Bought a new caravan in March this year. Really pleased with it and have travelled some 3000+miles with it so far. Had a letter from the manufacturer today reminding me when the services are due each year (60 days either side of its birthday). I notice, though, that it states that after the 5th anniversary the warranty is only valid for the 'first owner'. Now had I known that I might not have bought it as the BIG attraction was the 10 year water ingress warranty. (Our last van leaked from new). I doubt I will still have the van that long but thought the 10 year warranty would enhance its resale value. I thought the days of non-transferrable warranties were long goneI. Am I wrong?
When is a warranty not a warranty
- Thread starter Grahamh
- Start date
Damian
Moderator
Not all manufacturers offer transferrable warranties, it is quite clear in the small print of the manufacturer, but hardly anyone reads all the small print.
However, it will not be your problem, as your warranty will continue as long as you own the van, up to the 10 year mark.
We have yet to see what happens with 10 year warranties on water ingress as none of the vans which have it are 10 years old yet.
However, it will not be your problem, as your warranty will continue as long as you own the van, up to the 10 year mark.
We have yet to see what happens with 10 year warranties on water ingress as none of the vans which have it are 10 years old yet.
It's a 5-year fully transferable warranty - with an extension to cover water ingress for a further 5 years which is subject to conditions - it's not unusual on a number of products, not just caravans.
Vauxhall offer a 3-year transferable warranty on their cars with a "Lifetime" non-transferable warranty for the first owner.
Vauxhall offer a 3-year transferable warranty on their cars with a "Lifetime" non-transferable warranty for the first owner.
Hello Grahamh
No manufacture is legally obliged to offer a warranty to the end user so technically it is a gift from the manufacturer to the end user, consequently the manufacturer can put as many terms and conditions as they like into the warranty documents. They can choose whether or not to allow transferable warranties, or whether to allow it on only certain items, and they can set strict timetables for service and inspection, which you have to adhere to if you want the warranty cover to persist.
THe manufacturers warranty can never cancel your statutory rights under the Sale of Goods Act, but those rights are established as a result of your purchase, and they only exist between you and your seller which in the case of a new caravan will be a dealer, or finance house if you have used a credit agreement.
No manufacture is legally obliged to offer a warranty to the end user so technically it is a gift from the manufacturer to the end user, consequently the manufacturer can put as many terms and conditions as they like into the warranty documents. They can choose whether or not to allow transferable warranties, or whether to allow it on only certain items, and they can set strict timetables for service and inspection, which you have to adhere to if you want the warranty cover to persist.
THe manufacturers warranty can never cancel your statutory rights under the Sale of Goods Act, but those rights are established as a result of your purchase, and they only exist between you and your seller which in the case of a new caravan will be a dealer, or finance house if you have used a credit agreement.
ProfJohnL said:
this is at odds with EU diretives.... as a caravan is still goods i wonder if this could be applied to them...example.......
Sounds complicated?For example, the plasma TV you bought five months ago stops working without explanation and you return to the shop you bought it from, expecting a refund. The store manager is reluctant but can find no explanation for the fault. There are no scratches or damage to show it has been dropped, or signs of water damage. Complying with the Sales of Goods Act, he understands without such proof he must refund you money. But were the fault to develop at seven months, he would not need such proof. The TV may show no signs of damage or misuse, but the store manager no longer needs to show there was any. Instead, you must show to him that there was a shoddy component or design fault that caused the problem. In the absence of these things, he is under no obligation to return your money. In reality, most retailers offer returns policies that extend this 6-month period to 12 months. But after that refunds are hard to come by.So how does the EU rule change things?The EU directive in question is 1999/44/EC. The full wording is contained here (open the word documtent and scroll to page 7) but the important bit is this: ‘A two-year guarantee applies for the sale of all consumer goods everywhere in the EU. In some countries, this may be more, and some manufacturers also choose to offer a longer warranty period.’ As with UK law, a seller is not bound by the guarantee ‘if the (fault) has its origin in materials supplied by the consumer’. But the EU rule does not require the buyer to show the fault is inherent in the product and not down to their actions. The EU rule also says buyers need to report a problem within two months of discovering it if they want to be covered under the rule.
How can I use this rule?Reports of cases where shoppers have used the EU rule to get refunds suggest that even senior staff at stores may be unaware of it, so be prepared for some blank faces if you need to use it to argue your case. But eventually, after referring the complaint to legal teams, reports suggest the stores have coughed up. Use this checklist to see if you could try and use the EU rule: • The goods were purchased no longer than two years ago• The store will not provide a refund or repair because you are returning the item after their return period has ended, usually one year• You are reporting the fault within two months of discovering it• The goods show no signs of damage through your actions or misuse.
The best advice is to print off the EU rule and take a copy with you. If staff fail to recognise it, ask them to take your details and report your complaint to their bosses. Take a note of the names of any staff you speak to and explain that you will contact them again soon for a response.
EU Directives and Sale of Goods Act (SoGA) concern themselves with consumers rights, and responsibilities - the relationship is solely between the customer and the selling dealer.
Warranties are over and above the legal requirement, indeed a warranty cannot take away any legal rights, but usually involve the manufacturer.
Warranties have terms and conditions, and are normally the easiest, quickest way of getting faults rectified - or of course you can go down the legal route using SoGA if that fails - small claims court up to £10,000 or full civil court above that.
Warranties are over and above the legal requirement, indeed a warranty cannot take away any legal rights, but usually involve the manufacturer.
Warranties have terms and conditions, and are normally the easiest, quickest way of getting faults rectified - or of course you can go down the legal route using SoGA if that fails - small claims court up to £10,000 or full civil court above that.
Hi Roger..
Its nearly 2 decades since the Bosman ruling [1995] over turned what was deemed normal legal contracts and practices within well any sporting contract that involved the no right to leave without a transfer fee once ones contract had ended.which all makes sense now, one has to imagine how it had never been challenged before.
As yet have not come across anyone using the directive i mention in a court case, but at least i can imagine it happening on something of greater value than say a hair dryer. I can also imagine the knock on effect seller supplier manufacturer, who cares as a buyer you have in effect 2 years protection .really isn't that what we are talking about , regardless of warranty, guarantee,ect ect fundamentally goods are protected for 2 years...now all we need is a mr Bosman to go to the high court for a final ruling effectively stopping Manufacturers getting away with 1 years so called warranty when their good should be good for 2...
Its nearly 2 decades since the Bosman ruling [1995] over turned what was deemed normal legal contracts and practices within well any sporting contract that involved the no right to leave without a transfer fee once ones contract had ended.which all makes sense now, one has to imagine how it had never been challenged before.
As yet have not come across anyone using the directive i mention in a court case, but at least i can imagine it happening on something of greater value than say a hair dryer. I can also imagine the knock on effect seller supplier manufacturer, who cares as a buyer you have in effect 2 years protection .really isn't that what we are talking about , regardless of warranty, guarantee,ect ect fundamentally goods are protected for 2 years...now all we need is a mr Bosman to go to the high court for a final ruling effectively stopping Manufacturers getting away with 1 years so called warranty when their good should be good for 2...
You don't need to use the EU Directive directly (pardon the pun) in court as the Directive is enshrined in the Sale of Goods Act as far as the UK goes.
Any refund should take into account how long the item has given use for before becoming faulty - SoGA can extend to 6 years but it's unreasonable to expect a full refund after 5 years use so repair/compensation would be more appropriate.
Any refund should take into account how long the item has given use for before becoming faulty - SoGA can extend to 6 years but it's unreasonable to expect a full refund after 5 years use so repair/compensation would be more appropriate.
Can we just take a deep breath here please.
SOGA has it's limitations. Even before litigation and small claims courts there are a number of other legal hoops that have to be explored first. Eg contractual issues such as insurance policies will have a complaints procedure that must be followed first. If you ignore this step the Court 's Judge will make you go back.
A number of you on here will know the Avondale case over the last two years.
The Financial Ombudsman service took the view that as the date of discovery was more than six months from purchase, it was two and half years, we could not prove beyond reasonable doubt an inherent latent defect existed at the time of purchase.
The case was rejected.
I agree with Jonny about Europe but we are, at the moment the UK, and the rules are different. Strange that!
I am afraid the poor old punter is still on the back foot and success in an action is never as straight forward, simple or fair as it should be.
SOGA has it's limitations. Even before litigation and small claims courts there are a number of other legal hoops that have to be explored first. Eg contractual issues such as insurance policies will have a complaints procedure that must be followed first. If you ignore this step the Court 's Judge will make you go back.
A number of you on here will know the Avondale case over the last two years.
The Financial Ombudsman service took the view that as the date of discovery was more than six months from purchase, it was two and half years, we could not prove beyond reasonable doubt an inherent latent defect existed at the time of purchase.
The case was rejected.
I agree with Jonny about Europe but we are, at the moment the UK, and the rules are different. Strange that!
I am afraid the poor old punter is still on the back foot and success in an action is never as straight forward, simple or fair as it should be.
Hello Johnny,
The OP,s question was not to do with the EU regulations but about the Manufacturers Warranty/Guarantee which may or may not be transferable in part or whole.
The Manufacturers warranty/guarantee are a gift in addition to your statutory rights (whether its SoGA or EU directives) and as such they still are not a legal obligation on manufacturers to offer them and where they are offered they can never be used to diminish a customer legal rights.
The fact remains that it is up to manufacturer to determine if they will transfer part or all benefits of their warranty to second or subsequent owners of their products. So there is no conflict for UK purchasers between SoGA (Or UE Directives) and the manufacturers warranty/guarantees.
The OP,s question was not to do with the EU regulations but about the Manufacturers Warranty/Guarantee which may or may not be transferable in part or whole.
The Manufacturers warranty/guarantee are a gift in addition to your statutory rights (whether its SoGA or EU directives) and as such they still are not a legal obligation on manufacturers to offer them and where they are offered they can never be used to diminish a customer legal rights.
The fact remains that it is up to manufacturer to determine if they will transfer part or all benefits of their warranty to second or subsequent owners of their products. So there is no conflict for UK purchasers between SoGA (Or UE Directives) and the manufacturers warranty/guarantees.
The Consumer Contracts Regulations Act 2014 became Law a few weeks ago.
Everythingwe knew has been modified for the better.
For example a seller will only get one chance of a repair. If that doesn't work a full rerefund is the next step.
There are a number of consumer orientated remedies now available.
Maybe PAV old do an article spelling out the new legislation and how it will help the caravan buyer.
Everythingwe knew has been modified for the better.
For example a seller will only get one chance of a repair. If that doesn't work a full rerefund is the next step.
There are a number of consumer orientated remedies now available.
Maybe PAV old do an article spelling out the new legislation and how it will help the caravan buyer.
Hello Dusty
Thank you for the heads-up about the Consumer Contracts Regulations Act 2014 as described here.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/310044/bis-13-1368-consumer-contracts-information-cancellation-and-additional-payments-regulations-guidance.pdf
For once this government document is not full of legalese gobbledygook. They will have some minor implications for caravan purchasers.
Essentially the process of buying a new caravan will not change. The right of a consumer to change their mind will not change as it's an "On-Premises" transaction. However there is an enhanced requirement for the seller to provide the information about the customers rights to cancel.
The consumer should also now be provided with details of any other unavoidable charges or costs associated with the supply of goods or services, that may have previously been note overtly obvious, (like charges to use a credit card, or paper statements etc)
And you must be given the option to Opt-In to any additional charges, rather than the Op-Out which currently happens too often with some companies.
The process of raising fault report and the possibility of obtaining redress under consumer legislation remains the same, though the new regulation does place more of a duty on the seller to act promptly.
In the context of this thread concerning manufacturers warranties, such warranties are classed as "an ancillary contract" as you would only take out the warranty contract if you complete the purchase of the caravan.
All documentation concerning the purchase of the caravan, any ancillary contract information (e.g. terms and conditions) must be in a "durable form". meaning it must be retrievable in the form it was originally supplied to the customer.
Specifically After sales calls (Excluding technical help lines) can only be charged at the basic phone call rate, so the trader or business cannot make money by providing this service.
Thank you for the heads-up about the Consumer Contracts Regulations Act 2014 as described here.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/310044/bis-13-1368-consumer-contracts-information-cancellation-and-additional-payments-regulations-guidance.pdf
For once this government document is not full of legalese gobbledygook. They will have some minor implications for caravan purchasers.
Essentially the process of buying a new caravan will not change. The right of a consumer to change their mind will not change as it's an "On-Premises" transaction. However there is an enhanced requirement for the seller to provide the information about the customers rights to cancel.
The consumer should also now be provided with details of any other unavoidable charges or costs associated with the supply of goods or services, that may have previously been note overtly obvious, (like charges to use a credit card, or paper statements etc)
And you must be given the option to Opt-In to any additional charges, rather than the Op-Out which currently happens too often with some companies.
The process of raising fault report and the possibility of obtaining redress under consumer legislation remains the same, though the new regulation does place more of a duty on the seller to act promptly.
In the context of this thread concerning manufacturers warranties, such warranties are classed as "an ancillary contract" as you would only take out the warranty contract if you complete the purchase of the caravan.
All documentation concerning the purchase of the caravan, any ancillary contract information (e.g. terms and conditions) must be in a "durable form". meaning it must be retrievable in the form it was originally supplied to the customer.
Specifically After sales calls (Excluding technical help lines) can only be charged at the basic phone call rate, so the trader or business cannot make money by providing this service.
Thanks for all that John
It will be very interesting to see how the new legislation unfolds and just how many dealers / sellers understand the remedies open to the consumer..
Let's see if PCv will do an article demonstrating how the customer can beat the dealer or manufacturer? ??????? Or. I can dream.
It will be very interesting to see how the new legislation unfolds and just how many dealers / sellers understand the remedies open to the consumer..
Let's see if PCv will do an article demonstrating how the customer can beat the dealer or manufacturer? ??????? Or. I can dream.
Dustydog said:
Iv'e often seen dogs twitch and assumed they wer dreaming of chasing rabbitts
But now I know its dreaming of fair trade Keep dreaming :huh:
Not sure how many know of the Avondale case but if it is the one I am thinking about the problem with that was there was no expert examination of the caravan to establish if the fault existed at the time of purchase. If there had been a report to confirm that then I feel the decision would have gone the other way.
There was simply an examination by the insurers engineer who stopped when he saw there was no accidenta damage covered by the policy and gave a number of reasons why the problem could have occuerd including a manufacturers fault without checking which was correct.
There was an opinion from a well known repairer who had found a common fault due to poor manufacturing procedures by Avondale that suggested this was a manufacturing faulkt but they cruciallyy had not seen the caravan involved. In that case the evidence was just not strong enough for the Ombudsman although my opinion is that he was wrong. It is clear therefore if you go to the Ombudsman you need expert evidence.
Another point was that the caravan had not been serviced regularly which meant the fault might have been picked up earlier when the damage would have been less which might have reduced the value of the claim even if it succeeded.
There was simply an examination by the insurers engineer who stopped when he saw there was no accidenta damage covered by the policy and gave a number of reasons why the problem could have occuerd including a manufacturers fault without checking which was correct.
There was an opinion from a well known repairer who had found a common fault due to poor manufacturing procedures by Avondale that suggested this was a manufacturing faulkt but they cruciallyy had not seen the caravan involved. In that case the evidence was just not strong enough for the Ombudsman although my opinion is that he was wrong. It is clear therefore if you go to the Ombudsman you need expert evidence.
Another point was that the caravan had not been serviced regularly which meant the fault might have been picked up earlier when the damage would have been less which might have reduced the value of the claim even if it succeeded.
Dustydog said:
To be fair the ombudsmen and judge can only work with the information supplied, so I don't think the case was unfairly judged, It simple didn't provide compelling evidence to demonstrate the fault was present at the time of sale, which is one of the primary criteria for a successful claim.
SoGA as i have previously stated is not designed to tip the scales in favour of any party. It is designed to be fair, It's there to set a level playing field, rather than advantaging bigger fund holders.
SoGA as i have previously stated is not designed to tip the scales in favour of any party. It is designed to be fair, It's there to set a level playing field, rather than advantaging bigger fund holders.
The lesson with the Avondale is that once more than six months old the onus of proof falls virtually on the customer.
The Avondale case was interesting.
The Owner didn't have it regularly serviced.
The floor and n/s wall parted company.
It was repaired by an a NCC Approved workshop.
The repair failed with the wall and floor parting company again.
The Insurers Engineer correctly stated there was no accident damage not even caused by a pothole .
He concluded there must have been a defect but couldn't say any more.
The repairer was adamant that Avondale had used too short screws and not fastened them into the timber section of the floor. They went into the polystyrene.
The Ombudsman was not convinced we had an inherent latent defect so the case failed.
Litigation could have been used but realistically you have to say no more.
The lesson here is get your new caravan serviced regularly as per the manufacture's requirements.
Just because the manufacturer ceases trading do not ignore servicing.
There seems to be a lack of independent caravan expert engineers who are prepared to be expert witnesses in Court.
Even the insurers engineer was primarily a motor vehicle engineer not a caravan engineer .
The new Law will go a long way to help but realistically the older your caravan the harder if not impossible it becomes to prove an inherent latent defect existed at the time of manufacture.
I will say a number of the forumites on here gave up their time to review all the papers and gave valuable suggestions.
Many thanks to all of you.
The Avondale case was interesting.
The Owner didn't have it regularly serviced.
The floor and n/s wall parted company.
It was repaired by an a NCC Approved workshop.
The repair failed with the wall and floor parting company again.
The Insurers Engineer correctly stated there was no accident damage not even caused by a pothole .
He concluded there must have been a defect but couldn't say any more.
The repairer was adamant that Avondale had used too short screws and not fastened them into the timber section of the floor. They went into the polystyrene.
The Ombudsman was not convinced we had an inherent latent defect so the case failed.
Litigation could have been used but realistically you have to say no more.
The lesson here is get your new caravan serviced regularly as per the manufacture's requirements.
Just because the manufacturer ceases trading do not ignore servicing.
There seems to be a lack of independent caravan expert engineers who are prepared to be expert witnesses in Court.
Even the insurers engineer was primarily a motor vehicle engineer not a caravan engineer .
The new Law will go a long way to help but realistically the older your caravan the harder if not impossible it becomes to prove an inherent latent defect existed at the time of manufacture.
I will say a number of the forumites on here gave up their time to review all the papers and gave valuable suggestions.
Many thanks to all of you.
Dustydog said:
Hello Dusty,
I seriously don't think the new legislation would have made any difference to the outcome of the Avondale case. The process of how to complain hasn't fundamentally changed nor has the duty on each party in respect of the burden to prove their case, or the time scales for the changes in responsibility.
What the new regulation does is to clarify the sellers responsibilities surrounding the documentation and notices supplied and the duty of the seller to respond when issues do arise.
ProfJohnL said:
Fully agree John
As I said before there were too many uncharted issues that scuppered the Avondale case and the situation today will remain the same.
However as far I can see from the new Legislation there is a tightening up on a number of factors
to the buyers advantage.
eg I think it limits the number of attempts a dealer manufacturer can have in remedying a fault before total rejection of the product becomes mandatory.
Of course practice will show how good the Law is.
It seems it still gets harder to "win" if the product is more than six months old. That's a shame.
Perhaps PCv could do an article explaing how the buyer can use the new Law to protect themseleves :huh: :huh:
But will they want to upset the caravan industry??.
No doubt Which? Mag will do something soon.
Very interesting debate and thanks to everyone who has gone to the trouble of contributing..
In addition to the matter of physical repairs and ouright rejection, there is also a provision in SOGA for compensation and/or partial refund for something which has caused incinvenience to the purchser or diminution of asset value e.g. That the trade-in value of a heavily repaired van will be less than that of a non repaired van of the same age and condition.
This is proving very difficult in my case. For medical reasons I had to curtail my own activity and sought legal advice, initially through CAB. They advised me to use the Law Society Find a Solicitor service on their website, using the category Consumer Matters as the search. This produced a list of 6 or 7 companies in my area. I then emailrd a brief account of my problem to all but one (and phoned the other). After a month I have had only one reply although None has shown as not delivered. The reply was a standard 'not interested' from an assistant. In Two I followed by telephone and was assured the matter was being attended to.
Not even the courtesy of an acknowledgement.
So don't rely on professional advice being easy to obtain even if you are prepared to pay for it.
In addition to the matter of physical repairs and ouright rejection, there is also a provision in SOGA for compensation and/or partial refund for something which has caused incinvenience to the purchser or diminution of asset value e.g. That the trade-in value of a heavily repaired van will be less than that of a non repaired van of the same age and condition.
This is proving very difficult in my case. For medical reasons I had to curtail my own activity and sought legal advice, initially through CAB. They advised me to use the Law Society Find a Solicitor service on their website, using the category Consumer Matters as the search. This produced a list of 6 or 7 companies in my area. I then emailrd a brief account of my problem to all but one (and phoned the other). After a month I have had only one reply although None has shown as not delivered. The reply was a standard 'not interested' from an assistant. In Two I followed by telephone and was assured the matter was being attended to.
Not even the courtesy of an acknowledgement.
So don't rely on professional advice being easy to obtain even if you are prepared to pay for it.
Facebook
Twitter