Testing the new consumer-rights

[intransient1]

Hello everyone,
we collected our lovely new Elddis Avante Chatsworth 554 on the 3rd of November.
I spent most of the day at the dealership checking just about everything and eventually signed on the dotted line with 4 minor issues for them to put right.
on the 4th of November we set off for Braithwaite Fold c+cc site in Bowness on Windermere, where as it transpired we had 6 days of wind and rain.
Despite using the heating the front windows stayed condensed up at the bottom, as did the outside edges of the rooflights.
A couple of other places were also suffering from condensation, but I put it down to the weather.
As we're were packing up on Tuesday 10th of November I noticed that the wall board covering in the front locker was coming off and when I touched the areas it felt damp, my first thought was it can't happen to me again.
Just goes to show that I shouldn't think, as it has happened again.
Out came the damp meter and I checked the front locker 25-30% damp.
Next came the near side front seating area where it joins the front locker 35%.
I then went to the locker door area under the island bed 35%.
Next step I contacted the dealership who want me to take it back for them to investigate at this point I stated I will deliver the van back for them to inspect but I will be rejecting the van due to the damp.
I also contacted Black Horse to advise them of the issue and they are happy with the action I am taking

 

[ProfJohnL]

I'm so sorry to read of the issues you have again encountered. How incredibly unluck youhave been, and how disappointed you must be.

Full marks for using the Consumer Rights Act, as that is exactly what its for, and I hope you get a satisfactory remedy.

As this is the first report on the forum of the CRA being used to seek a remedy of this type, I hope you will keep us informed of how it goes - bearing in mind the Forums etiquette about not naming and shaming.

I wish you well and i hope the outcome not only is good for you but will laos show haw big the CRA's teeth can be.

 

[Dustydog]

Unbelievable hmy: :woohoo:
The CRA makes it very clear rejection of a faulty item is allegedly easier now than before.
From what you say this sounds like water ingress more than condensation.
Do not be fobbed off by the dealer with a "let's wait and see".

Good luck and also so sorry you have had failure so soon after the purchase.

 

[intransient1]

Morning DD,
Just to add insult to injury while I was removing all the contents into the car I found a crack in the front panel where the hinge for the locker door is attached, and it is surprising just how thin the panel is so there an even better reason to reject it.

 

[intransient1]

I am now looking for a used van as after 3 absolute s--- new ones I am not going there again.
I will update this after I get home from the dealers.
None of this is the dealers fault, is sits on the shoulders of Elddis.

 

[intransient1]

I had absolutely no trouble with rejecting the van, it was very damp in three areas, that and the crack in the front made the dealership agree 100% that it needed to go back to Elddis.
I would advise that everyone who has any issues to use the new rights to force manufactures to take note that we want products of the correct quality.

 

[Dustydog]

Excellent result
I do believe you have been very unlucky and wonder if dealer specials are a bit of a cheaper quality to justify the price
I understand your reasoning for looking at three year old now. However by all accounts most of the big boys are using timberless construction with long water ingress guarantees. An older van like mine which is still dry does contain timber.
Best of luck in your quest for a replacement.
I hope Black Horse have also fully refunded you all fees and interest paid to date.

 

[intransient1]

Elddis vans still use timber its just glued together instead.
As the van was only 1 week old no payments made but I will be finalising everything with them tomorrow.
At least the new protection works.

 

[ProfJohnL]

.............
None of this is the dealers fault, is sits on the shoulders of Elddis.

Hello Intransient,

I am very pleased you seem to have got a result with rejecting the caravan I hope it all goes through with no problems.

I have quoted part of your post to make a particular point..

Start with the thought that the end customer has the right to expect any new product they purchase to be free from defects. If as we so frequently see reported a fault (however small) is detected by the end user, then someone somewhere in the supply chain is guilty of allowing a faulty product to pass through their hands. Whoever creates a fault or allows a fault to pass is equally guilty of failing to perform their duty.

We all know in out hearts the faults you have reported are not of the dealers making and in reality sit firmly at the manufactures door, but law does not see it that way. And though this perspective may seem hard on the dealer, the fact is the dealers own quality control systems have also failed in two ways: firstly they have not picked up the faults the manufacturer created, and secondly they have sold good with faults that reach their customer. The law sees the second point as significant and your claim will have succeeded on that point.

We have masses of historical reports and data that clearly shows the caravan manufacturers do not adequately check their products before they leave the factory, and in the light of that common knowledge, the dealers should have put in place thorough inspection procedures to check the caravans they receive from the manufacturers. Perhaps if customers really start to use the consumer rights acts it will force dealers to be more thorough and do what they are actually paid for. Where they detect significant faults to have right to reject goood back to the manufacture, so customers do not become the quality control for both the dealer and the manufacturer.

As we only have a contract of sale with seller, that is always where the statutory duty of care can be challenged under the CRA

 

[intransient1]

Hi ProfJohnL,
Excellent point about the dealership missing the faults, this also seems to be the norm.
There were 5 other faults that needed attention, I listed them on the handover form and stated the parts had to be obtained within 3 weeks and fitted before the 30 day deadline but these were not detrimental to the vans use.
I know I could have refused to accept the van on the collection day, but I already had a break booked to fully check it out and as it turns out it was a wise decision as it rained every day highlighting the damp issue quickly.
I can not fault the dealership on their handling of the rejection it went smoothly.
They were in full agreement that this needs to happen to put manufactures on notice over quality control.
The problem was the same as the last van, the ingress occurred where fitting were bonded into the vans structure by hand, external gas point and lockers.
Please will all other caravanner exercise their new rights fully it can only lead to better products.

 

[Raywood]

Not sure if this falls under the new legislation as it depends on when the contract was signed so check this. Given the date the caravan was rejected this should not be a problem but you need to quote the correct act.
Given this is damp I am not sure I would criticise the dealer as I do not think a damp check is in the PDI. In many ways it was fortunate that the weather showed up the problem so that you could reject it well within the time limit. Had the weather not been bad you might not have discovered the problem in time.
I do not think buying second hand is the answer either. You might just end up with another problem caravan that a disgruntled owner has got rid of.
Other than keeping your fingers firmly crossed when buying I am not sure of the answer.
I would be interested to know what Eldiss have said, they are not famous for good customer service as the PC owners satisfaction surveys have showed.

 

[intransient1]

It wasn't rejected on the damp issue alone,
A 3 inch crack in the front panel was a major issue.
It is not reasonable to expect the dealership to do a damp test on a new caravan, but then again 2 vans in 18 months from 1 manufacturer maybe they should.
My damp meter will be going with me on the next purchase.

 

[Dustydog]

It wasn't rejected on the damp issue alone,
A 3 inch crack in the front panel was a major issue.
It is not reasonable to expect the dealership to do a damp test on a new caravan, but then again 2 vans in 18 months from 1 manufacturer maybe they should.
My damp meter will be going with me on the next purchase.

I hope the next caravan starts with a B or S or C but NOT E :evil:

 

[intransient1]

Shades of Mr Robot :evil:

 

[WoodlandsCamper]

I hope the next caravan starts with a B or S or C but NOT E :evil:

Do you have anything against L ? But, then again, maybe you should (I'm still waiting to hear back as to whether they are covering the front and back cracks on my van).

 

[Dustydog]

I hope the next caravan starts with a B or S or C but NOT E :evil:

Do you have anything against L ? But, then again, maybe you should (I'm still waiting to hear back as to whether they are covering the front and back cracks on my van).

Not at all but I could have listed the alphabet with A L F K H.
I wonder if any of the makers are ISO accredited. Why are Lunar taking so long. Surely if the panels have cracked assuming it wasn't you what's the reason for ignoring you

 

[Raywood]

I hope the next caravan starts with a B or S or C but NOT E :evil:

Do you have anything against L ? But, then again, maybe you should (I'm still waiting to hear back as to whether they are covering the front and back cracks on my van).

Give the dealer 14 days to sort it and tell them if not done you will be taking them to the small claims court. You need to find the cost of replacing the panels and that is the sum to claim. Your rights are against the dealer under the Sale of Goods Act.
I will check the panels on my L just to be sure but it seems to be a common problem across the board.
Did you check out the Bailey video?

 

[intransient1]

My first new van started with V but was part of the L manufactures range.

It was pure (hel) L from start to finish.

As to your cracking panel if L follows suit with the other manufacturers it will be covered with corner caps to cover the problem up, been there with E so good luck.

 

[WoodlandsCamper]

Give the dealer 14 days to sort it and tell them if not done you will be taking them to the small claims court. You need to find the cost of replacing the panels and that is the sum to claim. Your rights are against the dealer under the Sale of Goods Act.

My van is over 3 years old but I think the bodywork is covered for 6 years against water ingress. Some previous warranty work was done a while ago within the 3 years, but the manufacturer did take a couple of months before approval was given to the dealer to effect repairs. I'm not pushing at the moment because I'm running in the new car before the need to take the van in for repairs - up to 680 miles now and would like to get to 1,000.

Did you check out the Bailey video?

No.

 

[intransient1]

Wow You must be my age I still run in my new cars although they say you don't have to these day.

 

[WoodlandsCamper]

Yes, a few years older.

 

[Mel]

It wasn't rejected on the damp issue alone,
A 3 inch crack in the front panel was a major issue.
It is not reasonable to expect the dealership to do a damp test on a new caravan, but then again 2 vans in 18 months from 1 manufacturer maybe they should.
My damp meter will be going with me on the next purchase.

o

The dealer that I collected my new Bailey from did a damp test on my brand new van and quoted all the readings ( which were fine) on the sales sheet.
Mel

 

[woodsieboy]

We are currently in our third week of waiting for parts to repair damp discovered at 4th service in our C,dealer says will be covered under warranty,looked at new at the NEC,and only L came close to what we liked.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Not sure if this falls under the new legislation as it depends on when the contract was signed so check this. Given the date the caravan was rejected this should not be a problem but you need to quote the correct act.

Agreed, but the basic principles remain the same.

Given this is damp I am not sure I would criticise the dealer as I do not think a damp check is in the PDI.

Now here I cannot totally agree with you, The dealer PDI is directed by the manufacturer and it may not include a damp test, but as dealers surely know the poor quality of product coming out from manufacturers must include some caravans that are already sponges, they should for their own piece of mind be including a damp survey of some kind and other non directed checks before they sell the caravan.

After all they are legally responsible when such thing are not caught before sale.

 

[woodsieboy]

Just wonder whether motor homes are any better or worse with regard to damp ingress I can't recall hearing anything about them . Anybody know?