Deduction for use

[Willum]

Has anyone any experience of the amount a dealer has tried - or succeeded in - deducting for use of a new motorhome that has been used, is faulty and is being rejected?

The Consumer Rights act allows for this to happen but doesn't state the amount/%/whatever but does say it can't be based on forecourt value.

I asked our Solicitor and his response was that there is no laid down amount and it's a bit of a grey area.

............. and no, I haven't said what vehicle it is, or where it came from. That will perhaps come later if things start to go badly. At the moment we are making some progress - but it's very much an uphill struggle.

Will

[david lloyd]

Very courageous move Will, good luck with your attempt. I have no idea what amount would count as 'reasonable' but expect that to be the measure applied by the court if it came to it. The general view is that once a vehicle leaves the forecourt it loses the VAT in depreciation - that's 20%! - but that would seem really unfair on the buyer if rejecting on perfectly good grounds.

 

David

[StuartO]

I knew a chap (whose name , ironically, was Crook) who some years ago twice recovered the full purchase price of his faulty motorhome when it was rejected some three years or so after purchase - and this was long before the recent consumer legislation made it easier. The dispute went right to the steps of a Hgh Court action and the dealer tried every way to bully his out of continuing but at the last minute the dealer caved in and paid up. The MH owner was a particularly determined litigant and took a big risk of ending up paying his own and the dealer’s costs if he lost but he won on both claims. There was a non-disclosure term in the agreement but t wasn’t difficult to work out that one of the dealers was the since defunct Preston Branch of Brownhills Hymer UK, I don’t know who the other one was. Clearly even without the new consumer legislation it can be done. Good luck.

[Brian Kirby]

If you rejected the vehicle on the basis that it is so defective it is unfit for purpose, then I think the law says it is the seller's obligation to put you into the status quo ante, either financially, by rectifying the defects so that the item is fit for purpose, or by replacing the item with an equivalent that is fit for purpose.

 

The problems with rejection is the time elapsed between purchase and discovering the defect/s, and whether you can be deemed to have accepted the goods a sold by the way in which you used them in the meantime.

 

Is your solicitor a practice specialising in consumer law, or is a general legal practitioner? It seems to me you may need the services of a specialist legal practice. You may be able to find such a practice via Citizens Advice, or possibly through your household or vehicle insurance, if legal protection is included.

[Derek Uzzell]

This 2015 article summarised ‘motorhome’ consumer law

 

https://www.outandaboutlive.co.uk/motorhomes/articles/general/new-consumer-law-to-protect-motorhome-purchases-1

 

I would have thought (as Will’s solicitor advised) that there cannot be any hard-and-fast rules regarding the amount of ‘usage’ monetary deduction that a motorhome dealership could reasonably seek if an owner is seeking to reject the vehicle.

 

If the motorhome is still in as-new condition and has just covered a minimal mileage, the deduction should reasonably be significantly less than (say) if an owner had immediately driven a new motorhome to Spain, lived in the vehicle there on a beach during July/August with a couple of dogs, and then returned to the UK and sought to reject the vehicle.

[Willum]

Maybe I could have stated the following at the beginning:

 

The solicitor is a specialist in consumer law and has no particular axe to grind in terms of offering me representation.

The motorhome is a little over a year old.

All the faults, recurrent, never addressed and continuing to occur, are documented, photographed and reported to the dealer.

It has covered just over 6,000 miles and has had a total of just over 4 months use. (NO DOGS!! :-S )

VAT doesn't count in this issue.

 

.......... but - and apologies to all who responded - that doesn't really address, or affect, the question, to wit:

 

Does anyone have any experience of how much a dealer has tried to deduct for the use of a rejected motorhome?

 

I've trawled, dug and scoured everything I can find - including reading the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (as amended) provided by the UK Government portal (it's a long, hard read) and it just doesn't say how much, other than for most things - EXCEPT motor vehicles - the dealer cannot make a deduction in the first 6 months. It does say that the deduction cannot be made based on the forecourt resale value.

There also seems to be a common misconception (including the person responsible at this particular dealership) that the 'Final Right to Rejection' rules (Section 24) do not apply after 1 year. I can find no time limit mentioned for that bit but I have, on good authority, that 6 years is an 'implied term of The Consumer Rights Act 2015' for goods to be shown to be of a suitable quality.

The trouble with summaries of Acts like this is that there are many ways to interpret somone's written word - and that includes the Act itself. Although it's hailed as a great step forward collecting all the various bits together, it still full of holes and opportunities to interpret. A cynic may be forgiven for thinking it was probably written by lawyers to ensure their future employment.

 

I guess the only way I'll find out is if it ends up in a court case and then I certainly will ask that the court make a ruling. I'm not looking forward to the exercise - but I'm just bloody-minded enough to pursue it to the end, or to a suitable outcome.

 

I'll keep you posted if anyone's interested

 

Will

[Brian Kirby]

Then I think the only wise course is to follow the legal advice you are being given. I understand that rejection becomes progressively more difficult the later it is invoked, and the more technically complex the item being rejected. These are not encouraging for your case.

 

The over-riding concept is reasonableness, and the vendor will argue that it is unreasonable to expect, for example, to have the now used vehicle replaced with a new one at no cost to yourself, in view of the use you have made of it. He will argue that you are entitled only to a vehicle of corresponding type, quality, age and mileage, that is free from defects at the time of hand over, or something along those lines. Offering this as a way out would seem to me the most cost effective solution from the vendor's point of view.

 

I'm just a little puzzled as to why you are seeking to reject outright (which I understand is somewhat high risk under your circumstances), instead of suing for breach of contract under his obligation to supply goods of "merchantable quality", but assume your solicitor will already have been thorough the pros and cons of both approaches, and advised accordingly.

 

I think you are looking for something (in terms of citable parallel experience) that probably doesn't exist. There will not be than many motorhomes that have been rejected outright - they are not that common a commodity. It seems to me that there therefore will be very few, if any, motorhomes rejected under similar circumstances to yours that might give you a yardstick to assess reasonableness of the offer I assume you have had.

 

Forecourt prices should offer a guide as to where it is reasonable to start haggling over compensation, as they reflect the "asking" cost of replacing what you already have - on a like for like basis. There is usually some expectation that the asking price will not be the price actually paid, so somewhere below asking price is probably where you should expect to settle, plus, of coures, your direct costs and out of pocket expenses in pursuing your claim. Don't forget to record these, and add them to the bill as damages as you proceed including, if relevant, holidays ruined by the various defects listed.

 

It sounds a little as though you have progressed to the point at which you need to shake the tree and, if your solicitor agrees, proceed to court. I don't think you will get better offers until you do so and the vendor knows you are serious. You then have to decide whether to resist any last minute offers, or leave the court to decide on the total level of damages you are entitled to receive. Before doing that, it might be worth trying to establish the financial state of the vendor, because if you pursue him through the court, and gain an award that bankrupts him, you will not get back what you were led to expect.

 

Remember also to add your court costs onto the bill, and also the bailiff's costs (and, if I remember, interest on the debt) if the vendor unreasonably delays payment. However, I'm sure your solicitor will have advised you about those needs, and also how long you should reasonably wait after judgement before applying to the court to send in bailiffs to seize goods to the value of your award. Good luck. I hope you can arrive at an outcome you find satisfactory, and remember: perfect is the enemy of good! :-)

[Derek Uzzell]

Brian Kirby - 2019-02-18 11:11 AM

 

...I think you are looking for something (in terms of citable parallel experience) that probably doesn't exist. There will not be than many motorhomes that have been rejected outright - they are not that common a commodity. It seems to me that there therefore will be very few, if any, motorhomes rejected under similar circumstances to yours that might give you a yardstick to assess reasonableness of the offer I assume you have had...

 

 

I echo those views, but - if any motorcaravanner has been in a similar position and thus able to comment based on personal experience - that person is more likely to be found on one of the larger motorhome forums rather than this one. So it might be worth repeating the enquiry on the MotorHomeFacts and MotorHomeFun forums.

 

The only ‘rejection’ I’m aware of that went to Court (very different circumstances) and was described here took some two years to resolve.

[747]

Motorhome Facts is no longer a big forum. Fun would be a better one.

 

Best of luck in your legal battle mate. ;-)

[flicka]

There are so many aspects which can affect the out come regarding this situation.

When were the "ongoing" problems encountered.

Was the dealer afforded the opportunity to rectify at the time.

Have attempted rectifications failed to solve the problems

If all of these occurred within the 1st year, they will improve your chances of a better offer.

BUT at the end of the day, it will depend on the court's interpretations of the circumstances under the current Act.

Which I think is the reason for your Solicitors hesitence to advise a specific answer.

[Willum]

747 - 2019-02-18 4:36 PM

 

Motorhome Facts is no longer a big forum. Fun would be a better one.

 

Best of luck in your legal battle mate. ;-)

Thanks, me old.

Oh, how I sometimes wish I'd stuck with the motorhome that was the basis of both our usernames. It had its foibles and faults - but NOTHING in comparison to what I've experienced with this thing.

Will

[Willum]

I've read everyones posts and thanks, all.

 

Reference the rejection as opposed to breach of contract aspects, I've had advice that suggests both could apply. I went down the route suggested by the solicitor I employed for advice when I eventually got so sick of working round faults and having my holidays ruined.

Guess it's like lots of legal issues, ie: despite my tendency towards the black and white, there are many - too many - shades of grey and the legal profession love them.

 

I'm not into conspiracy theory but it wouldn't surprise me to find this, and any other similar forum is monitored by dealers. I'd be more surprised to find it wasn't. To that end I'm still not going to go into too much detail - yet.

It went back to the dealer today. It wasn't an outright dismissal but some aspects of the reasons for rejecting it are being treated dismissively. There were a couple of stunning displays of an outdated attitude to quality, such as:

'lots of manufacturers do it, so it doesn't matter if manufacturer 'X' does it as well (and markets a motorhome with a leisure battery that can't be properly charged by the alternator)'

'we find all manufacturer 'X's' motorhomes do that, so it's acceptable'

I reminded them that I ain't interested in comparisons, I'm complaining about poor standards.

 

Will

[Brian Kirby]

The dealers are a bit between a rock and a hard place Will - though it has to be said some don't exactly help themselves! :-)

 

The law says they are responsible for what they sell, so if a manufacturer is recalcitrant when a van is delivered with numerous faults - especially if the van is judged so bad that it is rejected, they face a serious loss through no fault of their own.

 

I think you are wise to be circumspect about giving away too much, so that you cannot be accused of acting vindictively towards either dealer or manufacturer with the intention of damaging their businesses. If you have to take the dealer to court, it is better not to have any baggage following you around so that you present as the clear "victim". And yes, some dealers do monitor the forums to see whether they are being named as villains.

 

Have you explored with the dealer getting your van back to the manufacturer for remedy? There have been cases where this has been agreed - not many as far as I am aware - but a series of Swift vans had a problem with rotting floors for which Swift accepted responsibility, and set up a factory repair facility, and I heard of one badly defective Burstner that was transported back to Kehl to be sorted.

 

OTOH, if the defects on your van relate to interventions by the dealer, and not manufacturing faults, then it is the dealer alone who has to put them right.

 

There is quite a lot of technical knowledge on this forum, and you can tap into that privately using the private messaging (PM) system above, where it says "Inbox". It works a bit like e-mail, but your message will pass from one mailbox to another on the server. It doesn't go from your "outbox" to your "sent items" folder until the intended recipient opens it in their inbox. When you get a new mail yourself, the (0) above will change to a red number indicating the number of new messages. You can of course PM other members your e-mail address and continue conversations completely away from MMM if you wish, which adds possibility to send attachments, which is not possible via PMs.

 

Were you to start a new string with a question about people's experiences in rejecting motorhomes, or of taking court action against dealers for grossly defective vans that they will not fix in a reasonable manner, you may get more helpful responses than under this slightly arcane (sorry :-)) entitled string.

[Willum]

Brian Kirby - 2019-02-19 2:44 PM

 

The dealers are a bit between a rock and a hard place Will - though it has to be said some don't exactly help themselves! :-)

 

The law says they are responsible for what they sell, so if a manufacturer is recalcitrant when a van is delivered with numerous faults - especially if the van is judged so bad that it is rejected, they face a serious loss through no fault of their own.

 

I think you are wise to be circumspect about giving away too much, so that you cannot be accused of acting vindictively towards either dealer or manufacturer with the intention of damaging their businesses. If you have to take the dealer to court, it is better not to have any baggage following you around so that you present as the clear "victim". And yes, some dealers do monitor the forums to see whether they are being named as villains.

 

Have you explored with the dealer getting your van back to the manufacturer for remedy? There have been cases where this has been agreed - not many as far as I am aware - but a series of Swift vans had a problem with rotting floors for which Swift accepted responsibility, and set up a factory repair facility, and I heard of one badly defective Burstner that was transported back to Kehl to be sorted.

 

OTOH, if the defects on your van relate to interventions by the dealer, and not manufacturing faults, then it is the dealer alone who has to put them right.

 

There is quite a lot of technical knowledge on this forum, and you can tap into that privately using the private messaging (PM) system above, where it says "Inbox". It works a bit like e-mail, but your message will pass from one mailbox to another on the server. It doesn't go from your "outbox" to your "sent items" folder until the intended recipient opens it in their inbox. When you get a new mail yourself, the (0) above will change to a red number indicating the number of new messages. You can of course PM other members your e-mail address and continue conversations completely away from MMM if you wish, which adds possibility to send attachments, which is not possible via PMs.

 

Were you to start a new string with a question about people's experiences in rejecting motorhomes, or of taking court action against dealers for grossly defective vans that they will not fix in a reasonable manner, you may get more helpful responses than under this slightly arcane (sorry :-)) entitled string.

 

Yep, thanks, got all that - plus the other gems folk have posted. Not to seem ungrateful but I was aware of a lot of it, though I am grateful for the tip ref pms and new strings, etc.

I also understand the concept that a dealer faced with lemon of a new motorhome is in a bad place and in all candour, the law seems a bit lenient on the manufacturer in that circumstance. I guess, though, making the dealer the fall-guy gets round international discrepancies in responsibility for the quality of a product.

There has been mention of the van being rejected to the manufacturer and I fervently hope they do it.

It should be noted that I'm not at the point of having to haggle a 'deduction for use'. As I think I said, my solicitor quoted it as a bit of a grey area, so my idea is to see if I can find any examples. I'm simply 'girding my loins', as it were. I really hope it doesn't come to that but forewarned is forearmed.

I think that the delicacy of the situation is what leads to, as you say, the somewhat arcane nature of this thread. I've had good service from the dealer in the past and don't want to compromise the outcome. Shaking the tree isn't necessary just yet.

If an amicable solution is arrived at, then I guess we might never know what a 'deduction for use' looks like - but I reckon in that circumstance I could manage to suppress my curiosity.

Will

[Willum]

StuartO - 2019-02-18 8:20 AM

 

I knew a chap (whose name , ironically, was Crook) who some years ago twice recovered the full purchase price of his faulty motorhome when it was rejected some three years or so after purchase - and this was long before the recent consumer legislation made it easier. The dispute went right to the steps of a Hgh Court action and the dealer tried every way to bully his out of continuing but at the last minute the dealer caved in and paid up. The MH owner was a particularly determined litigant and took a big risk of ending up paying his own and the dealer’s costs if he lost but he won on both claims. There was a non-disclosure term in the agreement but t wasn’t difficult to work out that one of the dealers was the since defunct Preston Branch of Brownhills Hymer UK, I don’t know who the other one was. Clearly even without the new consumer legislation it can be done. Good luck.

I think I know the instance you refer to. 'Grandes cajones' is a phrase that springs to mind but it did give some inspiration.

There is also a well documented case on the CAG site but to be candid, I was a lot less than impressed by one particularly active contributor's attitude to us lay folk.

Will

[Willum]

Brian Kirby - 2019-02-18 11:11 AM

............... Forecourt prices should offer a guide as to where it is reasonable to start haggling over compensation, as they reflect the "asking" cost of replacing what you already have - on a like for like basis. There is usually some expectation that the asking price will not be the price actually paid, so somewhere below asking price is probably where you should expect to settle, plus, of coures, your direct costs and out of pocket expenses in pursuing your claim. Don't forget to record these, and add them to the bill as damages as you proceed including, if relevant, holidays ruined by the various defects listed.

 

.................and remember: perfect is the enemy of good! :-)

 

Hoping I haven't misunderstood your post but:

The Consumer Rights Act specifically states that the deduction for use is NOT to use forecourt prices as a basis.

 

Reference tha last quote:

I've been quite careful in trying to word all my communication so that it's clear, concise and to the point - with lots of photos....

Will

ps sorry if some of my replies are a bit out of sequence. I'm still playing catch-up.

[Brian Kirby]

747Heavy - 2019-02-20 3:33 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2019-02-18 11:11 AM

............... Forecourt prices should offer a guide as to where it is reasonable to start haggling over compensation, as they reflect the "asking" cost of replacing what you already have - on a like for like basis. There is usually some expectation that the asking price will not be the price actually paid, so somewhere below asking price is probably where you should expect to settle, plus, of coures, your direct costs and out of pocket expenses in pursuing your claim. Don't forget to record these, and add them to the bill as damages as you proceed including, if relevant, holidays ruined by the various defects listed.

 

.................and remember: perfect is the enemy of good! :-)

 

Hoping I haven't misunderstood your post but:

The Consumer Rights Act specifically states that the deduction for use is NOT to use forecourt prices as a basis.

 

Reference tha last quote:

I've been quite careful in trying to word all my communication so that it's clear, concise and to the point - with lots of photos....

Will

ps sorry if some of my replies are a bit out of sequence. I'm still playing catch-up.

Apologies Will, I obviously didn't make myself clear. I was not intending to suggest that forecourt prices be used in arriving at a deduction for use figure, but as a guide to the present value of you van should you get to the point of suing for the return of the cost of the van. The dealer would be very likely to counter that the van has been used, and is now X months/years old, so would offer you less than you paid. You then need to be able to judge whether the offer is reasonable. This is likely to be difficult as there is no Glass's Guide for motorhomes, and you will have a brand A motorhome, model Y, mileage XXX, of which there will be very few offered for sale at any point in time. So, the only way to judge value would be to look at any others for price comparison. Not sure whether that is counter to the guidance, but it seems reasonable for the plaintiff to do this, even though the defendant should not. Otherwise, how could you know?

 

In similar vein, my comment about perfection and the good, was in reference to one's (mine at least! :-)) indignant tendency to stick out for a 100% win, when settling for a bit less would enable one to move on more quickly. I dread to think how long Stuart O's litigant must have spent getting his 100% victory! :-)

[noble1]

I have read your posts and the forum members replies with interest

 

Would "747heavy ' be able to name the manufacturer

 

I have recently paid a deposit on a new MH and would appreciate a heads up if serious faults have been identified on similar models - I am buying a Hymer

[Keithl]

noble1 - 2019-02-20 6:49 PM

 

I have read your posts and the forum members replies with interest

 

Would "747heavy ' be able to name the manufacturer

 

I have recently paid a deposit on a new MH and would appreciate a heads up if serious faults have been identified on similar models - I am buying a Hymer

 

A reminder to any forum member following this thread:

 

Please consider using PM's for any naming and shaming so as not to jeopardise 747's potential case.

 

Thanks,

Keith.

[noble1]

Will do thanks

[Willum]

Brian Kirby - 2019-02-20 6:04 PM

 

Apologies Will, I obviously didn't make myself clear..............................

 

In similar vein, my comment about perfection and the good, was in reference to one's (mine at least! :-)) indignant tendency to stick out for a 100% win, when settling for a bit less would enable one to move on more quickly. I dread to think how long Stuart O's litigant must have spent getting his 100% victory! :-)

No need for apologies, Brian. It's all useful stuff and there's always and angle not considered. ;-)

 

With regard to the perfect and good bit:

We aren't related, are we? :-D :-D

 

Fortunately, my Dearly Beloved is my tempering influence, quite good at keeping the cork in the bottle in these sort of circumstances and, as you might say, although I seek justice, I don't seek retribution.

Will

[Willum]

Keithl - 2019-02-20 7:39 PM

 

noble1 - 2019-02-20 6:49 PM

 

I have read your posts and the forum members replies with interest

 

Would "747heavy ' be able to name the manufacturer

 

I have recently paid a deposit on a new MH and would appreciate a heads up if serious faults have been identified on similar models - I am buying a Hymer

 

A reminder to any forum member following this thread:

 

Please consider using PM's for any naming and shaming so as not to jeopardise 747's potential case.

 

Thanks,

Keith.

 

Thanks, Keith

Will

[Willum]

It's been quiet for a while because:

it's like wading through treacle...........

It looks like push is coming to shove, I'm afraid.

The latest excuse you will love:

'your (15 month old) motorhome payload is 200+ kg less than we said because it has gained moisture in the fabrics and structure and dirt can accumulate under the vehicle'

 

What I think we are going to have to find is a truly independent and GOOD assessor. I'm afraid I'm a bit wary of any NCC recommended input because, to be perfectly frank, they only seem to truly represent the trade/retailers (A&N Caravans battle regarding battery descriptions, for instance)

 

If anyone knows of such an entity, I would be grateful for the information. A pm would be fine by me.

 

Will