Rejecting a Motorhome - Advice Needed

[coxie]

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 and have been dealing directly with the dealer until recently when we wrote directly to Swift giving them until 1 August 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, but don't fancy paying out a fortune. :-(

[coxie]

Up until recently we have been dealing directly with the dealer, who has been sorting out the problems, but we now have a list of over 18 problems that have occurred over the last 11 months, some of which have taken several months to resolve and our patience has somewhat run out. We wrote an email to Swift voicing our complaint about the number of issues we've been having - they are the ones who have asked us to deal with them direct now and have told the dealer's service manager not to talk to us.

 

Here are some of the details as an example of the issues:

 

the fiamma awning was ripped - it took 6 months to replace

the dinette table didn't work properly and didn't match the decor of the van - we have just had it replaced 11 months on

the habitation door was replaced (as a recall from Swift) but it was not fitted properly and now the security D-handle the dealer fitted for us does not close against the door. The dealer's resolution to this by packing it out is a disgrace and we are left with no other options.

the tv didn't work properly - it took 8 months and a lot of perserverence to get it replaced

the u-shaped lounge beds/settees lift up on a gas strut which is pushing the side of the van out. The dealer called an engineer down to look at the problem and has requested the van is returned to the factory as there is no obvious solution.

 

I hope this explains why we are now in contact with the dealer, our sheer frustration at both the number of problems we've had and the length of time it's taken to fix some of them, and hope you can understand our concern that some of these outstanding issues are not going to be resolved very easily.

[Brian Kirby]

Clearly the dealer has served you poorly, but the good news is that Swift have agreed to intervene, for which they deserve some credit.

All the items you mention seem eminently fixable by a competent dealer, with the exception of the bed strut, which sounds like a manufacturing omission, or a design defect, that is safest dealt with at the works.

None of this should have happened, and one can easily understand your disappointment and frustration that it has happened, and that you have had such poor service.

However, I think you have to let Swift do what they can, and then decide whether the result is satisfactory.  Make sure they are aware of all of the faults, so that none get missed, and make sure you get someone in Swift, preferably a workshop supervisor, on your side and friendly.  One volunteer being worth three pressed men etc!

If you can, deliver to Swift, or collect from them yourselves, so that you can meet people, explain the problems and your feelings about them at first hand, and check that all is as it should be on completion.

Thoughts of rejection, and its attendant risks, should now only come after all repair avenues have been exhausted.  The risks, and consequences, of losing are too great.

[Vernon B]

I'm so sorry to hear of your problems and I'm sure you'll get lots of useful advice here. For what its worth my understanding is that rejecting or as it is called in law "rescinding" a contract in these circumstance is not easy - the fact that you have taxed, insured and used the vehicle for what appears to be several months will be taken as evidence that you have accepted it.

 

In practical - low cost terms - I think you may have only two options. Option 1 keep pressure on the dealer and through them the manufacturer to rectitfy the problems, all of which can probably made good. Be aware that they always react slowly hoping the problem (namely you) will go away. Option 2 (not mutually exclusive) If you've purchased the vehicle in part by a finance agreement, the finance company is under a legal responsibility to support your complaint. They'll have more muscle than you have - so get them involved.

 

It's going to be a relatively long and frustrating road but stick at it and hopefully you'll enjoy many happy days in your 'van

 

V

[coxie]

thanks for your words of support.

 

It seems as though we are in the hands of Swift now to get the bed struts sorted, but as they went on a 3 week summer factory shut down before sending us a date to return the van to the factory, we are just waiting to hear from them.

 

We are going back to the dealers on 25th for them to look at the door/security d-handle issue so will keep you posted on what happens there, but cannot see how they will be able to resolve this without providing a different design of door.

 

Still no date from Fiat on the reverse judder either.

 

So as I see it there are 3 issues that may not be fixable...but we'll just have to sit it out and wait.

 

So

[Brian Kirby]

Bed strut = Swift.

Judder = Fiat, and the indications are quite good once the full fix is applied.  Have a look down the Fiat etc transmission problems string.

The problem with the door seems to be that the new door does not close flush to the side of the van, so obstructing the Fiamma D handle.  The door is a Swift problem, so either the dealer has fitted it badly, or it is the wrong door type.  I would be inclined to refer this also to Swift, as they are to have the van back for the above strut.  At worst they can give an opinion as to what is wrong, and instruct the dealer accordingly, at best they should fix it as a token of goodwill to a customer whose purchase has been such a source of disappointment.

[catinou]

coxie - 2009-08-11 7:15 PM

 

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 and have been dealing directly with the dealer until recently when we wrote directly to Swift giving them until 1 August 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, but don't fancy paying out a fortune. :-(

 

We too had a bad experience and decided to reject our motorhome 3 years ago. We had waited almost 12 months, the pdi was not done properly but we were excited and after the visible faults had been rectified, set off on holiday. When we returned we called the dealer as requested to book in for their usual 1st check. When we mentioned we had noticed the leisure battery was not holding its charge during our trip, we were asked to plug into the mains at home and leave everything, except the battery charger, off for 3 days then check the battery again. This, we were told would help them know if it had left the dealers undercharged or if there was a problem with the battery charger. *-)

 

On the 2nd day into charging my neighbour called the gas board out as he thought either his or our gas was leaking. Transco traced the leak to our motorhome in the drive :$ When we plucked up courage to open it we found the van fume filled and could not go in it. After calling the dealer we were told to "disconnect the power cable to the MH immediately."

 

When we were able to enter the van the next day we saw the damage the fumes had done - orange connection cable in cupboard now dark brown, all white fittings and blinds, fridge etc. were pale brown. We called the dealer and told them we were rejecting the vehicle as unfit for purpose, quoting the relevant Act and they were with us the next day. They did actually back us up in iur decision but called the manufacturers whose chairman arrived at our house within another 3 days. He immediately said he would take it back and it was returned to the factory on a low loader. :-( The manufacturers had been experiencing faulty batteries from a new (cheaper) supplier apparently and ours had slipped through the net.

 

The upshot was, another year's wait (we changed our mind about the model 3 months after re-ordering), a large discount and a new start. :-D

 

The people we feel sorry for are the ones who have now purchased the original MH (which had to have EVERYTHING stripped out, including the wall boards, carpets, upholstery etc. and replaced due to the smell and damage) - we saw it advertised on the internet 6 months later and when I posed as a prospective buyer was told that it was being sold with really low mileage as the original owners couldn't handle it!!! (Sold by a dealer a long way from ours!) :-S

 

My advice would be - if you are really unhappy with it - insist on your rights and don't be "talked round".

[Brian Kirby]

catinou - 2009-08-12 4:12 PM

coxie - 2009-08-11 7:15 PM 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 and have been dealing directly with the dealer until recently when we wrote directly to Swift giving them until 1 August 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, but don't fancy paying out a fortune. :-(

We too had a bad experience and decided to reject our motorhome 3 years ago. We had waited almost 12 months, the pdi was not done properly but we were excited and after the visible faults had been rectified, set off on holiday. When we returned we called the dealer as requested to book in for their usual 1st check. When we mentioned we had noticed the leisure battery was not holding its charge during our trip, we were asked to plug into the mains at home and leave everything, except the battery charger, off for 3 days then check the battery again. This, we were told would help them know if it had left the dealers undercharged or if there was a problem with the battery charger. *-) On the 2nd day into charging my neighbour called the gas board out as he thought either his or our gas was leaking. Transco traced the leak to our motorhome in the drive :$ When we plucked up courage to open it we found the van fume filled and could not go in it. After calling the dealer we were told to "disconnect the power cable to the MH immediately." When we were able to enter the van the next day we saw the damage the fumes had done - orange connection cable in cupboard now dark brown, all white fittings and blinds, fridge etc. were pale brown. We called the dealer and told them we were rejecting the vehicle as unfit for purpose, quoting the relevant Act and they were with us the next day. They did actually back us up in iur decision but called the manufacturers whose chairman arrived at our house within another 3 days. He immediately said he would take it back and it was returned to the factory on a low loader. :-( The manufacturers had been experiencing faulty batteries from a new (cheaper) supplier apparently and ours had slipped through the net. The upshot was, another year's wait (we changed our mind about the model 3 months after re-ordering), a large discount and a new start. :-D The people we feel sorry for are the ones who have now purchased the original MH (which had to have EVERYTHING stripped out, including the wall boards, carpets, upholstery etc. and replaced due to the smell and damage) - we saw it advertised on the internet 6 months later and when I posed as a prospective buyer was told that it was being sold with really low mileage as the original owners couldn't handle it!!! (Sold by a dealer a long way from ours!) :-S My advice would be - if you are really unhappy with it - insist on your rights and don't be "talked round".

However, Jennny, to be fair, you did not actually legally reject your van.  You first registered a fault with the dealer, and then correctly followed his instructions.  This resulted in considerable damage to your van.  You then, reasonably, advised the dealer you wished to reject the van as unfit for purpose, and the dealer turned to the manufacturer.  The manufacturer, to his credit, took the van back and you eventually ended up with a replacement. 

This all seems to have been achieved through the fairly willing, and prompt, co-operation of the dealer and the manufacturer (who should perhaps be named, since they seem to have acted very fairly).  You were lucky, and you were treated fairly, although the experience must have been extremely unpleasant at the time. 

Legal rejection would only come into play where one or other, or both, of those parties had not cooperated.  In your case, since you had already used the van, you would have been legally deemed to have accepted it, and so could then only "reject", meaning being taken back to the position (both financial and in terms of ownership) you were in before taking delivery of the van, if a court so ordered.

That is a huge risk since, in the absence of cooperation the claim would presumably have been contested, and would probably involve numerous counter claims on the part of the dealer.  You could not enjoin the manufacturer in your case (because you have no contract with him), although the dealer might call him in to support his counter claims and, if the court did not find 100% in your favour, and award all costs against the defendant (which seems fairly unusual in civil compensation cases), the cost to you as plaintiff of a 60% win, with costs shared pro rata, could be quite eye watering.  In your case, as you have explained it, it would seem you should have had little trouble establishing the facts to a court, but what if the dealer had then denied ever suggesting the charger be left on, or had suggested an alternative explanation for the damage, saying it resulted from abuse?  You would then have had to prove only proper use, and that you had acted on their instructions, and that would not have been so easy. 

I'm not suggesting to Emma that she should just cave in, but the time when simple rejection could have been applied has passed, and she must now allow the dealer, and to the extent he is willing to act under warranty, the manufacturer, to attempt to put right what is wrong.  They must do this with reasonable expedition, but legally, they must be allowed to try.  Then, if they fail to achieve reasonable repairs, the question of legal rejection can commence on the grounds of failure to provide goods of reasonable quality.  Even then, it may be better for Emma to negotiate for a preferential trade in against another new vehicle, than to risk the costs of court action.  To achieve that, she needs to keep talking to both parties, and not to antagonise either, nor to act aggressively.  She may need to commence on the legal route to gain the best outcome for herself, because there are financial risks in contesting the case for the dealer as well, but that needs to be done in a spirit of sorrow and not anger, and requires the maintenance of impeccable records, in terms of all correspondence (letters, not e-mails), of accuracy in stating what is wrong, and of what remedies were attempted, by whom, with what result, and when.

Simply put, court actions are risky, expensive, have uncertain outcomes, and are best avoided if at all possible.  If Swift do what they should, and the van is returned looking and working as it should be, that is surely the best of all possible outcomes.  I think that is more likely to be achieved through patient cooperation, than by threat.  Threats simply drive people into their bunkers, from which they are remarkably difficult to extract.

[Vernon B]

Very sound adice Brian. If you go down the rescinding route the dealer will simply let the 'van stand in his lot - and may well charge you for parking! Ultimately it will be up to you to take legal action.

 

In these circumstances I'm reminded of the letter that appeared about 18 month's ago in MMM. A chap bought an American RV import for about £100k. He knew a bit about these things and prior to purchase asked the dealer to confirm that the vehicle width was within legal limits for the UK. He was given that assurance, verbally but witnessed, but found out later, as a consequence of having a windscreen replaced, that it wasn't true. The dealer was not prepared to exchange the RV for a UK compliant alternative so the chap rescinded the contract on the grounds that a) he had been misled and b) the vehicle was unfit for use ie driving it in the UK.

 

Would you take the dealer to court?

 

Well, suffice to say the legal process took many many many months but not only that, the chap lost the case and was left with a bill for £250k - and why? Well the learned judge ruled, in the grand tradition that the law is an ass, in favour of the dealer because no one had ever been prosecuted for driving an RV wider than the statutory legal limit. As Richard Littlejohn might say "you couldn't make it up"

 

I have another observation to make concerning the alternative remedy of using the Trading Standards Office.

 

Although this body does some fine work it seems to me that they're only prepared to support, let us say the really vulnerable in our society. Present them with a complaint which shows you have some financial means - like parting company with several thousand pounds for a motorhome - then you're on your own sunshine.

 

V

 

 

[catinou]

Brian Kirby - 2009-08-12 6:54 PMHowever, Jennny, to be fair, you did not actually legally reject your van.  You first registered a fault with the dealer, and then correctly followed his instructions.  This resulted in considerable damage to your van.  You then, reasonably, advised the dealer you wished to reject the van as unfit for purpose, and the dealer turned to the manufacturer.  The manufacturer, to his credit, took the van back and you eventually ended up with a replacement. 

This all seems to have been achieved through the fairly willing, and prompt, co-operation of the dealer and the manufacturer (who should perhaps be named, since they seem to have acted very fairly).  You were lucky, and you were treated fairly, although the experience must have been extremely unpleasant at the time. 

Far from it Brian, we had to use the "unfit for purpose" route after a very negative first response on our telephone call. The unfit part was the faulty battery which could have been avoided as they had prior knowledge of the problems.The dealer did act promptly as soon as they knew we would not back down (and a quick call to the manufacturer apparently) but it didn't cost them anything as they were also dealt with very fairly by the manufacturer. They later proved less than useless when we collected our new MH and subsequently so much so that we arranged with Autotrail to change to a local dealer for our warranty work. *-)

[Brian Kirby]

catinou - 2009-08-13 12:37 PM  Far from it Brian, we had to use the "unfit for purpose" route after a very negative first response on our telephone call. The unfit part was the faulty battery which could have been avoided as they had prior knowledge of the problems. The dealer did act promptly as soon as they knew we would not back down (and a quick call to the manufacturer apparently) but it didn't cost them anything as they were also dealt with very fairly by the manufacturer. They later proved less than useless when we collected our new MH and subsequently so much so that we arranged with Autotrail to change to a local dealer for our warranty work. *-)

But as I understand it, Jenny, you did not go through the actual court procedure?  My point was that had your dealer and the manufacturer not initially conceded (and given the state of your van after you had followed their advice it is a bit difficult to how they could have refused!), because you had already accepted the vehicle by using it, you would have needed to take them to court and obtain a judgement in your favour to get you to where you eventually ended up.  I would guess that, given the circumstances, the dealer knew his case in court would be hopeless, so gave in after making a token protest.

Once in court, the certainties all disappear: counter-claims are made, people lie and exaggerate, barristers present arguments, and decisions as to who has suffered the largest loss are involved.  Settlements are frequently somewhere between 50/50 and 80/20, with relatively few going 100% to the plaintiff and full costs against the defendant.  The biggest risk is frequently the award of costs: barristers and solicitors ain't cheap!

Please don't misunderstand.  I'm not disbelieving what you say, and I'm not saying you were wrong, just that it won't always be that straightforward and, where it isn't, the risks are significant, and best avoided if at all possible.

[catinou]

Point taken Brian,

 

I can only agree about the court process - "a solicitors letter to a conservatory company, priced about £500", ended up at a total bill 15 months later of £7,000+ !! Again we were determined and lucky to get all our money back and compensation BUT was the stress worth it??? In hind sight, we probably wouldn't go through it again if we had the choice - life is too short. ;-)

[Brian Kirby]

The disgrace, of course, in both instances, is that you have to choose between doing that, and accepting something with which you are not satisfied.  At least with a motorhome (your case probably being the exception that proves the rule!), even if you are unhappy with it, you can ultimately trade it for another and chalk to loss to (expensive!) experience.  Not so easy with a conservatory!