My rights under Consumer Rights Act 2015
I am trying to find out if I am able to reject a new caravan that recently went in for a warranty repair to fix an internal water leak. I have read other posts on other sites where if I have read it correctly, I may be in a position to reject. The circumstances are:
We took delivery of our new Elddis Avante 550 Caravan in late July 2017. Whilst away on a trip in late August we became aware of water running across the floor. I found the water to be coming from the water inlet pipe where it enters a t piece and then runs off to the kitchen sink.
The van went back to the dealer for the leak to be repaired along with a couple of other warranty repairs. Apparently they simply cut away the end of the pipe which was damaged and then reconnected to the t piece.
We collected the van approx 3 weeks ago and went away this weekend for a 2 night trip. This was the first trip since the repair to the leak was carried out.
When setting up the van we connected the water barrel to the pump and then opened the taps to prime the system. No water came out of the tap but I then became aware that the floor of the van was covered in water. By covered, I mean water everywhere. I quickly noticed that the water was leaking, well I should say spraying out like a sprinkler at the same point the dealer carried out the initial repair. So the extent of the leak was worse after the so called repair.
We quickly turned of water supply, pump and electrics as the water had sprayed over all the main electrics. We did our best to mop up what we could but to put it into context we have 2 large soaked bath towels and a large blanket/throw. This was the water we were able to soak up.
Water has run along at least half of the floor surface of the van including under front locker, both front seats and under fridge, cooker and across the other side of the van to the van wall and into the bathroom.
My reason for considering a reject is two fold. Firstly repair not completed first time and secondly is the potential damage to the van not only now but more likely in the future when the woodwork which has come into contact with water swells etc due to water damage. I am pretty certain that water will have gone under the floor lino so there is likely to be water in between the lino and wooden floor.To do this properly I think the dealer will need to to take a fair bit of the van furniture apart to capture and dry all the leakage. This will take time.
For anyone who is aware of the Elddis range they will know that the van is built with the SOLID construction system, so it should be water tight. That should stop water getting into the van. Worryingly I saw water running out from under the van which was clearly the internal leak finding its way out through the so called bonding and sealing? The SOLID construction should make it water tight so this is another potential flaw?
I am trying to read the Consumer Rights Act of 2015 myself but would welcome any help in interpreting this and what my rights might be. I don't necessarily want a refund. I would like a new van that has not been internally drenched in water after a first attempt repair by the dealer, which is likely to present further problems in the future.
Thanks
Quick Reply Thanks 0 Edit Post
Comments
-
As comeyras, says I suggest that you get legal advice. Obviously your confidence is shattered.
To be honest though, the actual fault , seems quite minor. Often they are Speedfit type fittings which are very reliable if done correctly. The fact that the dealer hasn’t seemed to test the repair, is appalling. There tend to be lots of holes in a caravan floor, such as drop points, and holes for piping and wiring are you sure that the water wasn’t escaping through one of these points?
0 -
Bought Elddis Avante in 2009 and whilst checking it out at home before first trip out had exactly same water leak. It was visually apparent that a section of pipe was too short and would.never seal properly in a speedfit joint. Knowing how and having longer section of pipe and joint available I fixed it myself but still rang dealer to complain about poor PDI and for him to log leak in case of future issues with floor. Probably a mistake with hindsight as dealer went into liquidation a few months later and by the time we traded in the caravan the body had been 90% resealed due to water ingress. However floor never a problem! Suggest you do others say and take legal advice.
0 -
For anyone who is aware of the Elddis range they will know that the van is built with the SOLID construction system, so it should be water tight. That should stop water getting into the van. Worryingly I saw water running out from under the van which was clearly the internal leak finding its way out through the so called bonding and sealing? The SOLID construction should make it water tight so this is another potential flaw?
The water will find its way out through various gas drop holes etc and run on the underside of the floor and along chassis etc. I doubt any serious damage
0 -
Reject it, take legal advice to be sure of your rights. I’m convinced if you fix it yourself there will be a clause somewhere that may negate your warranty. I’d never have confidence that the fitters & dealer who has given you such appalling service would ever do a good job in the future.
0 -
You might find this link useful, Dex.
Don't forget that the club has access to legal people who can help you.
0 -
I am not sure that the SOLID Construction is any better at sealing against water ingress. When I asked at the show they implied that if water did get in it didn’t matter because there was no wood to rot.
0 -
I can understand the OP being hacked off but in itself the fault isn’t major, the consequences may be if furniture and fittings became saturated, but I suspect that is unlikely. I would guess the ‘lino’ is bonded to the floor and the leaking out will be through various service and vent holes. I agree for the dealer not to have checked the repair is simply unacceptable, there is no other polite word for it and I would be playing merry hell all the way to the top of the company (supplying dealer) until an acceptable apology and compensation was forthcoming. I would also name and shame the dealers.
0 -
I also have had a leaking inlet on a purchased new caravan
I have recently had need to investigate my rights and have found that under the consumer rights act
On the first failure
The first and only contact is the person or dealer you have bought from.
Secondly the Dealer has to be given the opportunity to correct the fault and repair all areas affected as a consequence of the fault.
If however the fault re-occurs then under law you have the right to redress.
Only if you believe the dealer is not capable or that it has gone out of business can you approach and expect a adequate response from the Manufacturer.
My issue is that the fault I had Is not new to the industry and dealers , because they the manufacturers have not taken action or put out warnings etc they compounded the problems.
Caravans and now Motorhome are a major investment and it is about time that we the consumer should collectively voice through a central forum such as the club in a form that graphically shows the typically faults and qty of claims by manufacturers showing who is improving or not.
More importantly new buyers would be aware of these and could put them into conditions of purchase there by adding a powerfull Contract law to their bow
0 -
"Secondly the Dealer has to be given the opportunity to correct the fault and repair all areas affected as a consequence of the fault."
See the link in my earlier post. The one (only) opportunity to repair applies after you have had the item more than 30 days. Less than 30 days, it can be summarily rejected.
You would indeed think a 'club' should be protecting the interests of its members, Roystan, rather than looking after its advertisers. I fear it will never happen.
0 -
Thanks. Very useful
0 -
I emailed the retailer last night raising complaint and asking how they would put right and give assurance that any future problems linked to this leak will be put right. Having read up on my rights under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, I followed this up this morning with a further up e mail informing retailer that I don't want a repair but that I was exercising my right to reject. I am aware that both e mails have been received and read (joys of read receipts). I have received an e mail back today from the after sales manager offering a sincere apology and offering a repair if I would allow them to carry out a repair. They have offered to repair, full damp test and valet inside and out and deliver van to me rather than cause any further disruption to me, the damp test intended to give peace of mind. Although I have had no formal response to my letter notifying them that I was rejecting the van, I would suggest that the request to allow them to complete a repair may reinforce that they accept that I have the opportunity to reject at this stage.However this is where I now have some options to consider. Push for the reject and deal with any counter challenge and the associated cost of claiming money back through small claims which I believe will cost me a minimum of 5% of claim amount and then argue the toss with retailer of removing the motor mover. I guess they could argue that if they refund they have met their obligation and expect me to pay for any additional work, or I go for the repair but ask for written assurance that any future problems linked to water escape are put right. I bought the van at a sale price which was 3 K less than a new replacement van. My gut feeling is that the retailer will try and refund rather than replace as it may work out a few K cheaper for them? Not sure that the retailer is making a huge effort to encourage me to go with repair. I think what they have offered is probably the minimum they can get away within the circumstances. I will await the response from retailer re notification to reject and sleep on next step for a couple of days.
0 -
I had an internal leak in a locker. No damage done and I was unconcerned despite water dripping from under the caravan. I suspect that you may be the same but do inspect furnishings carefully. So for me I would let them repair but I would want some recompense. However I would want to use my caravan mid December and I would not get a new replacement earlier probably.
A nice paint seal would probably be appreciated along with carpet treatment. Or even a free service next year as an apology.
0 -
Thanks for the update, Dex. I think you’ve rattled them.
My first instinct is to reject but it depends how you feel about this particular van, whether you can face the possible hassle, and whether you think another bought elsewhere would serve you better.
We recently considered the same options (which is the reason I had that link) and, although the option is still on the table, we decided we were basically happy with the van and prepared to keep it if the faults were rectified properly and it looks as if they have been. The thought of buying another van a further 100 miles away and it very likely having the same build quality issues was a major factor in our decision, so far, to keep it.
Good luck.
0 -
There are no end of posts asking if a van can be rejected, very very few where this has been achieved. The best bet is in a simple case aim for a satisfactory repair. As previous posts the water will have been unlikely to cause any serious damage its persistent damp from a leak which is the fatal blow. The water is most likely to have drained out through a floor vent.
0 -
I have had some time to ponder on where I go next. I was batting around in my head reject or repair and there are arguments in both for me. However there is a side which says defiantly go for reject first and foremost because the CRA says I can. I also feel quite strong that until our caravan manufacturers stop churning out vans with faults and simply leaving it to the retailers and buyers to find faults, they wont attempt and get their house in order. I don't think there is any greater motivation than customers rejecting goods and then the manufacturer or retailer having to pick up the tab. Only a matter of time before they take a good look at themselves
However I am a little confused as I am now not sure if the act applies. I explain as follows:
I believe the act states that I have to allow the retailer to repair the fault, which I have done. I believe it then states that I only need to allow a one off repair and if a further fault appears I can reject . Where my confusion now arises is the following comment which I picked up from Which, which states
After the first 30 days
If you're outside the 30-day right to reject, you have to give the retailer one opportunity to repair or replace any goods or digital content which are of unsatisfactory quality, unfit for purpose or not as described.
You can choose whether you want the goods to be repaired or replaced.
But the retailer can refuse if they can show that your choice is disproportionately expensive compared with the alternative.
So I am now confused in view of the comment regarding the retailer being in a position to refuse. I would argue that in the majority of cases the cost of replacement will almost always be disproportionate to the repair. Certainly with something like a caravan or car, this is likely to be the case?
I will have to follow the advice from other of speaking to a legal expert
0 -
No first hand experience, but a close relative has recently successfully rejected a new 2017 van due to a number of faults, but initially a water leak. Some of what might be key points in his experience and possibly in that of others:
1. He made an in writing request immediately on finding the initial leak for a replacement van, even though he subsequently accepted a repair.
2. Although the leak seems to have been successfully repaired, it was successive repair failures on other issues which have also contributed.
3. He paid a small deposit on the initial purchase by credit card. Advice is that article 75 of credit card regulations means the card company are part of the contract of sale, even though only a deposit was paid. They have thus been supportive of his case.
4. Advice from the two main caravan clubs was not wholly consistent.
5. He has a full audit trail of dated email exchanges between himself and the retailer.
0 -
I’m not qualified to advise you on the nuts and bolts of the process, Dex, but I suggest you firstly contact the club’s legal service, or the CAB, for advice and take it from there.
0 -
I wrote to the retailer earlier this week to reject the van in line with my rights under the Consumer Rights Act, although granted the repair to put the fault right is in itself quite small. However the act allows me to reject if a first attempt at repair has failed. In fact the fault after the first repair is worse and has left significant amount of water running across the whole width of van from the leak.
Went back to retailer this morning to remove all my personal possessions from van and from what I saw of the van today, I have no qualms about my decision to reject.
Retailer has tried to wipe up last bits of water that we couldn't but when I lifted up the opposite seat to the faulty side, water still under the seating across the floor. I also did a small area damp test and the woodwork around the leak area is reading about 28% on side wall and the floor beneath the lino is bouncing between 34% and 38%, so any thoughts that the floor should be OK if the lino was bonded clearly is not the case.
This is a van that is less than 4 months from delivery date and under no circumstances should a new caravan present with such a bad fault. It does not take a rocket scientist to recognise potential damage and disruption caused by water leaking so I would expect that as a minimum the manufacturers would check plumbing prior to dispatch and for the retailers to do a final check to ensure that the plumbing was intact.
Not loosing sight of the fact that I am simply applying my rights under the CRA, I also believe that unless more customers apply their rights, the manufacturers and dealers will continue to churn out faulty vans with no quality check or PDI as was the case with ours. The more people that reject, the sooner they will get their house in order.I was gobsmacked by the amount of vans I saw today waiting for warranty repairs, some quite significant. The work cards in the caravan windows painted a sorry picture and on so many new vans.It is about time the industry sorted their quality out with less reliance on the dealer or customer finding the faults.
4 -
"Not loosing sight of the fact that I am simply applying my rights under the CRA, I also believe that unless more customers apply their rights, the manufacturers and dealers will continue to churn out faulty vans with no quality check or PDI as was the case with ours. The more people that reject, the sooner they will get their house in order."
So right.
1 -
Let us know how you get on, Dex. It’ll be interesting and possibly of use to others.
0 -
No IFS or BUTS, Dexterlevi, my first & I do mean FIRST, port of call would be the Clubs Legal team !!
Then take their advice & act upon it -- Other members going that route over the years have been happy with their advice, indeed I cannot recall anybody coming on here & saying other than good things !!.
0 -
As a few people have asked for updates on how I get on, I have a new van on order which will be delivered in Feb 2018. The retailer accepted the rejection and offered full refund or replacement van. When we bought the van we got it at approx 3k below rrp so any refund would have left us the 3k short against the same van if we chose to order elsewhere. We like the van and its layout so wanted the same van model albeit a new one. So we are getting a 2018 Elddis Avante 550 with a dealers spec which includes external barbecue point, additional locker and external power point. I have to give credit where due, retailer was quick to accept the rejection. Whilst they had little choice under the CRA, they did it without fuss or delay. The same cant be said for the manufacturer. The dealer contacted the manufacturer when we rejected and I believe their response was to repair the van. Thank god that the contract was with the dealer and not Elddis. Beggars belief that the manufacturer thinks it acceptable to make do with a repair of a van that is still currently drying out and reading around 38% damp and only 4 months old from new. Ultimately they were responsible for the initial leak as it is them who churned out the van with the fault. I guess the dealer will make good the fault and put the van back on the forecourt as a one owner model. I did ask both the dealer and Elddis to provide some complimentary upgrades to the new van in the form of an omnivent fan and anti theft alarm. I thought this was a small ask to recognise the disruption and upset caused and this would have cost them no more than a couple of hundred quid. Would have gone a long way to repair reputation for poor service and disruption but neither dealer or Elddis would entertain the thought. I guess there's your answer as to how serious they really do demonstrate that they care about their customers (or not). Anyway putting that aside looking forward to delivery of our new van in the next 6 weeks or so. Some praise for the dealer for putting things write but IMHO poor response from manufacturer. Interestingly the manufacturer did private message me via another forum and for brief time I thought they were genuinely keen to help, but with hindsight I think they only got in touch because I had posted a negative thread on another forum.
1 -
Dexter, did you continue to engage with the manufacturer on the other forum to point out their failings & negative attitude to customer satisfaction & indeed their commitment in law? On an open forum it would be an alert to future customers.
0 -
I think I have responded on other forum but I will check and if not add a further response.
0 -
Not sure that I have any legal rights against the manufacturer as my contract was with the dealer. The dealer has the contract with the manufacturer but in this case because the dealer failed to repair properly at first repair they are left holding the baby as such. I just thought that the dealer and/or the manufacturer would have embraced the opportunity to make a token gesture to reflect the disruption and upset caused by their poor service. When you consider how little it would have cost them, I naively thought they would go for it. But there you go, they clearly have no problem with the damaged reputation or the negative threads on these types of forum. The pen is mightier than the sword, as they say.
0
