Conrad Posted July 9, 2020 Share Posted July 9, 2020 Hi all, would value folks' opinion on the damp problem which has just been found on the 'van's first habitation check. Chausson Flash 646, bought new April 2019. When we bought it there was some evidence of damp under the bottom bunk, which goes across the back of the 'van. This was "put right" at the time by fitting a new bunk frame, as the wood was slightly stained, and a new mattress. Looking back, I should have pressed for a better reason for the damp other than that it has been on sale for about 6 months and not aired. The habitation check (not done at the dealer we bought it from, went to Ford as engine service also due) has now found damp in the same area, with a reading of 63%, it should be below 15%. There is also damp on the walls each side of the over-cab bed. Again, I think this has been there for a while, as my wife who sleeps at the front of the bed often thought it was cold and damp. The very nice chap at the dealers is trying to reassure me that it is all fixable. There is a 7 year warranty on water ingress, so time should be on our side. He says there has been a problem with Chausson window frames, and the probable repair will be removing the inside layer of 3mm ply and covering, and replacing it. The insulation foam and outer plastic layers apparently shouldn't absorb water. I would add that this is against a background of a few other seemingly petty things wrong with it on purchase, that were fixed, but suggests to me that quality control at the manufacturer and dealer is poor. The check also found the mains sockets are in reverse polarity. What do you all think? It it/should it be fixable, or should I be demanding a replacement already? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bop Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 Here's one more recent damp Chausson example Conrad: https://www.motorhomefun.co.uk/forum/threads/damp.221711/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 Conrad - 2020-07-09 7:13 PM.................The habitation check (not done at the dealer we bought it from, went to Ford as engine service also due) has now found damp in the same area, with a reading of 63%, it should be below 15%. …………….. Not sure how to interpret the above. It reads to me as though the habitation check was carried out by a Ford dealer. Surely not? My first reaction is to ask if you have read Chausson's water ingress warranty, with particular reference to their requirements as to who is authorised to carry out any damp checks, when, what is to be done if damp is found, and who is to initiate that process? I'm just puzzled that the dealer, having found damp in the new van, did not fully investigate and rectify at that time. It seems that they may have missed the true cause and thus have contributed to any damage the ongoing damp may have caused. If true, that may place them in an awkward position vis-a-vis Chausson (Trigano). Do you have written evidence of that initial discovery and diagnosis. If so, keep it safe! However, one word of caution: these warranties are usually written it terms of water ingress - i/e. water entering from outside the van. They do not, AFAIK, cover condensation on inner surfaces, which would usually be treated as due to the user failing to properly ventilate the van. So are you sure that you have actual water ingress, and not just condensation, in that huge over-cab Luton? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Uzzell Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 This link is to a thread on a French motorhome forum regarding water-ingress on a 2019 model-yesr Chausson 738 XLB. https://www.routard.com/forum_message/4836591/infiltrations_d_eau_chausson_738xlb.htm I’ve copied below a GOOGLE-translated piece of it. Our motorhome is a CHAUSSON 738 XLB, bought new, 2019 collection. It gives us total satisfaction in terms of use, features, interior atmosphere, it is really nice and great! But a problem has reared its head... As of last spring, we discovered a water leak at the level of the skyroof of the overcab section. It drips and it leaks as soon as it rains, increasing when you drive. Problem covered by the warranty, scheduled seal change but not before this week (it is currently under repair), the part was not available before ... Suddenly the leak continued and has not improved, result: the ceiling of the ovecab section is completely soft in places, literally soaked most certainly? ... The technician seen this morning tells me that do not worry, we will program a disassembly of the overcab area and all the elements will be changed. Second infiltration in our hold. We have three cargo doors, two lateral on each side of the motorhome and one at the rear. It was on the latter that the infiltration occurred: the "paper" stuck inside the wall in the evening is swollen and clearly suggests a water leak ... Well ... The mechanic indicates that there is the complete removal of the panel for replacement, and warns me "once the warranty is over it is a repair of the order of € 10,000 think about it ..." And lets me understand that CHAUSSON and CHALLENGER are used to this type of problem! He encourages me to sell it before the warranty ends and I turn to another brand like ADRIA, BURSTNER ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicepix Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 I thought that Adria was also now a Trigano brand? If that was my vehicle I would have the ingress checks done at a maker's concessionaire and if the situation repeated within the guarantee period ask for the purchase price back and take legal action if necessary. Your vehicle insurance may have legal cover for this sort of thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 Reading this thread........I'm kinda feeling quite smug with the damp readings in my 30 year old camper and 26 year old caravan B-) ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 Nicepix - 2020-07-10 9:05 PM I thought that Adria was also now a Trigano brand? If that was my vehicle I would have the ingress checks done at a maker's concessionaire and if the situation repeated within the guarantee period ask for the purchase price back and take legal action if necessary. Your vehicle insurance may have legal cover for this sort of thing. Spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Uzzell Posted July 11, 2020 Share Posted July 11, 2020 I can’t see what possible relevance to Conrad’s damp problem Adria and Chausson both being members of the Trigano Group might have. The current membership of the motorhome element of the Trigano Group is listed below Adria Mobil Auto-Sleepers Sun Living Arca Autostar Tribute Forstner Auto-Trail Challenger Karmann Mobil Benimar Chausson Mc Louis CI Font Vendôme Mobilvetta Elnagh Notin Roller Team Eura Mobil Kentucky Rimor Xgo Randger Those manufacturers’ factories are in various countries (UK, France, Germany, Italy) and the section of the motorhome market each targets can vary radically.. For example, Challenger/Chausson outputs huge quantities of motorhomes whose competitive price is of paramount importance, whereas Notin concentrates on 'de luxe’ models aimed at buyers with far greater spending habits. Both manufacturers happen to be based in France, but any potential purchaser of a new Notin is highly unlikely to buy a new Chausson or vice versa. The comment in the French posting I quoted above He encourages me to sell it before the warranty ends and I turn to another brand like ADRIA, BURSTNER ... has ‘received wisdom’ validity in that Adria and Burstner have a reputation (deserved or not) for good build-quality, while Chausson has a reputation for iffy build quality. There are comments from Chausson owners about build-quality on this February 2020 forum thread https://forums.outandaboutlive.co.uk/forums/Motorhomes/Motorhome-Matters/6-5m-newbie-motorhome-choice/54384/ and my final posting there (2nd page of thread - 9 February 2020 8:48 AM) said (Do you REALLY need to buy a Chausson? My experience of the make over the years has been that build quality tends to be unpredictable (I’ve seen brand-new Chausson motorhomes fresh from the Tournon factory in a lamentable condition at French dealerships) and I’d be very wary of the long-term reliability of the 650’s powered drop-down bed. Your choice though - I hope you won’t be disappointed.) In Conrad’s case, it may be (as Brian Kirby mentions) that the damp on each side of the over-cab bed is just due to condensation forming there. This is pretty much inevitable when the over-cab area is used for sleeping unless windows in that area are opened to provide plentiful ventilation and, even when the over-cab area is not used for sleeping, condensation can form if the motorhome’s manufacturer has not paid very careful attention to provide adequate insulation. The over-cab sleeping area of my 1996-built Herald motorhome was made of moulded GRP so was waterproof, but - although we only stored stuff above the cab and never slept there - condensation would still form on the sidewalls as the insulation thickness there was meagre. From Conrad’s enquiry it is anticipated that significant reconstruction would be needed to address the over-cab damp problem, and that (apparently) it is recognised that there has been a Chausson window-frame problem. I really don’t like the idea of removing and replacing the over-cab walls’ inner ’skin’, even though it’s difficult to see what alternative approach could be used. Then there is the matter of the high damp-readings at the Chausson’s rear... I’d want to reject the motorhome, but I don’t know how difficult that would be after 15 months of ownership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted July 11, 2020 Share Posted July 11, 2020 In view of the evidence that Derek is digging up from France on poor quality control by Chausson, I'm coming to the conclusion, reluctantly, that Conrad is the very unfortunate owner of a "lemon". His options seem to me to be to trust the dealer to carry out extensive and relatively specialised work to his nearly new van, to trade it for another van, to attempt to reject the van as being of unmerchantable quality (which he is only now realising) or to take on the dealer legally under consumer legislation for his money back (or other financial compensation) or for a replacement van, or possibly, for the van to go back to the factory to be properly rebuilt. To the first, I would say only do this if the dealer has established expertise in this kind of work. The result I foresee is an unsatisfactory bodge that will in any case prejudice the future trade-in value of the van - over which he will have no effective say or control until confronted by it. If both the problems are due to water ingress, the re-lining/trimming of the interior can only bring benefit if the ingress is properly dealt with, which again raises the question of the competence of the dealer in that respect. To the second, bearing in mind the condition of the van at present, and its age, I think this a non runner in view of its present condition, which means this can, realistically, only be considered after the repairs are complete, which of course takes us back to the competences of the dealer, as above. This leaves the late attempt to reject and be fully reimbursed, or to take the route of suing for compensation, a replacement or, if available, a factory repair. Which of these offers the best outcome for Conrad will turn on some fairly experienced legal advice (by which I mean advice from lawyers specialising in consumer law cases). Here, Derek's findings of cases of dissatisfied French buyers may prove useful, as they illustrate that such leakage is a currently recognised problem with these vans, that it is reasonable to expect the dealer to have been aware of - which places his response to the damp discovered immediately post delivery as disingenuous at best. My suggestion would be for Conrad to say nothing further to the dealer until he has taken legal advice, and in the immediate short term to look through all his insurances (house, contents, and vehicle/s) to see if any provide legal assistance cover. Failing that, to contact Citizens Advice who can give general legal guidance on his rights, his prospects and, possibly, suitably experienced solicitors to take his case forward, if that is what he chooses to do. In the meantime, I would suggest Conrad gets all his ducks (in terms of all communications with the dealer regarding the defects) in a row - in preparation for briefing legal advisors or solicitors on the circumstances of his problems, and of their evolution, so that he has as much written evidence of what, who, where, and when as possible to hand, when speaking to them. So, with my apologies to Conrad, my final thought is that, in view of the time that has already elapsed since purchase, Conrad should not let this matter grow hair! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrad Posted July 11, 2020 Author Share Posted July 11, 2020 Many thanks for everyone's replies, once again this forum showing its value. Lots of (rather depressing) food for thought. Just to clarify to Brian, the Ford dealer is "Approved Workshop ncc," in fact one of the first things the chap at the dealers where I bought the van said is have they registered the report yet. In fact, I think it may well have been better to have taken it other than to the selling dealer, to get a fully independent survey. My plan was to take it in Monday for the dealer to have an initial look, and order any necessary spare parts. They probably won't be able to take it in until September. I'm inclined to hold back and make a few phone calls as suggested, to see how readily I could reject the 'van at this stage; my guess is that I would be expected to give them a chance to rectify the situation. My own feeling, having looked more inside, is that there is water ingress where the side wall joins the roof above the driver's seat. There does look to be a gap in the silicone. I don't think it's condensation, as we always have ventilation and the windows have been left slightly open this past 4 months during lockdown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicepix Posted July 11, 2020 Share Posted July 11, 2020 In answer to Derek's post; The mechanic may not have been aware that Adria is now part of the Trigano empire having been a recent addition. Adria had a reputation for quality. As have other brands that have then come under the Trigano ownership. Now they haven't. Whether it is built in Spain, France, UK or elsewhere it will be built to a common spec' and use parts from a common parts bin and have a common level of quality control. Burstner is part of the Hymer group. I know where my money would go although I am keeping an eye on possible changes due to their recent change of owners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted July 11, 2020 Share Posted July 11, 2020 Conrad - 2020-07-11 2:52 PM...……...Just to clarify to Brian, the Ford dealer is "Approved Workshop ncc," in fact one of the first things the chap at the dealers where I bought the van said is have they registered the report yet. In fact, I think it may well have been better to have taken it other than to the selling dealer, to get a fully independent survey...………….. But, is any NCC approved workshop authorised under Chausson's water ingress warranty to do that work? It is fairly unusual in my experience of the vans we've had so far, for the warranty conditions to state that the water ingress inspection must be carried out by a (In your case) Chausson dealer only, and that the outcome of that inspection must be recorded in the warranty book and recorded by the dealer on (again, in your case) Chausson's database. I think that is why your supplying dealer asked the question about whether they had registered the report. My guess, in the absence of any information to the contrary, is that he knows they can't have. Have a quick (but thorough! :-)) read of the Chausson water ingress warranty conditions to see exactly where you stand. I don't want to raise spurious anxiety, far from it, but unless the terms of the warranty are followed to the letter, the warranty will be voided, and the resale value of the van seriously prejudiced. If the warranty terms would not admit your present water ingress test, and you still have time within the warranty, get the van to an authorised Chausson dealer PDQ before the time window closes and have it re-checked by them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrad Posted July 11, 2020 Author Share Posted July 11, 2020 Ah, the devil is always in the detail. yes, will check the out, bound to be an escape route for the dealer and maker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicepix Posted July 11, 2020 Share Posted July 11, 2020 If you haven't got legal assistance on your insurance policy it might be prudent to add it next year - just in case. Hopefully you shouldn't need it. We went through a prolonged warranty problem last year and I don't envy you at the moment. It must be very stressful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted July 12, 2020 Share Posted July 12, 2020 Conrad - 2020-07-11 7:22 PM Ah, the devil is always in the detail. yes, will check the out, bound to be an escape route for the dealer and maker. Conrad, my apologies, but on re-reading my post of yesterday above, I realise I completely inverted the sense of what I intended to say. Durrrrrrrrrrrrrr! :-S I said, "It is fairly unusual in my experience of the vans we've had so far, for the warranty conditions to state that the water ingress inspection must be carried out by a (In your case) Chausson dealer only, and that the outcome of that inspection must be recorded in the warranty book and recorded by the dealer on (again, in your case) Chausson's database." What I should have said is: It is fairly usual in my experience of the vans we've had so far, for the warranty conditions to state that the water ingress inspection must be carried out by a (In your case) Chausson dealer only, and that the outcome of that inspection must be recorded in the warranty book and recorded by the dealer on (again, in your case) Chausson's database". My apologies again for misleading you. In short, almost all manufacturers seem to require that the annual warranty damp check must be carried out by one of their authorised dealers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrad Posted July 12, 2020 Author Share Posted July 12, 2020 Don't worry Brian, your point is still valid, and I'll check the small print.The man I spoke to at the dealers didn't immediately ask who did the inspection. Their trump card will probably be that I'm out of time as it should have been done early April, 2 weeks into lockdown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Uzzell Posted July 13, 2020 Share Posted July 13, 2020 The warranties provided by Chauuson for their motorhomes are summarised here https://www.chausson-motorhomes.com/after-sales-service/warranty/ Chausson motorhomes are “NCC Approved” in the UK https://www.outandaboutlive.co.uk/motorhomes/news/french-motorhome-manufacturer-chausson-gets-ncc-approval https://www.facebook.com/chausson.campingcar/posts/2231181726928569?comment_id=2245804368799638&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R%22%7D The Facebook-entry replies refer to a ‘habitation check’ as shown on the attached image below. There’s a recent (December 2019) MHFun forum discussion about Chausson habitation/damp checks https://www.motorhomefun.co.uk/forum/threads/is-there-a-need-for-a-habitation-check-to-keep-damp-warranty-up.210068/ This 2018 O&AL forum thread should also be of interest https://forums.outandaboutlive.co.uk/forums/Motorhomes/Motorhome-Matters/habitation-check-cost/48559/ Whatever Conrad decides to do, he should NOT be taking on any responsibility for his Chausson’s damp problems. Damp at the motorhome’s rear was recognised and ‘put right’ when he bought the Chausson: now this has reoccurred, plus damp in the over-cab area. Having the motorhome inspected/damp-checked in July 2020 rather than nearer to the April 2020 anniversary is most unlikely to have had any real-world bearing on the damp issue. Besides which the Chausson dealership seems to be unconcerned about the damp-check/habitation-service having been performed 3 months ‘late’ and by a non-Chausson agency. If Conrad decides to have the proposed repair work carried out by the Chausson dealership, and Chausson is prepared to meet the cost under-warranty, it would be silly to mention the ‘late’ damp-check and/or the fact that a Chausson agent did not perform that task. And if Conrad has in mind to reject the motorhome, he DEFINITELY should keep quiet about when the damp-check was done and who did it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted July 13, 2020 Share Posted July 13, 2020 Derek Uzzell - 2020-07-13 7:54 AM………………………………... 1 Whatever Conrad decides to do, he should NOT be taking on any responsibility for his Chausson’s damp problems. Damp at the motorhome’s rear was recognised and ‘put right’ when he bought the Chausson: now this has reoccurred, plus damp in the over-cab area. Having the motorhome inspected/damp-checked in July 2020 rather than nearer to the April 2020 anniversary is most unlikely to have had any real-world bearing on the damp issue. Besides which the Chausson dealership seems to be unconcerned about the damp-check/habitation-service having been performed 3 months ‘late’ and by a non-Chausson agency. 2 If Conrad decides to have the proposed repair work carried out by the Chausson dealership, and Chausson is prepared to meet the cost under-warranty, it would be silly to mention the ‘late’ damp-check and/or the fact that a Chausson agent did not perform that task. 3 And if Conrad has in mind to reject the motorhome, he DEFINITELY should keep quiet about when the damp-check was done and who did it. 1 Emphatically agree with this. 2 But, only if Conrad has decided against seeking rejection, as seeking to invoke the warranty may well weaken any case he has for rejection. 3 I think the damp check issue would not be relevant to his prospects of rejection, as this is under UK consumer legislation and "trumps" whatever the warranty may say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy mccord Posted July 13, 2020 Share Posted July 13, 2020 Conrad you are not on your own, my garage area leaks in, both side windows have also failed to stop water coming in, love the vans layout but again poor workmanship, van goes into MCR in 2 weeks to be resolved, give me back my trusty Adria Regards Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrad Posted July 13, 2020 Author Share Posted July 13, 2020 Thanks again, all. We took the 'van to the dealer today for them to check it over and see what needs to be done. Logic tells me we have to give them a chance to fix it before we start what would be a long business rejecting it. They reiterated that the Chausson warranty is 7 years, and any work they do will have their own 12 month guarantee, so fingers crossed time is on our side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Uzzell Posted July 14, 2020 Share Posted July 14, 2020 Conrad In your original posting you said The very nice chap at the dealers is trying to reassure me that it is all fixable. There is a 7 year warranty on water ingress, so time should be on our side. He says there has been a problem with Chausson window frames, and the probable repair will be removing the inside layer of 3mm ply and covering, and replacing it. The insulation foam and outer plastic layers apparently shouldn't absorb water. You don’t HAVE to give your dealership the opportunity to repair your motorhome and (as Brian has mentioned) if you do and the repair proves to be unsatisfactory, this might further complicate any subsequent attempt to reject the vehicle. Unfortunately, you are between a rock and a hard place and, while it’s certainly simpler to allow the deallership to address the damp issues, you’ll need to accept the risks that this entails. What you definitely need to do regarding the repair is to stay right on top of the process. Never mind the chap being very nice, you must ensure is that you know EXACTLY what the dealership has in mind as, if they are planning to remove and replace the inner skin and covering of a bonded ‘sandwich’ body panel, it’s not easy to see how this would be practicable wihout the insulation suffering damage. The Chausson’s GRP outer skin should be impervious to water, and if the insulation is closed-cell type it should not hold water. But if the inner plywood skin is wet, the reason for this needs to be accurately diagnosed. As has been suggested above, if the ‘damp’ in the over-cab area is just condensation forming when your wife sleeps there, a repair should be unnecessary and would not address the issue anyway. (Obviously if the damp problem there were more serious, repair would be needed.) I suggest you also confirm that Chausson has been made aware of your motorhome’s damp problems (including the bunk-related work that was done when you bought the vehicle) and that the French factory agrees to the dealership’s plans for rectification and authorises the work to be carried out within the Chausson warranty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted July 14, 2020 Share Posted July 14, 2020 Derek Uzzell - 2020-07-14 8:34 AM Conrad In your original posting you said The very nice chap at the dealers is trying to reassure me that it is all fixable. There is a 7 year warranty on water ingress, so time should be on our side. He says there has been a problem with Chausson window frames, and the probable repair will be removing the inside layer of 3mm ply and covering, and replacing it. The insulation foam and outer plastic layers apparently shouldn't absorb water. You don’t HAVE to give your dealership the opportunity to repair your motorhome and (as Brian has mentioned) if you do and the repair proves to be unsatisfactory, this might further complicate any subsequent attempt to reject the vehicle. Unfortunately, you are between a rock and a hard place and, while it’s certainly simpler to allow the deallership to address the damp issues, you’ll need to accept the risks that this entails. What you definitely need to do regarding the repair is to stay right on top of the process. Never mind the chap being very nice, you must ensure is that you know EXACTLY what the dealership has in mind as, if they are planning to remove and replace the inner skin and covering of a bonded ‘sandwich’ body panel, it’s not easy to see how this would be practicable wihout the insulation suffering damage. The Chausson’s GRP outer skin should be impervious to water, and if the insulation is closed-cell type it should not hold water. But if the inner plywood skin is wet, the reason for this needs to be accurately diagnosed. As has been suggested above, if the ‘damp’ in the over-cab area is just condensation forming when your wife sleeps there, a repair should be unnecessary and would not address the issue anyway. (Obviously if the damp problem there were more serious, repair would be needed.) I suggest you also confirm that Chausson has been made aware of your motorhome’s damp problems (including the bunk-related work that was done when you bought the vehicle) and that the French factory agrees to the dealership’s plans for rectification and authorises the work to be carried out within the Chausson warranty. Again, I absolutely agree with the above. I really think that, before you take this any further with the dealer, you should take legal advice on where you stand,.as I suggested in my post of 11/7 at 12:37pm above. The more you turn to the dealer, the more difficult the rejection process is likely to become. As it is, because you have now owned the van for more than a nominal period of time (in fact for over one year), the process of rejecting will be substantially more difficult than might have been the case earlier. I suspect, but am not trying to advise you, that you would need to fall back on a legal principle established, I believe, albeit in a different context, by the late Lord Denning. From memory, I think the argument goes something like this. First, when the damp was initially discovered you had relied on the seller as being more expert in these matters than yourself, to fully and properly remedy it, and understood him to have done that. It was only when the second damp check was carried out that you were made aware that the first repair had not been properly carried out, and that there had been further water ingress at the original location and in the area above the cab. You could not reasonably have sought to reject the vehicle any earlier, because you relied on the advertised quality of the product as being suitable for its intended purpose, and on the competence of the seller in repairing what you had understood to be a rare and isolated instance of defective construction quality. You are now acting at the earliest reasonable time relative to the damp check you initiated, to reject a vehicle that was shown to have multiple constructional defects, of which you are only now aware, and which on precedent the seller appears not competent to repair. Consequently you have no confidence in either the quality of the vehicle, or in the competence of its seller to properly repair it, and wish to reject it and have its purchase cost returned to you. Additionally, you have now suffered actual financial loss on both counts due to the reduction in value of your vehicle in its present condition, compared to its value in a defect free state. I'm not seeking to influence your decision, but only to persuade you to take competent legal advice before you decide. My fear is that if you allow the dealer to proceed and the result is unsatisfactory, you will be seriously out of pocket - either because the van will have lost much of its re-sale value due to the unsatisfactory repairs, or because you would need to take it elsewhere for proper repair at your own expense, leaving you with only one means of recovering your losses: to sue the dealer for damages. That might, in turn, become more complicated because you had again trusted the repairs to the person who had previously failed. After all, although you may only have realised the earlier attempt had failed when you got the results of the ingress tests, the high moisture readings recorded suggest that both areas of leakage had in fact existed at the time of sale. The dealer seems to have made an assumption that the moisture discovered then was due to the van standing un-ventilated at his premises before he sold it to you, but not to have taken his own moisture meter around the whole van (being a vehicle that he should, by then, have known liable to manufacturing defects) and thoroughly checked its moisture content in the places its manufacturer (presumably) specifies. Had he done that, he should not have sold the van in that condition. Regarding the over-cab moisture, if this is due to condensation and not water ingress, it might point to an absence of, or inadequate, insulation in the over-cap pod. I seem to remember reading of one such instance, but cannot remember where or when. However I think it will have been on here, or in MMM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Uzzell Posted July 14, 2020 Share Posted July 14, 2020 My 2005 Hobby T600FC motorhome (and other similar contemporary Hobby designs) had just half of the underside of the GRP over-cab pod insulated and condensation would form on the uninsulated surface and drip downwards. Not a great scenario at the best of times, but made far worse by Hobby having built multiple lockers in the pod, with the lockers' interiors made from paper-covered hardboard. Once it had been appreciated what Hobby had done, it was immediately obvious that the condensation problem was inevitable and that the lockers insides would soon start to rot. It was a nightmare addressing the issue... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrad Posted July 20, 2020 Author Share Posted July 20, 2020 An update on my damp! Citizens Advice said, as I expected, that I have to give the dealers a chance to fix it before I can start the process of rejection/refund. Just had a call from the dealers, who say the ingress was from the joining strip across the van, above the overcab bed, and they've over-sealed it. Also done some work to the rear. I'll ask them for a report when I collect after leaving it a couple of more days for any Covid-19 to die off (that's their approach, will also sanitise it as best I can). Here's the rub - for the warranty to be valid, inspection has to be done by an authorised dealer. Sounds a bit of a cartel, and point Brian made I feel would still hold - that there is a reasonable expectation for any product to last a certain time, so I could still try for refund regardless, although it would be another hurdle to overcome. So it's booked in for 2 months time, and they will backdate the inspection so it's valid. At least that gives me time to see if has dried out/stopped leaking. Fingers crossed! Once again, many thanks for the sound advice in folks' replies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted July 22, 2020 Share Posted July 22, 2020 Conrad - 2020-07-20 1:40 PM...……………..Here's the rub - for the warranty to be valid, inspection has to be done by an authorised dealer. Sounds a bit of a cartel, and point Brian made I feel would still hold - that there is a reasonable expectation for any product to last a certain time, so I could still try for refund regardless, although it would be another hurdle to overcome. So it's booked in for 2 months time, and they will backdate the inspection so it's valid. At least that gives me time to see if has dried out/stopped leaking. I think the above may be confusing two things. First, you rights under consumer legislation, and second, your rights under warranty. Your rights under the warranty are as defined by the manufacturer of the van, and are theirs to interpret in, broadly, whatever way they choose. You have no contract of any kind with the manufacturer, only with the dealer who sold you the van. What the manufacturer agrees will be with the dealer, who will then generally execute the work at the manufacturer's expense on their behalf. You cannot take the manufacturer to court if you consider their interpretation of their warranty unreasonable. What their warranty provides is not limited by consumer legislation, is in addition to consumer legislation, is as set out in their warranty conditions, covers no more and no less than the conditions say, and cannot limit your rights under consumer legislation. The concept of reasonableness, and of how the buyer might reasonably expect the seller to behave in rectifying defects in their purchase, exists under consumer legislation only - but to exercise those rights you have to turn to the courts. My point in regard to whether or not it is reasonable for you to have been aware of the leakage at an earlier date than the damp check you recently had carried out, wherever or by whomever it was carried out, is only of relevance to your rights under consumer legislation. What the warranty conditions say is what determines the manufacturer's, and your, rights and obligations under the warranty only. Chausson appear to be being reasonable in that they appear to have allowed the dealer to re-test you van, and to back date the inspection to be within the time limits required under the warranty, so reinstating the validity of the water ingress warranty. They were under no obligation to do that, and could have declared the warranty void. I'm somewhat cautious over the assurance that the main roof seam has been "over-sealed". I would want to know with what, and how, as I would expect that seam to be factory sealed during assembly and, on a new vehicle repair, for the seam to have been sealed by the dealer in the same fashion as should have been achieved at the factory. "Over-sealed", suggests to me the application of a sealant along the edges of the cover- strip, rather than the original sealant being completely replaced. If that is what has been done the seal cannot be expected to have equal durability to the factory executed seal. What should have been done is to fully remove the joint cover strip, thoroughly clean off all remaining original sealant from both roof and strip, prime as necessary the surfaces to be sealed, and then apply new sealant and re-bed, and finally screw down, the cover strip. Sealants last longest when shielded from UV light, as it is the UV that degrades them. What is exposed to UV, especially where the sealant film is thin, will be liable to premature failure, the more so if the materials either side of the seam are liable to movement relative to one another, such as, for example, under thermal expansion/contraction, where the resulting movement may exceed the elasticity of the sealant itself, so causing it to split, or lose adhesion. The van is your property, and you have a right (under consumer legislation, not under the warranty) to be satisfied that any work carried out on it is to your satisfaction. My personal view is that you should take each step from now on following personal legal advice. Have a look at this link, which explains where you appear to be, and your options, in much more detail (and with greater knowledge!) than I can set out. http://tinyurl.com/yao8jdo5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.