When are caravan manufactures going to be held accountable?

[oldagetraveller1]

Over the last 20 yrs, I have had only Burstner or Hymer vans. Not a single problem. Am I just lucky or are European vans better built?
If I was a uk maker/dealer watching this type of forum, I would be very worried! Certainly the posts have deterred me from even thinking about buying a UK van.

 

[otherclive]

A while back Hymer had problems with cracking of the outer shell in way of the door. But in general the German vans do seem to have few quality problems, although perhaps a part of their success is the robust build techniques, but they do seem heavier than UK vans. I do like the German vans interior finish which always looks and feels top notch. However British van build techniques have been improved in the past few years so we will have to see if Alutech, Solid and Smart do deliver an improvement.

 

[TheTravellingRooster]

A while back Hymer had problems with cracking of the outer shell in way of the door. But in general the German vans do seem to have few quality problems, although perhaps a part of their success is the robust build techniques, but they do seem heavier than UK vans. I do like the German vans interior finish which always looks and feels top notch. However British van build techniques have been improved in the past few years so we will have to see if Alutech, Solid and Smart do deliver an improvement.

Hi oc. Could you please explain what appears to be a typo or ??? in your opening sentence?It is the last four words that have me guessing.
It is Copied and Pasted below.

A while back Hymer had problems with cracking of the outer shell in way of the door.

 

[otherclive]

I understand that on some vans bodywork ripples appeared emanating from the upper corner(s) of the door. There are previous posts in this Forum.

 

[intransient1]

Hi Prof John L,
I see where you are coming from, so thank you for clarification on the issue.
What really upsets me is that I purchased the caravan as an anniversary present and I feel that I have let my wife down by buying this van.
At the time of purchase our towing vehicle dictated the weight of new vans available.
We looked at new and second hand vans and then bought this one because the layout and weight were perfect.
I did notice at the October show that one or two of the design errors we highlighted had been addressed.
I am quite happy to work with the finance company to resolve the problem and would accept a replacement as this would be the easiest option.

 

[oldagetraveller1]

Yes, I think it is better/more robust build quality that counts. And, I suspect, vastly better quality control at the factory. May be a tad heavier but I am very happy to trade that against the shocking problems described in these posts.

 

[TheTravellingRooster]

I understand that on some vans bodywork ripples appeared emanating from the upper corner(s) of the door. There are previous posts in this Forum.

Hi oc. The ripples and eventually cracking/splitting/tearing of the bodywork above the door and at the radii positions was indeed on caravans where the door was behind the axle/axles.
Interesting and coincidently, that problem was with the same manufacturers products as is the subject and the thrust behind this post.
It was blamed upon the van being entered and exited without the rear steadies being deployed or sufficiently deployed and the lack of support and the inevitable weights and stresses being imposed onto unsupported floor,this resulted in the cracking/splitting/tearing of the bodywork.

 

[otherclive]

I understand that on some vans bodywork ripples appeared emanating from the upper corner(s) of the door. There are previous posts in this Forum.

Hi oc. The ripples and eventually cracking/splitting/tearing of the bodywork above the door and at the radii positions was indeed on caravans where the door was behind the axle/axles.
Interesting and coincidently, that problem was with the same manufacturers products as is the subject and the thrust behind this post.
It was blamed upon the van being entered and exited without the rear steadies being deployed or sufficiently deployed and the lack of support and the inevitable weights and stresses being imposed onto unsupported floor,this resulted in the cracking/splitting/tearing of the bodywork.

Sorry if I only served to add nothing to the debate, but I was only answering the recent comments about German vans, and remembered that I had seen something about Hymers. But to access it I had to leave the Forum and do a Google search; it was that search which gave me the links back to PC Forums. Prof John was one of the contributors on the earlier discussion tht the search revealed.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Rooster,

I know that to some extent I have been playing the devils advocate on this topic, but it important to try and see all possible sides of the story.

Your latest posting includes the following explanation, I assume from the manufacturer:-

"It was blamed upon the van being entered and exited without the rear steadies being deployed or sufficiently deployed and the lack of support and the inevitable weights and stresses being imposed onto unsupported floor,this resulted in the cracking/splitting/tearing of the bodywork."

I am with you on this one for the following reason.

It is true that entering a caravan without its steadies deployed will put stress into the caravans structure. But I can think of another and probably far more destructive load which the caravan should be designed to withstand, and that is towing.

I have witnessed caravans being tested for vibrations induced by towing (conducted at MIRA near Nuneaton) When towed over Belgian Pave, the results demonstrated vertical accelerations at the axle in the order of 5 to 6G. This is roughly equivalent to towing over a series of 150mm wide and 50mm deep potholes. The effect of this is slightly amplified at the rear of the caravan because of the caravan's rear overhang and the fact that the caravan tends to act as rigid body - well almost!.

It would be perfectly reasonable to assume that under normal towing and manoeuvring, accelerations up between 2 and 3G could be encountered on British roads.

I could do the detailed maths, but it is my guess that approximately 40% to 45% of a caravans mass sits behind the axle. Now even for a modest 1000Kg caravan that means 400Kg sits behind the axle, and when subjected road bumps the the acceleration will multiply the effect of that mass. 400kg mass undergoing only 2G of acceleration will produce a force of 800KgF and so on. What must also be considered is the fact that these loads are impact loads rather than steady state and they can also become negative as the caravan bounces. Incidentally if an average adult weighs 85Kg the four adult s would only total 340Kg considerably less than the impact loads induced by towing.

Consequently a caravan will experience far greater oscillatory dynamic bending loads whilst being towed, than the loads applied by the weight of people entering or leaving it when stationary.

Thus I find the suggestion by a manufacture that a caravan has been damaged by the weight of people using it, to be entirely unreasonable. Its highly unlikely that all adults would congregate at the extreem rear of the caravan when its only hitched to the car with no rear steadies deployed. If a caravan were to be weak enough to be damaged by people using it, then it would certainly be damaged more severely by towing it.

 

[TheTravellingRooster]

Hi Prof John L. Picking up on the last paragraph from your post of 24th Dec.
________________________________
Thus I find the suggestion by a manufacture that a caravan has been
damaged by the weight of people using it, to be entirely unreasonable.
Its highly unlikely that all adults would congregate at the extreme rear
of the caravan when its only hitched to the car with no rear steadies
deployed. If a caravan
were to be weak enough to be damaged by people using it, then it would
certainly be damaged more severely by towing it.
________________________________

I
totally agree with your observations/comments. That said,I believe that
the response from the manufacturer was FINAL and those that had
affected caravans were left out in the cold.
Whether any of the repair work was carried out by the respective dealers as 'Gestures of Goodwill' I really do not know.
This issue was being reported long before I had taken an interest in any of the on-line forums.
The
interesting and more than coincidental thing about the reported damages
was that they were affecting the caravans from the same manufacturer as
the current and long running saga of cracking/splitting/tearing of the
aluminium panels.
Incidentally,this
now long running and well reported damage is actually going as far back
as the early part of 2000,this was when a model change and revised
floor-plan configurations brought about the 2001 launch year
SuperSirocco variant and the doors were reconfigure to the forward
position in relation to the axle/axles.
The
issue of cracking/splitting/tearing is essentially affecting the longer
single axle and a great many of the twin axle caravans. Currently there
are at-least 30 subscribers to the other forum that are known to be in
possession of affected caravans and or have recently give up the ghost
and gotten rid at varying degrees of financial loss.

As an aside and 'Off Topic'. As there is no means (that I am aware of) of PM communications on this forum,a direct question.
Are you a member/occasional visit/anonymous contributor to/of CaravanTalk Forum?

 

[Raywood]

It seems to me that a caravan where it cannot take the weight of people entering without failing is unsuitable for purpose and therefore any claim under SOGA is almost certain to succeed. You might need a expert report on this though to confirm the point.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Ray and Rooster,
(OrIginal written 27th Dec revised 28th)

The problem I have with this thread is that we have a report of a caravan with symptoms, which are apparently very similar to the symptoms expressed by other caravanners. Now on the face of it it seems likely there may be a common cause, but it seems no professional engineer or surveyor will put there name to a report that conclusively links the effects to a common cause, AND define the cause to be either faulty design, workmanship or materials. Without that categoric confirmation no-one can move forward on SoGA yet alone a class action.

This begs the question as to why no professional will attest in this way. By all accounts there have been ample opportunities for them to do so, so in the absence of any documentation I have to assume the case is not as clear cut as TR and other aggrieved caravanners seem to think it is.

If such a fault was identified as the underlying cause of the symptoms then SoGA should not fail. If it does fail then perhaps its on some technicality of which we have not been appraised.

As we have stated in other threads, SoGA only involves those parties in the contract of sale, and in the case of caravans that almost exclusively excludes the Manufacturer. So the manufactures intransigence to these issues cannot be allowed to affect the outcome of SoGA actions.

Again, I have only seen reports of what is claimed the manufacturer has stated, so I don't know if they are accurate or complete, I am mindful of the fact the reports I have seen have been exclusively from caravanners who have an issue with their caravans. But in matters such as these, a manufacturer may take a commercial decision on how they intend to respond to a complaint, but if it is an effort to frustrate or prevent further claims, they cannot claim it to be a FINAL decision, because a court order can superseded it. And in any event their decisions cannot be used to predefine a SoGA outcome.

Whilst I find the reports of the manufactures explanation of the symptoms to be unrealistic (see earlier posting) and their intransigence to appear arrogant, I am very mindful of the fact I do not know if I have all the Facts. But assuming there is reasonable truth in the reports I do think the manufacture should review their reported position again.

What is the best route to a remedy for caravanners? That depends on what you are trying to achieve. Essentially most caravanners will be looking to get their own problem resolved, either by repair or replacement. This is best served by SoGA.

If as seems to be the thrust of TR's posts, you are trying to change the manufactures design, or admit there is a design fault then the most direct way is through a Class action. But if sufficient successful SoGA claims against dealers were made, the message would eventually get back to the manufacture as dealers will steer customers away from caravans that appear to have a bad reputation.

SoGA is comparatively cheap short process with only a small financial risk, Class actions are very expensive to execute, with the possibility of being saddled with the manufactures legal costs if you fail.

Rooster, As I have previously stated, I have chosen PC as my preferred single method of communication on these matters. If other caravanners wish to engage in sensible debate on this subject they are welcome join this forum.

 

[Dustydog]

An excellent assessment John. You are spot on regarding proof of causation.

It seems to me your suggestion of a Class Action is probably the best way forward.
In the first instance,imo, it will be essential for all involved to employ a leading firm of Forensic Scientists to examine and report on causation.
I have two firms in mind who are reguarly involved in litigation and have the full
respect of the Courts.

I am not surprised other "caravan experts" are unwilling to help, probably for fear of upsetting the applecart with dealers and manufacturers.

A lot of caravan insurance policies offer Legal Expenses cover. Have any of the "victims" attempted to use this cover in pursuit of their claims?

 

[ProfJohnL]

An excellent assessment John. You are spot on regarding proof of causation.

It seems to me your suggestion of a Class Action is probably the best way forward.........

...I am not surprised other "caravan experts" are unwilling to help, probably for fear of upsetting the applecart with dealers and manufacturers.

Hello Dusty,

I must make it clear, I have not suggested starting a class action, I have merely commented about them along with the SoGA option.

I don't think the "caravan experts" are reluctant in case they upset the applecart, its more likely that they have insufficient evidence to conclusively make the link between the observed symptoms and the hypothesis its exclusively down to faulty design. No self respecting Engineer would knowingly put their professional reputation on the line if there is uncertainty as to the cause.

If you are seriously considering a class action and anticipating using an insurance policy to cover legal costs, double check with the insurer before you start. Some policies may restrict cover to defending a case, and most limit the amount they will cover. Also if you intend a class action, the insurers may be unhappy with joint funding as there may be conflicts of interest and clashes with levels of liability.

You must also consider the fact that employing barristers (as required in High Court Cases) obtaining expert reports and witnesses is very expensive and its not unknown that the total legal costs of parties in class actions can run into hundreds of thousands of pounds, probably exceeding the legal fees limits of most policies.

Before I could suggest yet alone recommend starting a class action, I would need to gather much more irrefutable evidence of faulty design. Then look at the evidence and as ask how else could it possibly have been caused even remote possibilities, because that exactly what you'll face in court.

 

[TheTravellingRooster]

Hi to you all that are following and or have contributed to this post.
It is and always has been my considered opinion for what it is worth, that the particular issue that is the real thrust of the background to this post is like so many before it and doubtless many more to follow actually forms part of the 'Divide & Conquer' tactic,planned or otherwise by the various manufacturers.
The very fact that there are so many caravanner's dotted around and about the UK; never-mind abroad, that have caravans with major problems/issues that will never meet each other and or communicate with each other about their issues/fears and experiences is actually adding to the yawning division.
In the case of the caravan manufacturing industry and unlike the motor manufacturing industry there is not cut and dried/laid down policy of Recalls.
Recalls can only really be put into place when the issue/defect/defects is brought to the attention of the manufacturer and appropriate routes of re-dress/rectification are put into place. Recalls in the motor industry are not always of a potentially life threatening nature albeit many do seem that way. They appear to form the basis of what is undesirable in quality and costly products and would /could lead to damaging the reputation of the company and products in question; if allowed to go unchecked and not rectified by a recall policy.
The apparent underlying cause of this now well documented issue is
seemingly dated back to a model change based upon an existing but
revised/introduced 'New Style' body shell that sees the entrance door
moved from behind the axle/axles to a forward of the axle/axles
position. This also created an area of relative weakness between the
apertures for the forward NS window and the door aperture.
The
twisting and flexing of the chassis on the longer single axle and twin
axle variants surely must be creating stresses and shocks that can
really only go one way,upwards and into the side body panels.
I believe that the likelihood of a 'Class Action' against a caravan manufacturer is extremely unlikely simply because of the potentially high costs that could fall upon one individual and if it was taken up as a 'group collective' action then there would need to be a considerable number involved and prepared to pursue the matter to the bitter and a potentially very expensive conclusion.
The manufacturers are effectively sitting tight in their relatively impenetrable castles with their drawbridges up,the letterboxes screwed up from inside up and the moats flooded with toxic and flesh eating liquids.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Rooster,

I was debating whether to answer your last post or not as you are essentially repeating what you have already posted previously, except you have added a couple of new angles.

I do not believe the caravan manufacturers have a policy of "divide and conquer". The distribution of their ultimate customers is a natural consequence of the caravan market. This is far from a unique situation as most manufacturers of retail goods have the same wide spread customer base.

I do agree, that it seems many of the caravan manufacturers do not invite direct contact with users of their products, and this does perhaps distance them from the realities of the failings of their products.

With regard to recalls, The legal registration of motor vehicles with the DVLA means the current owner of a vehicle is easily established. This drastically simplifies the management of a recall. No such centralised system of current ownership exists for caravans, so there is no way for caravan manufacturers to have the same high level of success that motor vehicle manufactures have on recalls.

Again you make the statement "The apparent underlying cause of this now well documented...." Using the word "documented" implies the issue has been fully investigated and the outcome is accepted as being accurate. I think the history of this and other threads (here and on other forums)on this subject demonstrates the certainty you express about the root cause is not shared by everyone. I have to return to the point that if it was a certainty then all the claims made under SoGA would have succeeded.

Continually repeating the same hypothesis on this forum does not make it more accurate. It needs to be tested and proven by the production of a authoritative and attested report that provides irrefutable evidence of the cause being a design fault, then you have the tools to move forward.

 

[TheTravellingRooster]

Hi Prof John L. I have found through experience of this and other forums that an element of repeating is often a good tactic,in some measure just like the programmes on TV often do.
It is largely for the benefit of those that 'Jump In' part way through without a look at the beginnings of a post. It can and has often avoided having to go through/over something again and get it back into context.

The divide and conquer aspect of the manufacturers attitude towards their products and the buyers/users of those products is inbuilt,it is that way because of the very very 'Closed Shop' attitude of the manufacturers towards the people who are actually the reason why they are producing them anyway.
The regular/normal manner of retailing consumer items does by far offer/facilitate an easier route for recourse and contact,whether directly or indirectly with the manufacturer of the said item/items.

To pick-up on your paragraph copied and pasted below :

"With regard to recalls, The legal registration of motor vehicles with the DVLA means the current owner of a vehicle is easily established. This drastically simplifies the management of a recall. No such centralised system of current ownership exists for caravans, so there is no way for caravan manufacturers to have the same high level of success that motor vehicle manufactures have on recalls".

Whilst there is no legal requirement for the registration of a caravan,yes it would make the whole business of recalls and notifications by the manufacturers a 'Great-deal more Transparent and Inescapable from'
Perhaps that is a Plus Point for the MoT'ing of caravans and trailers and horse-boxes.
NO PAIN,NO GAIN could really apply here.

We do however have The NCC in association with the CRiS registration scheme and surely it should rest with them and in the interests of all concerned, that the manufacturers and dealerships formulate (and dammed quickly) a resolve to the ever increasing and varied issues associated with the production of caravans and the enjoyment of a happy and stressful life of usage that we would like to have in consideration of the investment of our monies in the products.

Having to fight running battles with the manufacturers via the dealerships is not the way to conduct good customer relations with either or both.

Yes,I do again refer to 'The Underlying Cause' and the reference to 'documented' is not intended as an inference to the effect of it having been lodged in a legal sense.
The issue of the cracking,to name but one,is not new,indeed it has been ongoing since early in 2000 and it is a well known issue and has been spoken of a number of times by others (caravan trade people) to me when I have asked about this issue.
The documentation;as such,is the paper trail and cyber-trail that is in the wake of this now rather long running and very worrying issue.
The use of the word/phrase,documented, infers nothing,it does exactly what the word means, it records.
That record can be written down,photographically recorded or videoed and perhaps even recorded with an audio device. In that respect,I have been guilty of all methods except for a video recording of a meeting at the dealership that is now defunct,the one that supplied the 2001 SuperSirocco that I have.

In conclusion,on this occasion. I believe that not all of the complainants on one forum in-particular would have strong cases,this I believe is quite simply because all of the manufacturers T's & C's have not been adhered to,especially in respect of servicing criteria,this immediately is a weakness in their respective 'Walls of Jericho'.

 

[seth1]

Hello TR ive been following this thread with no input but you state the van is 2001.Can i ask when did the fault first raise its ugly head?

 

[otherclive]

There are numerous instances where one purchases a product or service only to find either the supplier or manufactuer has disappeared. The glazing industry are notorious. I cannot see how you can realistically expect any redress on something purchased in 2001. I was reading owner reviews on Land Cruisers and one developed a major fault 11 days out if its 5 year warranty. No support from the supplying/ servicing main dealer nor anything from Toyota. For my car I know that Volvo refer all queries back to the dealership. Outside of warranty I would not expect any support, but any offer that was made would be welcomed.
I think that the vast majority of caravanners enjoy their hobby and whilst it would be nice to see more of the silly quality issues sorted out before delivery, if the industry was as bad as some portray I feel that sales would have suffered and the numbers of people caravanning would be reducing.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Unless any new evidence comes through, I don't think I will be adding to whats already been posted on this thread.

 

[TheTravellingRooster]

Hi to Seth and otherclive. I have stated on a number of occasions,but not necessarily on this forum that I am not expecting any redress of any description in relation to the issue with my 2001 SuperSirocco.
A great many of the On-line caravanner's are on CaravanTalk as well as PCM forum and others. I did not feel it necessary to cover the whole scenario on each and every one. Some are visible with and without a common linking ID and some are anonymous and simply read and make no contribution.
There are a number of factors that influence this. The first is the age,the second is the fact that I am the second owner of this caravan as of July 2010 and the third reason was, the issue was only discovered by me after purchasing the van from a now defunct dealership and spell in storage during a period of an health issue,it appears that the whole of the affected side has had a total re-skin after some NS rear-end damage when out for the first time after purchase by the original owner/owners. I have reason to believe that both skins are affected.
The caravan was taken directly to storage and it was only upon valeting it in the Spring of 2011 that the crack was discovered. I believe that it was very successfully masked out and as a result it was not immediately visible upon first examinations prior to agreeing the purchase.
This original/opening post is not about me & my caravan. Yes, I am very very aggrieved that I have a very much later discovered example of a rather well known issue,an issue that has been ongoing for a very very long time and is an issue that cannot be guaranteed a lasting repair,yes they can be disguised,they can be made to look totally like new but they do not last. The repairs do not last because the underlying cause is still there,the age old,cause and effect.
This issue was supposedly addressed by the manufacturer prior to March 2011,however when questioned about the same issue in relation to another brand from the same stables a while later,it was seemingly dismissed as not being relevant because it was not the same caravan. The inference there being that each and every one of the individual issues,but all involving the same visible damage outcome were not of the same problem.
Even after the supposed 'Fix' there have still been reports of the issue in later examples across the ranges. However, there currently appears to have been a halt to them since a whole new construction method has been adopted,time will tell.
There are nevertheless other issues apparently arising,some of which appear to have coincidental links with older ones.
The reintroduction of an old badge but with the new construction methods and mounted on a totally different chassis is yet to be truly tested out there, in the real world.

 

[mealsonwheels]

Ray, thanks for letting us know about the e-petition, which I've just signed. Pity there are only 127 signatures so far. Lets hope more forum members add their names to it and tell their caravanning friends about it too.

 

[Surfer]

Ray, thanks for letting us know about the e-petition, which I've just signed. Pity there are only 127 signatures so far. Lets hope more forum members add their names to it and tell their caravanning friends about it too.

Only a small percentage of caravanners use forums or are club members so the rest are probably are not aware of any e-petition.

 

[seth1]

Hi Surfer,so after reading your last post what exactly were/are you hopeing for?Quite clearly youve done alot of research into this particular make and model and also its short commings.It begs the question why did you purchase such a caravan with a known history of this type?I do sympathise with you but at 13 years old can you expect any different?If it wasnt a split skin,it would be something else wrong.My attuitude would be to "lets try and repair this ourselves properly" if that ment putting another frame work in place internally,that is what i would do.We are talking about a caravan here not your house with major subsidence,its a drop in the ocean.

 

[Surfer]

Seth TBH I have no idea what you are talking about as we do not own a 13 year old caravan.