Calling all Ace, Swift and Bessecar owners-condensation?

[readytogo]

Dear fellow motorhomers..

 

You may have seen an earlier thread I posted about my Ace Milano motorhome being sent back to the factory to have extra insulation due to a severe condensation problem which resulted in being drenched with condensation overnight when sleeping in the overcab bed (or luton pod).

 

As the Ace is the same design as the Bessecar and Swift, I wondered if any of these owners had had similar problems.

 

We have tried our Ace out this weekend after it being 'fixed' in November. However, even with sleeping with the side window open, I was disappointed to find I still awoke on a damp and wet mattress (and bedding where it meets the front of the cab). I don't particularly enjoy waking with wet bedclothes and wondered if this was just my van that suffered with these problems, or a trait of the 'luton pod'.

 

PS Ace isn't even 12 months old and I cook with all windows and Heiki open too.

[LordThornber]

Readytogo, I can't help with any support as it's been sold, but a colleague had what sounds like the same problem with her Swift, a 2006 Sundance if I'm not mistaken.

 

She'd absolutely had enough with the van and traded it in for an Auto Trail and she admitted to more than a twinge of guilt about the next poor s*d that buys it.

 

Martyn

[David Dwight]

Hi Readytogo,

 

This must be a problem with newer Milano's ours is an 05 we have never had any problems with condensation in the Luton. We have found ours to be very good all round for that sort of thing. We have used it in very cold and wet conditions, we occasionaly get some minor condensation on the bottom of the windows and the habitation door frame but never anything to worry about.

Hope you get your problem sorted ok.

 

David

[Brian Kirby]

First, I think you should take it straight back to the supplying dealer, while still damp, to allow him to clearly understand what the problem is, and where it is.

I assume the weather was dry where you were, so there is no possibility that it is leakage and not condensation?

Since the van is so new, and is pretty much unusable in that condition (at least, it is not in a condition in which one could reasonably expected to sleep in it) I think there is still a serious fault that the factory has not rectified under warranty.  That they returned to vehicle to you in poor condition indicates poor quality control, which would not inspire confidence.  Consider: the vehicle has a severe condensation problem.  That is a fault.  This was supposedly fixed, but the returned vehicle had not been cleaned up or finished off.  That is a second fault.  Now, you have discovered that whatever was done at the works has not eliminated the condensation.  That is a third fault.  So, back to the dealer post haste while still damp, for him to see. 

You bought from the dealer, and it is the dealer's contractual obligation (Sale of Goods Act etc etc) to rectify the defect.  However, the van is your property, so you do not have to agree to any proposed remedy if you are unhappy (you must however, be reasonable in what you reject).

See what the dealer says, and what he proposes, but do not let him send the vehicle back again to the works unless you are entirely happy.  If you have doubts, or have limited confidence in the remedies proposed, go immediately to your local Trading Standards Department and ask them if you have grounds for rejecting the vehicle, or what you should do in your own interest in terms of establishing exactly what repairs, within what timescale, are proposed.

I say the above because the problem is not a "normal" one, and points to a serious, and potentially difficult to remedy, construction defect.  It seems to me at least possible that the pod was originally produced with no insulation at all, as opposed to insufficient insulation.  This is a GRP, or possibly ABS, moulded pod that would normally have insulation incorporated before fitting to the van.  The possibility of successfully retro-fitting suitable insulation seems to me debatable.  If the insulation is, or should be, integral with the pod, the only remedy I can see would be to replace the entire pod with one that has been properly insulated.  If the insulation is normally incorporated into the roof, and the moulded pod is merely fitted as a streamlined and weatherproof covering, I would guess satisfactory repair would require removal of at least the pod, possibly the whole roof sheet, to start again on insulating the roof from scratch. 

The problem here is that motorhomes are not manufactured for ease of dis-assembly, and it is unlikely to be a job anyone at the factory will have any experience of undertaking.  Putting together yes, taking apart, doubtful.  What I am saying to you is that this is liable to be a complex repair, needing great care if it is to succeed, and is to be undertaken by a firm that has already proved itself far from fault free.  The clear risk if the van goes back again is another botched repair, with the van unavailable for your use while it is being repaired, and still unsatisfactory when returned.

I have no desire to add to your worries or misery, but I think the best remedy, if it can be achieved, will be rejection of the van as not of merchantable quality, a full refund of original purchase price, and then to buy a different van.

Time is not on your side, so you must act fast, and it is absolutely essential that you get the right advice on how to proceed to ensure you are able to secure a satisfactory outcome.  These are uncertain times, and getting your money back may not be straightforward and, with many dealers trading on a shoestring, cannot be guaranteed.

[colin]

I would like to second brian's post, if, as seems likely, they have attempted to just 'stuff' some extra insulation in the pod this, as in your case, will most likely not work, as the moist air can still 'seap' past the insulation and hit the outer cold skin.

[PJay]

Hi ready to go

We have a Swift Sundace (2006) model Have no problems with condensation in Luton cab , in fact a very comfortable bed!

PJay

[davos]

we have ace capri less than a year old and had no problems with damp inside the van.

[bigal55]

2007 milano, no condensation problems,we always sleep in the overcab.

[libby]

Not in any way going against what you are saying, but how many people in the M/H and are there any animals?

 

Is there a possibilty of a wet section somewhere that keeps producing moisture? Maybe this is an ideal situation for a thorough dampness test !

 

Ok so its new but has it been standing around in the rain, last year was a very wet one.

[docted]

I fully agree with Brian on this one the problem belongs to the dealer and it is up to them to resolve.

[michele]

We own a Bessie and have not had any problems .

[Big Momma]

Swift Kontiki (04) with large overcab bed, was used often by my two daughters and never had any problems.

[coxie]

Brian, I have just joined the forum and am looking for advice on rejecting our motorhome. We have had a multitude of problems with our Bessacarr E695 (sorry - not the condensation problem mentioned here) and have been dealing directly with Swift giving them sufficient time to rectify the problems. Trading Standards advised me that we would be within our rights to reject the vehicle because of the problems we've had, but that the only person who can approve a rejection is a judge in a court of law. To proceed with this line we will need to employ a solicitor and barrister which will cost a fortune. So any advice from anyone on how to proceed please....we're frustrated, upset and desperately wanting to enjoy our van.

[Derek Uzzell]

coxie

 

I believe you should repeat your request for advice as a New Thread with a Subject heading of (say) "Rejecting a Motorhome - Advice Needed". That way you are likely to attract the attention of the whole forum.

 

I recall that, a good while ago, a forum member who had successfully rejected a motorhome was offering step-by-step guidance on what had been involved.

 

Before taking the expensive solicitor/barrister route, have you considered making use of the Which? Legal Service to gain expert advice?

 

http://www.whichlegalservice.co.uk/

[Brian Kirby]

Emma

You may have access to free legal advice from all sorts of sources.  Check your home, contents, and vehicle insurances, RAC/AA membership, Caravan or Camping Club memberships, credit cards, bank account etc etc.  It is surprising how many such have a legal advice scheme somewhere in the conditions.

However, motorhomes are rather complex items compared to a pair of shoes, and rejection after use is likely to need a court judgement which, of course, the supplier will contest!  If you win outright, provided your solicitor gives you consistently good advice, you will get back all your costs.  However, if you don't win outright, and the settlement is partial, the award of costs may hinge on whether or not you have behaved impeccably in all respects, giving the dealer all the rope he needs to hang himself before taking him to court.  All I am underlining is that apart from the initial cost, there are risks inherent in the procedure, as I am sure you have realised.

It would be rather unusual (though not impossible) for a motorhome to have faults so severe that it cannot be used for its intended purpose.  Sadly, it seems it is not that unusual for motorhomes to have faults, but dealers must be allowed to carry out repairs, and should do this within a reasonable time.

I do think you should not proceed any further without taking some legal advice, because what you do next may prejudice what you can do successfully in future.  As a first step, unless you have already done this, try this website http://tinyurl.com/qlnddt, and have a look at the general guidance available.  Alas, have a look on here: http://tinyurl.com/p3dn5o

No need to identify dealers, or the specific vehicle, to the extent you prejudice your rights, but some idea of what is wrong with your van, and what has been done to date to fix it might help us to help you.

My final point is that Swift are doing whatever they are doing under their warranty.  The warranty is additional to your rights against the dealer who sold you the van.  It is with the dealer that you have your contract, and not Swift.  Why are Swift dealing with your problems and not the supplying dealer, and what has the supplying dealer done himself?  Has the van been sent back to Swift by the dealer, because he cannot himself rectify the problems, or have you cut the dealer out of the loop through frustration with his (lack of) performance?  Finally, what is so wrong with the van that Swift themselves apparently cannot make proper repairs?

[coxie]

Thank you both for your responses and pointers towards further advice.

 

I have set up a new thread with a similar question, where too I have posted a response to Brian's reply with some further details about our problems.