Brian Kirby

"The belt was changed at Vanworld. It subsequently failed (rather a long time after) on the road, and was no doubt (being undriveable) recovered to the nearest FP garage for diagnosis." Yes, on reflection that seems the most logical conclusion. However, at his annual mileages, that "rather a long time after" seems likely to have been in the region of 4 months! Other peoples lives, eh! 🙂

Thanks for the correction re Stoneacre's/Vanworld's workshop status. That makes rolopolo's statement even more puzzling! It now seems he hadn't quite understood who the real Fiat Professional dealer/workshop was, or quite who was repairing what under whose instructions or why - saving that the new cambelt hadn't been up to the job. However, I don't think the issue of whether to turn to a manufacturer's designated workshop, or an independent, for servicing while the vehicle is within warranty is any clearer for the average owner with limited mechanical knowledge. On the question of the correct oil being used, once the oil is in the engine the owner hasn't much scope for challenging whether or not it (or a cambelt or whatever) was to the manufacturer's specification. Whoever is employed, one can only trust that the workshop will do its job properly with the correct materials, and will only find out if the workmanship or materials were of poor quality if something goes wrong. If that happens and poor workmanship or unapproved materials were the cause, and if the workshop was manufacturer approved, the manufacturer should intervene on one's behalf against the workshop. Against an independent, I would be surprised if any such support would be forthcoming. So, on that basis I'd prefer to be able to involve the manufacturer on my behalf against his own designated workshop, than to have to take an independent workshop to court at my own expense to prove that his work or materials were the cause of a fault. We've had both Ford and Fiat based vehicles over the years, and on a few occasions have experienced issues that prompted me to turn to the manufacturer for assistance. My experience has been that they intervened constructively, correctly identifying the underlying cause of the problem, and dealing with the workshop to resolve it even, in one case, by contributing a part f.o.c well after the warranty had expired. With service intervals at two years the annual servicing costs are not that high and, to me, the manufacturer's contributions have been worth any added cost the use of approved workshops might have entailed. But then. whereas I used to fiddle extensively with my own cars the advent of automotive electronics brought that to a stop and the days of re-setting the timing, or re-tuning twin SUs, etc. for better performance, are in the past. Today's vehicles are basically computers with wheels and give no clues as to what is going on, or how to fix it! 😄 So, to the franchised dealership I now go. 🙄

That's not quite how I read rolopolo, John. 🙂 He said "However it’s worth noting that Stoneacre fitted a Non genuine belt, unbeknown to me, which wasn’t as well made or same size (width, thickness, no Kevlar reinforcement) and they had to pay the local fiat dealer for the repair (my underline) That reads to me as though, despite (apparently) claiming to be a Fiat authorised repairer by attaching a Fiat logo to their "Vanworld" website, when the poo went into the fan they had to take the van to "the local fiat dealer" - which apparently wasn't Vanworld. I'm wondering whether Stoneacre's workshop may be a Fiat authorised repairer, but not a Fiat Professional (i.e. commercial vehicles) authorised repairer, and simply over reached. However, it seems that Vanworld eventually forked out for the proper repair after they'd messed up. Whether it would have been quite so easily resolved if the duff timing belt had wrecked the rolopolo's engine, resulting in a bill for several thousand pounds, is another matter. It is worth noting that manufacturers warranties are non contractual, cannot be enforced through the courts, and cover only matters that are stated in the warranty to be covered, and only under the conditions and to the extent that the warranty states apply. No more, no less. The manufacturer is within their warranty rights to walk away if they (and no-one else) deem a fault to be due to a failure of the vehicle owner to observe the warranty conditions in full. In rolopolo's case, he would have had a right to legal redress through the courts against Vanworld for using an inferior part, but rolopolo would have had to prove that the part was inferior to the court. To do that he would have had to engage the services of a bona fide Fiat Commercial workshop (or an independent automotive engineer) at his own expense to establish the actual cause of the fault and present their findings to the court (and add his costs to his claim against Vanworld). It seems Vanworld realised that, and decided to pay the authorised garage to do the job properly instead of arguing. Whether or not folk wish to use franchised workshops for work on vehicles which are under warranty is for them to decide, but they do need to understand the risks if they decide against and, if they are wise, to know the quality of the work and materials the independent workshop will employ. Some independents will be superior to some franchised workshops, some not. If a franchised workshop cocks up, at least you have recourse to the manufacturer to investigate and intervene where necessary; OTOH, if an independent cocks up, the manufacturer is hardly likely to be sympathetic and will almost certainly charge handsomely for their time, even if they agree to become involved. In the end, it's all down to Dirty Harry: "Are you feeling lucky, Punk?" 😄

But, it will to an extent depend on how long the un-treated water will then stand in the tank. Our vans have all had fresh water tanks of approx. 100L capacity. We always started our trips with the tank full, and re-filled when 50% empty. We found that 50L fresh water usually lasted us in the region of two weeks. We almost invariably stayed on camp sites and used site facilities for cooking, washing, and washing-up. Most water purification products are chlorine based (including tap water) and, with a ventilated tank, the chlorine slowly leaches from the water gradually reducing its concentration. This can (and on occasion did!) lead to odd niffs from the water, and some algal deposits within the tank. We discovered two products, both made by Elsan, that eliminated this problem. First is a product called Fresh Water Tank Cleaner. This is a chlorine free tank steriliser that is dosed into the tank before each trip. The tank and pipework first need to be flushed through, then the tank filled, dosed with the purifier, the taps opened long enough to draw the solution through the pipes, and then left 24 hours and drained thoroughly, and finally flushed through with clean water. Then the tank is re-filled with fresh drinking water and the second Elsan product, Elsil dosed in. This product is formulated to maintain the water in a safely drinkable state for several weeks. It is a silver and hydrogen peroxide based additive that prevents algae and other organisms developing in the water. All I can add is that on the evidence of our own experience it works, and maintained odourless and taint free water over European trips lasting up to 90 or so days, re-dosing at the prescribed rate as and when we replenished the tank from 50% empty, over the course of at least 15 years. The point about avoiding chlorine based water purification products is that they attack most grades of stainless steel, and most motorhomes have stainless steel sinks in which water drops tend to persist. So, yer water stays drinkable, yer get no nasty tummy bugs, and yer sink doesn't develop mystery holes. What's not to like? 😄

Thanks Keith. Interesting - but apparently not available for Topper's van. However, if he were to ask?? 😉

In addition to Derek's point above, there are three other things that may be worth clarifying. First, your intended use of your new van. Do you envisage mainly short-term use (weekend breaks, two/three week holidays, possibly relatively frequently) or longer term, possibly Continental, use when you will be away for 1, 2, possibly more, months at a time (as allowed by Schengen etc. limits). Also, do you envisage your use being more or less year round, or concentrated at certain times of year. Plus, would these involve mainly camp sites, or will you be using the van mainly "off-grid". Second, what type of cooking facility does the van provide? I.e. just a hob, or hob + oven? Third, what type of fridge (freezer?) is offered? I.e. compressor, or "three way". I ask, because, the decision regarding diesel heating (using fuel from the van's fuel tank) or gas heating (via an underslung gas tank) bears on more than just heating alone. For instance, with gas, the supply will also fuel a "three way" fridge and a normal gas fired hob/oven. So, one fuel supplies all "life support" requirements. In addition, with a mains electrical supply (which mitigates in favour of campsites with EHU) you will also get some electrical heating availability (possibly augmented by gas in more severe conditions) plus your fridge will happily run on mains electricity. This, in turn, means much reduced gas consumption and so less frequent need for "top-ups", as your main gas demand will be for cooking. However, if the fridge on offer is compressor type you will probably need to augment the habitation battery capacity, which may become problematic in conjunction with diesel heating and so, if intending to use the van extensively off grid and year round, the ability to house and charge the augmented battery bank needs careful consideration. I'm unaware of diesel fuelled hobs/ovens (they may exist, that is just a limitation of my knowledge 🙂), so I assume cooking appliances will still require gas to be carried. Equally, I'm unaware of diesel fuelled fridges (ditto above 🙂), so if off-grid, you will either require gas on board or a compressor fridge with further enhanced leisure battery capacity (see above). I believe some mains electric cookers/hobs are available for motorhome/caravan use, but all rely on a 230V supply (I doubt cooking off-grid on a mains cooker via an inverter would be practical - but even so the issue of accommodating and charging the requisite battery bank, as above for fridges, arises). It seems that "autogas" demand is gradually diminishing, and that the economics for fuel stations of maintaining their autogas installations is resulting in their abandonment or removal. It also seems this is destined to continue to the extent that they will, eventually, disappear. OTOH, cylinder gas supplies seem somewhat more secure, especially in remoter rural areas (perhaps more in mainland Europe than UK) where the smaller cylinders (13kg and below) fuel many domestic cookers. So, a van with an underslung gas tank may be more vulnerable to fuelling difficulties than one in which the gas comes from cylinders. In short. there is no "ideal" solution. What one has to seek is the "least worst" compromise that suits one's intended pattern of use. So if intending to use the van mainly on camp sites, mainly between, say May and October, when there is little foreseeable demand for heating, and especially if intending to head South in Europe, I'd (caveat as above! 🙂) be inclined to go for a van with gas/electric heating via exchange cylinders in preference to a fixed tank, gas cooking appliances, and a "three way" fridge. OTOH, at the opposite extreme, if intending to go, and stay, off-grid as much as possible, in cold weather, I think one really needs a bespoke van with a high capacity battery bank, a compressor fridge, enhanced battery charging via a higher output alternator as well as solar charging, probably diesel fuelled heating, and a limited cylinder gas capacity reserved just for cooking. Most of us will be somewhere between the extremes, and getting the optimal balance between availability of mains electrical supply, availability of gas, balance of domestic appliance energy requirements, and overall costs, is very difficult to get achieve. It requires balancing the "must haves" with the "nice to haves" without landing one's self with a huge bill and a load of "stuff" one never seems to use! What I'm really saying is that, to me, the pros and cons of the choice of one or other type of heating fuel seems to be have acquired too high a priority - unless you specifically intend using your van extensively off-grid and in colder areas/seasons. Under our present uncertain energy supply circumstances I think I'd look for a van that offers the greatest flexibility and future adaptability in terms of energy sources, which I think points to either diesel or cylinder gas for heating, as the continuing availability of autogas seems most in doubt. After all, if you can't get diesel - unless your van will be an "E" van - you won't be driving very far in any case, so cylinder gas seems the least worst choice. Which is a shame, because it seems the one option that is not available for your preferred van. But maybe seeking a solution to that conundrum is what prompted your original question. I hesitate to ask, but have you considered any alternative vans?

Well, there's (sort of!!! 🙂) lucky, Jeremy. It could so easily have been much worse! A very timely warning re having belts replaced regularly. I gather low mileage is a greater enemy than high mileages where belts are concerned, so your Benimar's average of only 2,800 odd MPA may have had a hand in that. I gather the belts "set" when static, and become a bit brittle when asked to bend where straight, and straighten when bent. I wonder if replacing belts earlier than scheduled where below average mileages are concerned might be a wise precaution? Be interesting to hear others' views on that.

"Best", I can't say. We had an Exsis-i 578 between from 2013 to 2017, during which time we had to have the windscreen replaced on three occasions (not due to defective screens, but due to the vertical alignment of the windscreen, and its forward position, which combine to "catch" flying stones etc. On each occasion the replacement was provided via Autoglass, who were reliable, efficient, neat, and did a good, fuss-free, job. The Exsis-i screens are relatively large, so the team who turned up to replace them were not the regular car screen replacement guys, and were familiar with inserting larger screens into vehicles such as buses and coaches. The Exis-i screens are purpose designed for those vehicles, which are not produced in high-volumes by motor industry standards, so seem unlikely to be "patterned" copies. I didn't check for maker's marks etc. but all three were visually identical to the original so far as tint was concerned, and were apparently problem-free to fit. Hope this helps.

Vehicles are detected on CCTV cameras with ANPR capability. If the TfL checker shows your vehicle compliant for the ulez, then the ANPR cameras should recognise your vehicle as compliant, and it can be driven within the ulez area without triggering a penalty. The check is vehicle specific, and not all 2016 registered vehicles will be compliant, just as some later vehicles may be non compliant. I'm not clear how you've checked your vehicle's compliance as you refer above to "the government website" but the London ulez is a Greater London Authority (under the Mayor of London) initiative and is administered by Transport for London. The correct website for checking compliance with the London ulez is here: https://tinyurl.com/y4ts2yaz

Agreed. I always got ours serviced by a main agent - or a Fiat authorised repairer (identifiable via the Fiat UK website), who would also carry out any recall work etc. - which independents are unlikely to be able to do. The garage we used for several years was actually a DAF HGV dealership who were also Fiat authorised repairers and, unlike Robinhood's experience, did use Selenia oils and greases (I know this because not only did the invoice say so, but they invariable left the part empty can of the appropriate grade of Selenia fully synthetic engine oil in the van after servicing! 🙂). These vans are already costly, and it seems wisest to ensure that all the warranties are maintained in force for their full duration, rather than risking at the least an argument over whether the warranty conditions have been met, and at worst a possibly substantial bill for repair that would otherwise have been FoC under the warranty.

Well spotted Keith! Also, it seems (although Chausson apparently to want to keep it a secret? 🙂) that the 660 is on the LWB chassis which, I seem to remember, is only available Maxi load rated (in this case clearly downplated to 3.500KG MAM). Also, if I remember, Maxi versions come with larger wheel hubs and brake discs, and so wheel bolt centres that differ from the lighter chassis. The clue should be in the VIN plate, which should show individual axle loads of 2,100kg front and 2.400kg rear (compared to 1,850kg front and 2,000kg rear for the "light" chassis). If that is correct, the hidden advantages are the the Maxi chassis rides, brakes, and handles better that the light plus, if Lojo1971 finds the payload a bit light, and is prepared to possibly upgrade his driving licence to allow him to drive vehicles heavier that 3,500kg MAM, the greater axle loads of the Maxi chassis will accommodate this as all that would be required would be a paper exercise. Win, win? 🙂

I'd suggest asking the selling dealer. It may be that Chausson have decided to put "posher" wheels on the automatic. It may have been an assembly fault (ran out of the plain black ones, etc.), or something you didn't spot that came with an options "pack". If the wheels really offend you, why not ask the dealer if he'd kindly swap them with a van that has the plain black version fitted? You never know 🙂 If they will, just check that the tyres are similar or, if your van has a spare, the original spare has a suitable tyre to fit alongside the swapped tyres.

This strongly suggests that Alan's van is, in fact, a 2022 model or that, if a 2023 model, the hab door central locking function was omitted during production. It is not entirely clear from Alan's posts whether he was expecting the hab. door to lock with the cab doors, which suggests he may have been unaware at the time of buying of this difference between the 2022 and 2023 model year vans. If the van was clearly sold to Alan as a 2023 model (as opposed to merely having first been registered/bought in 2023) then it seems Brendan's advice to refer the omission to Marquis, smile sweetly, point to the Features sheet, and ask them if they can demonstrate how to engage it, as he can't! 🙂 Then, having had the defect demonstrated to them, if Marquis can't activate the hab door locking either, and assuming they sold Alan the van as a 2023 when it was, in fact a 2022, they should either bring the locking up to 2023 spec at their expense, or reimburse Alan the difference in cost (if any) between the 2023 model which includes central locking to the hab door, and the 2022 model which omits it. Of course, it may just be that the door is equipped with the appropriate lock, but a critical connection has come adrift or was never made, or a critical fuse somewhere has blown, or it's omission is a production error and the locking isn't to 2023 spec, in all of which cases Marquis should remedy FoC. OTOH, if the van is a 2022 which was "sold as seen" from Marquis' forecourt, and Alan's expectations re. hab door locking are misplaced, as Brendan says, better to see what Marquis can offer to bring it to 2023 locking spec, at what cost, in preference to intervening while the van is under warranty.

Rich, if you follow this link: to Jeremy's post on Saturday at 13:23, you'll see two links to the NW documentation that a) announces the change from UK Insurance (the existing provider) and b) AVIVA's policy documentation. Both the breakdown, and the travel insurances that are "packaged" with the FlexPlus account, are "bespoke" policies that are not the same as the AA, or AVIVA, retail policies. I'm not entirely clear whether the quotes you got from NW were for the insurances as packaged with the FlexPlus account but, as you were quoted a £65 "age extension" premium, it seems this was probably for the current (UK Insurance underwritten) version of the insurance, and not the new (AVIVA underwritten) version, in which NW says there is no longer an age extension premium. As to the additional charges for pre-existing conditions, those will inevitably reflect what the underwriter considers appropriate to the perceived risk and, bearing in mind the change in underwriter, will be liable to change after 1 May this year. On the present, UK Insurance, version of the policy, any "extensions" you opt for are valid for 12 months from the date on which you buy them, after which they lapse and have to be renewed each year to keep them "alive". If you let them lapse, they remain in your details and can be renewed on demand, subject only to payment of the premium. So you are not committed to paying for extensions you no longer intend using. We currently have a lapsed extension for 1 pre-existing condition (cover for one declared condition is included at no cost - the extension premiums only being required for second and subsequent conditions). However, with the change of underwriter this may, presumably, change. Depending on your proposed cruise date it may be easier to wait until after 1 May, when the new jockey takes over the saddle, before pursuing the fine print or, as above, going into an NW branch, explaining what you want to know, and seeing what they can tell you - or simply e-mailing or 'phoning your questions direct to NW. At the sorts of prices you're being quoted it seems worthwhile to explore all feasible options before buying! I'll be interested to find out in due course whether the details of our lapsed extensions are actually passed from UK insurance to AVIVA, and what AVIVA then says about them. One might hope they will, but that is mere hope. I prefer, I suspect like you, certainty to hope. We (at least me) will see! 😐

😄 😄