New X250/Bessacarr habitation door

[Way2Go]

Just got my Bessacarr back from having it's new habitation door fitted - under warranty :-)

Like others, mine was checked for the gas strut issue and the dealer confirmed that the door had also de-laminated and should therefore be replaced.

Swift said they wouldn't replace it under warranty as we'd missed out our last habitation check and therefore the warranty was nul and void which was fair enough.  However, my local dealer said the replacement was approx £1,000 so fought long and hard for us and Swift eventually gave in and replaced it as a good will gesture.  Smiles all around :-)  :-)

The new aircraft style door is fantastic and a 200% improvement over the original one.  It now opens fully - for the first time - and has a pin that locates into a socket attached on the bodywork similar to a caravan.  We now have full-width access to get in and out of the habitation area and the opening and closing is 500% smoother than the original.

The door now closes smoothly and quietly and can be closed correctly unlike the old one that had to be slammed with as much force as you could muster.

All-in-all an excellent job and we've very pleased.

W2G

[rupert123]

Well done Swift then, their customer service has certainly improved in last couple of years and must be among the best around now.

[andy mccord]

just dont use the door catch thats fitted to the bodywork,ive already seen posts of damage caused by releasing the door from the retainer. My door still doesnt lock on the bottom catch, you can push it out from inside even when locked. But i agree its a much better built door.

 

Andy

[Way2Go]

andy mccord - 2010-05-14 12:25 PM just dont use the door catch thats fitted to the bodywork,ive already seen posts of damage caused by releasing the door from the retainer.

If you don't use the door catch how do you keep the door from flapping in the wind Andy?

Mine doesn't appear to need a great deal of force to release it from the retaining bracket - seems to work as I'd expect?

W2G 

[rupert123]

Mine to is fine been using for some time now.

[bob b]

I had no idea that a door was a part of a habitation check. Well I never !

A bit of 'wriggle room' by Swift do you think ?

[Guest Tracker]

Way2Go - 2010-05-14 7:29 AM

Swift said they wouldn't replace it under warranty as we'd missed out our last habitation check and therefore the warranty was nul and void which was fair enough.  However, my local dealer said the replacement was approx £1,000 so fought long and hard for us and Swift eventually gave in and replaced it as a good will gesture.  Smiles all around

 

I should bloody well think so - what a load of penny pinching bulls**t trying to evade a genuine warranty claim for a well established bad design and poor quality door - it does nothing to make me want to buy a Swift made van!

 

How many people have spent a small fortune on a new van that is not of merchantable quality with a door unfit for purpose from Swift only to be messed about, made to wait, lied to and generally been made to worry needlessly about a failing of manufacture that should have been resolved years ago.

 

Sorry folks but I won't buy a Swift new or used until I see some honesty and integrity from them.

 

Or am I being a bit harsh do you think?

[Guest peter]

rupert123 - 2010-05-14 10:00 AM

 

Well done Swift then, their customer service has certainly improved in last couple of years and must be among the best around now.

Don't get too excited Rupert. If you read the complete post, Swift denied liability and it was only the tenacity of the dealer that got it sorted. So, Swift still have a way to go before deserving the accolade that you so generously gave them.

[rupert123]

I am aware of Swift failing to respond immediately but Way2Go, as he states, did not comply with warrenty terms, he also seems happy with the outcome. So yes Swift did the right thing in the end, how many other makers would, I wonder, with a clear breach of warrenty terms. Why are some so happy to continue to find fault when a company, any company, trys hard to put thing right. The system will never be perfect and their will always be problems. I have had a few in the past with overpriced, overrated German products but I still would not dismiss all German products because of this, things change and probably the Germans with their M/H and cars will get back to the very good products they used to be.

[Guest Tracker]

Car makers have no legal right to insist that owners have their new cars serviced by their franchised dealers any more in order to comply with the warranty - with the proviso that genuine or rapproved parts and lubricants are used - so it pays to specify that to the service garage and get an invoice stating exactly what parts and lubricants have been used - preferably with receipts from the supplying factor/main dealer for said materials.

 

Failure to dot the 'i's and cross the 't's can result in the manufacturers being very uncooperative. It's just their way of applying the principles of sour grapes in order to abdicate their responsibility.

 

And so it SHOULD be with habitation servicing - but I don't know how thw law applies to this aspect - and any whingeing sour grapes from the converters does them no favours in the grand scheme of things even if it does make them feel big and tough in saving themselves a moral, if not a legal, warranty claim.

 

The whole issue of suspect warranties and exclusions and complex and unfair rules of compliance stinks in my humble view!

[Way2Go]

bob b - 2010-05-14 8:47 PM

I had no idea that a door was a part of a habitation check. Well I never !

I'm not sure that it is.  It's just that there was a recall notice out for the gas strut that holds the door open as it appeared that it was too fierce.  The good dealers also took the oportunity to check the door itself as apparently the faulty gas strut 'could' cause the door to de-laminate which mine clearly had.

[Way2Go]

Can I just repeat that Swift were under no obligation to replace the door under warranty.  The warranty is an agreement that they will honour any work that needs to be done as long as I honour my side of the bargain to have an annual habitation check done.

I missed out the second habitation check thus breaking my side of the agreement so they were under no obligation to carry it out free of charge.

It I had had to replace it at my own cost it would have been unfortunate but completely my own fault.

It would not put me off buying another Swift/Fiat Ducato, I'd buy another one tomorrow.  We love our 2007 one and have had the water ingress problem sorted out and the judder fixed.

We love the look of the Fiat Ducato/Bessacarr E560 and wouldn't swap her for the world.

We've now had the door replaced under warranty - which has just expired - so there's nothing more to be said really.

W2G

[Rayjsj]

W2G,

nothing to do with doors... 'cept for 'her indoors'.

Fully approve of your new 'Mrs W2G' ????? is she 'new' or just 'Re-Cycled'

8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) ;-) Ray

[Brian Kirby]

Seems to have cheered him up a bit, doesn't she?  He's obviously just re-made the bed, too!  :-D

[Guest Tracker]

Way2Go - 2010-05-15 2:50 PM

Can I just repeat that Swift were under no obligation to replace the door under warranty.  The warranty is an agreement that they will honour any work that needs to be done as long as I honour my side of the bargain to have an annual habitation check done.

I missed out the second habitation check thus breaking my side of the agreement so they were under no obligation to carry it out free of charge.

How on earth can the failure to have a habitation check carried out affect whether a door is faulty or not?Either it is faulty or it ain't and if it is the manufacturer should change it without quibble.I'm sorry but although I find that W2g's generosity towards Swift's meaness admirable in some ways, his acceptance of Swift's unfair attitude is so symptomatic of us Brits in general (but not me in particular!) who don't like to 'make a fuss' or complain when handed the s**tty end of the stick.Sorry - but I'm still appalled at Swift's attitude which ranks alongside Fiat's over the reverse issue for downright bloody mindedness and anti consumer or customer care and I'm darned glad I don't have either a Swift or a Fiat under one of their alleged warranties!

[rupert123]

Tracker - 2010-05-15 7:23 PM

Way2Go - 2010-05-15 2:50 PM

Can I just repeat that Swift were under no obligation to replace the door under warranty.  The warranty is an agreement that they will honour any work that needs to be done as long as I honour my side of the bargain to have an annual habitation check done.

I missed out the second habitation check thus breaking my side of the agreement so they were under no obligation to carry it out free of charge.

How on earth can the failure to have a habitation check carried out affect whether a door is faulty or not?Either it is faulty or it ain't and if it is the manufacturer should change it without quibble.I'm sorry but although I find that W2g's generosity towards Swift's meaness admirable in some ways, his acceptance of Swift's unfair attitude is so symptomatic of us Brits in general (but not me in particular!) who don't like to 'make a fuss' or complain when handed the s**tty end of the stick.Sorry - but I'm still appalled at Swift's attitude which ranks alongside Fiat's over the reverse issue for downright bloody mindedness and anti consumer or customer care and I'm darned glad I don't have either a Swift or a Fiat under one of their alleged warranties!

Hate to point it out to you Rich but you do have a Swift group van.

[Brian Kirby]

The liability for the defective door was, in reality the dealer's (the "trader", as defined in the legislation), and would only have been Swift's had Barry maintained the warranty by having the designated checks.

There are no laws, and there is no concept of reasonableness, where warranties are concerned.  It means just what it says, no more, no less, and if the manufacturer choses to stick to the letter of his warranty he is completely within his rights.  If he does more, he is, in truth, being generous.  Folk must be aware of this, as is starkly obvious from the juddergate threads.

The dealer who should really get the accolades in this case, because he seems to have quietly shouldered his responsibility, and sorted the matter out with Swift, with Swift due a passing pat on the head for supporting their dealer.

[Way2Go]

Brian Kirby - 2010-05-16 12:06 PM

The liability for the defective door was, in reality the dealer's (the "trader", as defined in the legislation), and would only have been Swift's had Barry maintained the warranty by having the designated checks.

There are no laws, and there is no concept of reasonableness, where warranties are concerned.  It means just what it says, no more, no less, and if the manufacturer choses to stick to the letter of his warranty he is completely within his rights.  If he does more, he is, in truth, being generous.  Folk must be aware of this, as is starkly obvious from the juddergate threads.

The dealer who should really get the accolades in this case, because he seems to have quietly shouldered his responsibility, and sorted the matter out with Swift, with Swift due a passing pat on the head for supporting their dealer.

Agree completely Brian ;-)

[Way2Go]

Tracker - 2010-05-15 7:23 PM

Way2Go - 2010-05-15 2:50 PM

Can I just repeat that Swift were under no obligation to replace the door under warranty.  The warranty is an agreement that they will honour any work that needs to be done as long as I honour my side of the bargain to have an annual habitation check done.

I missed out the second habitation check thus breaking my side of the agreement so they were under no obligation to carry it out free of charge.

How on earth can the failure to have a habitation check carried out affect whether a door is faulty or not? Either it is faulty or it ain't and if it is the manufacturer should change it without quibble. I'm sorry but although I find that W2g's generosity towards Swift's meaness admirable in some ways, his acceptance of Swift's unfair attitude is so symptomatic of us Brits in general (but not me in particular!) who don't like to 'make a fuss' or complain when handed the s**tty end of the stick. Sorry - but I'm still appalled at Swift's attitude which ranks alongside Fiat's over the reverse issue for downright bloody mindedness and anti consumer or customer care and I'm darned glad I don't have either a Swift or a Fiat under one of their alleged warranties!

Tracker - start your own thread then I won't need to read your biased views.

[Way2Go]

Rayjsj - 2010-05-15 4:38 PM W2G, nothing to do with doors... 'cept for 'her indoors'. Fully approve of your new 'Mrs W2G' ????? is she 'new' or just 'Re-Cycled' 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) ;-) Ray

Hey Ray, she's staying a while to look after me 'coz Ma's gone back east to visit her sister who's unwell.  Is she a looker then?  I hadn't noticed  8-)

[andy mccord]

Way2Go - 2010-05-14 3:44 PM

andy mccord - 2010-05-14 12:25 PM just dont use the door catch thats fitted to the bodywork,ive already seen posts of damage caused by releasing the door from the retainer.

If you don't use the door catch how do you keep the door from flapping in the wind Andy?

Mine doesn't appear to need a great deal of force to release it from the retaining bracket - seems to work as I'd expect?

W2G 

W2G,I shut the door when leaving the van, I dont use the retainer because it needs a stiff pull to release it, having had problems with sideskirts coming loose, I dont want to risk damaging it anymore.One thing I will say is try standing inside the van, close the door, then try to gently push the door outwards near were the catches are. mine fails to lock on the bottom one properly, so the only way at the moment to lock it is to push it from outside the van to engage the lockRegardsAndy

[Way2Go]

I'll have a look at that Andy the next timewe go out in her.  Thanks for the tip.

W2G

[Mel B]

Interesting this ...

 

Whilst the door was probably not specifically mentioned as part of the habitation check, one thing that should be done I believe is a visual inspection of the van. Had the habitation check been done, this problem with the door stay may have been spotted at an earlier stange, and if so, could possibly have been sorted out rather than letting it get to the point where the door was so damaged that it had to be replaced.

 

However, as it appears there was a RECALL on the faulty doors it was NOT a warranty issue as it was a well known product failure, then IMV Swift should have made sure that everyone who had one of their vans was informed, regardless of whether it was in warranty or not as it shouldn't have made a difference as to whether the door was 'fit for purpose'.

 

At the end of the day though the door has been replaced and W2G is happy, that's what matters. :-S

[Way2Go]

The habitation check is a bit of a red herring.  Swift signalled a general recall notice because of the gas strut and quoted that under 'some circumstances' the faulty gas strut may have caused the door to delaminate.

My gas strut and door were checked and found to be faulty so a warranty claim was submitted to have the door replaced.  The only reason the habitation check (or failure to have the last one carried out) came into play was when Swift originally refused to carry out the work due to me breaking my side of the warranty.

This recall is unlike the 'juddergate' problem where they will only carry out the work if you complain about it when in fact it must surely affect all vehicles as it's seems to be a design flaw??

Having said all that we love our vehicle and would certainly buy another one as we love the design and layout.

W2G

[Mel B]

Ah yes ... but when you say 'WE' who else is it? The 'niece' or the wife!!! :D