Soft floor Elddis 255 - rejection

[mgbken]

Has anyone any experience of a soft floor in the kitchen area of these motorhomes.

 

It appears that the floor has been chopped out to allow pipe/cable runs right below the problem area. Not sure why Elddis thought that was OK ??

 

Not sure either whether every 255 has same issue?

 

I have seen bodged attempts at floor delamination repairs and have been advised that the Mo Ho should go back to Elddis for repair.

 

This is in my view sufficient grounds to reject this 3 yr old vehicle under consumer rights legislation any comment on that Still within 30 days from purchase - dealer trying to just repair it.

[Will86]

It sounds like a good opportunity to experience a massive water ingress when the weather changes as it surely will do. Do you want to live with another set of problems that are sure to arise. Only you can decide !

[Derek Uzzell]

Ken

 

The following links relate to consumer rights when buying a used vehicle

 

https://tinyurl.com/y2feubjd

 

and the results of GOOGLE-searches on “rejecting a used motorhome” and “elddis 255 problems”

 

https://tinyurl.com/y6znknex

 

https://tinyurl.com/y4ca7bcg

 

It’s quite common for pipework, electrical cables and other ’services’ to be located beneath a motorhome floor’s top surface (my 2005 Hobby motorhome had warm-air ducts buried within the under-floor polystyrene insulation) but if part of the under-floor structure is removed, the converter will obviously need to provide adequate support for the upper part of the floor.

 

Motorhome/caravan floor delamination is referred to here

 

https://tinyurl.com/yyja9qmh

 

and (presumably?) it would be necessary ro decide whether the ’soft floor’ of your Elddis is due to delamination or insufficient support beneath it. Either way, though, carrying out a long-lasting repair may well be challenging.

 

Your contract is with the dealer that sold you the motorhome and (again presumably) the advice that the vehicle would need to be returned to the Elddis factory for repair did not come from that dealer.

 

This webpage advises on the 30-day ‘rule’.

 

https://www.clerksroom.com/downloads/697-Consumer-Rights-for-Motorhome-Owners-and-Rejecting.pdf

 

If you complain within 30 days, you have an automatic right to reject the motorhome and treat the contract as being at an end. This means the trader must give you a full refund if that is what you want. If you want the trader to repair the damage or replace the motorhome entirely, you can ask them to do so and the 30-day period stops running while they undertake the repairs or organise the replacement (if they are unable to fix the fault therefore, you are still entitled to the full refund, provided your original complaint was within the 30-day limit).

 

If you believe repair by the dealer is likely to be unsatisfactory, reject the vehicle without delay.

[mgbken]

Thanks for the initial advice and the provided links. 18 months ago it looked like we can easily show that the MH or "goods" as the CRA 2015 calls them were not of a satisfactory quality. We rejected within the 30 days in fact within 3 days.

 

We had expert support for our concerns with the MH and legal expenses insurance. What could go wrong !

 

After apologising for the poor PDI check and shambolic handover in which they omitted the things they had agreed to, the dealer Marquis simply said they would carry out repairs (initially described as "improving") but they refuse to allow rejection. In fact the man with the title General Manager said he is not permitted or authorised to accept our request for rejection - seems a bit odd!

 

The irony here is that the Marquis workshop appraisal carried out when the vehicle arrived at the depot just

days before we saw it in August 2020 mentioned the very issues we complain of but they remained unrepaired and this important information was not shared or even discussed.

 

Their Alan Doherty - Group Aftercare Manager in a very brief reply to the "Resolver" complaint process simply said a repair was the appropriate remedy and that's their final position - So do we feel "after cared for" - what do you think?

 

The sad part is, giving us what we want would cost Marquis little having already agreed to cover the repairs so is there another agenda here?

 

What they cannot repair is our complete loss of confidence in this MH with its list of known issues or our opinion of Marquis as an untrustworthy and unreliable business to avoid at all costs.

 

So the lawyers do battle. Initially ours confirmed we have a good case and the law was on our side. The act is clear about not accepting repairs once the goods were rejected. This is the short term right to reject which is a part of CRA 2015.

 

Marquis with the aid of their lawyers continued to stone wall and say basically the fault is simply a design feature and other spurious nonsense - we are now considering our options and maybe looking at a court room appearance or arbitration if the court suggests it.

 

We are determined to achieve rejection or a financial settlement that equates to it. We are also expecting recompense for the aggravation and losses involved in having a MH on our drive we cannot use (a fact of rejection that Marquis kindly pointed out to us in their helpful way when we began talking about legal action)

 

We have bought a temporary caravan which has helped us but at a cost. We really do want a motorhome again - caravan's have their downsides.

 

What would still be very useful for us to know is whether other Elddis 255 owners have experienced the soft floor issue between the cooker and fridge and if so what have they done about it? Elddis did not respond to e mails and or Rec Del. letters to their executives but have simply advised the dealer how to repair the floor which involves fairly major surgery to the floor and floor coverings.

 

Elddis have also not responded to our request to know exactly what warranty repairs they paid for as elevated damp readings remain. So how customer friendly are Elddis? maybe someone can paint a different picture?

 

Beyond seeking Out and About reader's help, we will of course hope to share the final outcome with you all unless that is Marquis insist on a "gagging order" which apparently they are quite keen on - Watch this space."