but was insistent on recommending printers tested in 2016 and not available now. I also have investigated two recent big purchases, American fridge freezer and a double oven. Very little help with them either. But I noticed they had great info on log burners which my son was investigating.
But perhaps for legal advice like Buckman had, they could be great. I don’t know.
John
Our Camping and Caravanning Club was due for renewal I received this letter we are extending your membership for the 3-month period our sites were closed the extension starts 5th April to 5th July .
But this letter needs to go with your membership card
Caravan and motorhome club did not do that they just took the payment when it was due I expect they needed it for there overheads to each its own
But this letter needs to go with your membership card
Caravan and motorhome club did not do that they just took the payment when it was due I expect they needed it for there overheads to each its own
According to their public accounts a major caravan manufacturer had a warranty fund of £6,854,325 in 2018. That year they spent £2,301,813 on warranty claims on then models between 6 and 10 years old. That against an annual turnover of £111,000,000.
A lot of money but maybe the failure of caravans like Buckman’s is not the norm these days? Also armed with all the financial data, freely available on line, I think achieving redress with a Dealer and “major” manufacturer may not be as hard as it was.
CRA 2015 has helped no end. These issues imo should be covered as an extension of your legal expenses insurance on the caravan . This section is usually underwritten by a niche Insurer with a vast number of qualified legal experts on their payroll. Thus both Clubs could insist their insurance covers are extended to offer such help.
A lot of money but maybe the failure of caravans like Buckman’s is not the norm these days? Also armed with all the financial data, freely available on line, I think achieving redress with a Dealer and “major” manufacturer may not be as hard as it was.
CRA 2015 has helped no end. These issues imo should be covered as an extension of your legal expenses insurance on the caravan . This section is usually underwritten by a niche Insurer with a vast number of qualified legal experts on their payroll. Thus both Clubs could insist their insurance covers are extended to offer such help.
That’s an interesting set of figures thank you.
Certainly in my case I had no problems whatsoever in getting front and rear panels on a S5 Bailey replaced, there were no other problems on that caravan, they were a step change in build quality. My current van was bought pre owned but again once I could demonstrate to Swift that it had the required service history they authorised a replacement rear panel in year 5, not that long before it’s warranty expired. Neither did I have any cause to use the Dealer insurance backed warranty which ran for one year, but did not cover plastic body parts. IE panels. Wonder why?
Certainly in my case I had no problems whatsoever in getting front and rear panels on a S5 Bailey replaced, there were no other problems on that caravan, they were a step change in build quality. My current van was bought pre owned but again once I could demonstrate to Swift that it had the required service history they authorised a replacement rear panel in year 5, not that long before it’s warranty expired. Neither did I have any cause to use the Dealer insurance backed warranty which ran for one year, but did not cover plastic body parts. IE panels. Wonder why?
That seems like a lot of money considering it excludes comprehensive warranty costs in the first 3 years and water ingress cost in 4th & 5th years.
The figures are their audited numbers on their public accounts at Companies House
Historically it did seem the clubs used to take on members concerns and seek answers about issues, but now it seems they moved in to next tier and are telling members what to do rather than asking what members want.
Those figures do not represent the total of warrant claims concerning the manufactures products. Don't forget the caravan dealers are told to present warranty claims for OEM equipment directly to the OEM supplier. Those costs do not appear on the caravan companies accounts.
I know from experience that many failures in OEM equipment are the result of poor handling or installation by the caravan manufacture during production.
Also many manufactures (including OEM) use an insurance based scheme to manage warranties - especially extended warranties, and again these policy costs would not appear in the manufactures accounts.
I wasn't questioning the accuracy of your numbers - they do seem to indicate a high level of faults in caravans outside their initial comprehensive warranty.
My membership was extended, so no problems there, I was happy enough.
Just a question, why do you end many answers with, "to each its own" which at times does not seem to make any sense, to myself.
Parksy
Moderator
We have a three month extension, so our renewal payment has been delayed for three months.
Perhaps Beachball would like to add his motto "To each is own..." as a profile signature so that it's always visible when he adds a comment?
Beachball if you'd like to make it your signature but are not sure how, get in touch and I'll send step by step instructions 😊
Facebook
Twitter