tazdog6007 Posted August 23, 2011 Share Posted August 23, 2011 thanks brian wrote to bh quoting sale of goods act as the defect was apparent within six months of purchase,waiting for their reply.sent similar to autosleeper,watch this space! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
postnote Posted November 23, 2011 Author Share Posted November 23, 2011 What with the demise of Discover Leisure there has been a deluge of disillusioned customers. Maybe there should be a name and shame section of MMM to help others, expect Brian has other ideas and would like this not to happen.. Just a few:- The people who have been running discover must be a bunch of clowns, I have tried to buy 3 new motorhomes from them and am still waiting for the phone call back! The aftersales are no better, having ordered spares for my Bessacarr, it took the manufacturers to get involved, the parts were ready for collection, 60 miles later they had half of my order and am still waiting for the remainder. If I ran my businesses like this business was run, I would have gone bust too! Over the moon to have to deal with our local motorhome dealers instead of the shower that Discover is. We have encountered bad manners form managers and very ver slow after sales service dept. Rude and abrupt sales staff, it's been a nightmare. Good riddance always had poor service, with the exception of the ladies in the parts department who knew what they were talking about. A gap in the market exists for a company that can provide a good after-sales service and not just be bothered about maximising initial sales The sadness of the firm going bust is a shame but the firm were very poor with dealing with customers we had to wait 40 minutes to collect the awning we had payed for in advanced the sales man selling the awnings were left on his own to run the up stairs section as for the price of the caravans where did they ever get there prices from ( does any one know where I can get caravan storage from? ) http://www.caravantimes.co.uk/news/industry/discover-leisure-enters-administration-leaving-caravanners-out-of-pocket-$21380603.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayjsj Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 Er, that link doesn't work, but we get the gist, The bit that annoyed me in this months MMM, was the news article that stated that 'People lose their deposits on M/Homes bought at the NEC' and that ' Discover were still trading (and presumably taking deposits) right up until the Administrators were called in' That REALLY gives possible purchasers of a new Motorhome something to think about ?? HOW do you order a new motorhome without possibly losing a 'bundle' to a failing company ?? could the money be lodged with an 'independant body' who would secure the purchasers deposit ? how could it be done ? As for Discover Leisure, I prefered them when they were simply 'Barrons' (who did some great 'Dealer Specials'), 'Harringtons' (a long established and reliable dealer), and Mendip, (who at least had dealerships close to where i live !!) Discover took them over and promptly shut most of them down. NO LOSS, as far as i am concerned. though I am sorry for the folk who worked on the sites. But for the 'CEO's,Manager's etc., who helped in the 'Demise' good riddance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Uzzell Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 Rayjsj - 2011-11-24 4:31 PM Er, that link doesn't work... GOOGLE on "caravan times discover leisure" (omitting the quotes of course). This should retrieve 4 entries including the one postnote mentioned. For some reason or other providing a direct link to a Caravan Times piece doesn't work, but this won't necessarily be obvious unless you preview the posting and check the link functions properly before submitting the posting. On my screen (and presumably everybody else's) it's plain from the link's colour-change at the $-sign that's something's wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rupert123 Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 Rayjsj - 2011-11-24 4:31 PM Er, that link doesn't work, but we get the gist, The bit that annoyed me in this months MMM, was the news article that stated that 'People lose their deposits on M/Homes bought at the NEC' and that ' Discover were still trading (and presumably taking deposits) right up until the Administrators were called in' That REALLY gives possible purchasers of a new Motorhome something to think about ?? HOW do you order a new motorhome without possibly losing a 'bundle' to a failing company ?? could the money be lodged with an 'independant body' who would secure the purchasers deposit ? how could it be done ? As for Discover Leisure, I prefered them when they were simply 'Barrons' (who did some great 'Dealer Specials'), 'Harringtons' (a long established and reliable dealer), and Mendip, (who at least had dealerships close to where i live !!) Discover took them over and promptly shut most of them down. NO LOSS, as far as i am concerned. though I am sorry for the folk who worked on the sites. But for the 'CEO's,Manager's etc., who helped in the 'Demise' good riddance. Easy, pay deposit on a credit card. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Uzzell Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 Not sure how well that would protect you as most motorhomes nowadays will cost more than the £30k upper limit stated in Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pepe63xnotuse Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 rupert123 - 2011-11-24 5:29 PM Easy, pay deposit on a credit card. Wasn't this discussed not so long back?...I'm sure someone on here pointed out that even if the card deposit was only,say,£1000, if the OVERALL transaction was more than £30,000(I think?),then you're not covered... ...but I can't recall who said it or which thread it was discussed on (..it may've been one of the "Discover" threads?) :-S Oops!..Sorry! Derek got in there first.... (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 Sadly, I think it offers no protection if the cost of the goods exceeded £30,000. A deposit on goods costing more than £30,000 may be recoverable from a credit card company, but only if there is a specific provision to that effect in the credit card agreement. Similarly, it may be covered under an insurance, possibly under a provision of a house contents insurance covering financial losses. However, neither of the above remedies stem from provisions of the Act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peter James Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 Rayjsj - 2011-08-11 6:13 PM I suspect that is what happened to our Irish friend 'Moyle' who posted on here long and hard about his 'Not fit for purpose' Sevel based motorhome. ??? then just 'disappeared' ! Moyle was the guy who claimed his X2/50 had never been useable, forgetting he had posted earlier that he had done 10,000 miles in it. *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayjsj Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 OK, so if a credit card deposit is no good (because of the £30,000 limit on the the total transaction) HOW can you order a new Motorhome, and still have a 'secure' deposit ?? looks like only buying an 'in stock' Van, paying and driving away the same day will be safe ? what a sad state of affairs. :-( Ray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 As I posted on the other thread, only way is to have monies paid into Escro acount, keep up ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Uzzell Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 colin - 2011-11-24 10:54 PM As I posted on the other thread, only way is to have monies paid into Escro acount, keep up ;-) Presumably this is "the other thread"? http://www.outandaboutlive.co.uk/forums/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=25334&posts=17 Using an escrow account for motorhome purchase was discussed on http://www.motorhomefacts.com/ftopic-75733-days0-orderasc-0.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HymerVan Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 I was the originator of the previous thread and note the terms of the thread on another forum about "escrow" . I remain unclear about how a deposit can be protected in a transaction where the total price is over £30,000 and in particular how a proper workable and reliable escrow arrangement could be achieved. The starting point of course would be a dealer and a purchaser willing to do it in the first place and I can imagine that many dealers just won't agree, too complicated, too expensive to arrange, unneccessary, or whatever they will say. If an escrow arrangement IS agreed by the dealer then the purchaser must be clear as what is actually going to happen and in particular who will hold the funds. In general terms I would expect that the funds need to be held "in trust" by a third party who will only release the funds on certain defined conditions being satisfied. Sounds simple but actually can be a minefield. I have not personally come across a bank or other similar organisation providing such a service but perhaps other contributors can say if they know of any. I can also see a dealers point of view in requiring some sort of deposit particularly if a vehicle is being ordered to an unusual specification. Classic advice to a purchaser is to be clear about who you are dealing with and their financial soundness but in the present financial climate that can be easier said than done. If buyers are put off from buying by the risk of losing deposits this will of course compound the problem for retailers and that lack of sales will in turn increase the risk of loss for the buyers who have paid a deposit. Perhaps the relevant trade associations could come up with a proper escrow arrangement scheme or perhaps a "deposit guarantee scheme" something along the lines of schemes in the travel industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayjsj Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 I have now read both threads, and there seems to be no, 'thats the answer then !' conclusion, apart from only pay a deposit on a Credit Card, (which may, or may not, be refundable it the dealer goes 'Tits up' before you collect your van ! depending on the £30000 rule !) I can't say that I fully understand 'Escrow' accounts or even if they are applicable to this type of case ? Either way, with sales of 'new' vans as slow as they are, 'Someone' needs to devise a way of safeguarding deposits for 'Joe public' or like the Housing market it will grind to a halt. And just checking a Dealers last years accounts online won't 'Do it', Ray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 I somehow doubt an escrow account would be the answer. When one orders goods, one enters into a contract for sale. A deposit is paid as an "earnest", to establish that the buyer's intent is serious. Once paid, it is generally treated as a first instalment on the full sum due, and it belongs to the trader, unless he becomes in breach. If the trader then goes into administration, its business may be sold, in which case the order will stand, and responsibility for fulfilling it will pass to the new owner. However, if the trader goes into liquidation, it can no longer trade, and the deposit becomes part of the firm's total assets at the time of liquidation. This precipitates a breach of contract, so the deposit becomes, in theory, returnable - and its return should be claimed. However, in the case of bankruptcy, the payor merely now becomes an unsecured creditor, and is only entitled to receive back whatever sum in the pound is eventually distributed to other unsecured creditors. The point is, that even if a deposit were held in an escrow account, it would remain the legal property of the dealer under the contract, and would have to be handed over by the account trustee on demand of the liquidator. In the case of Discover, it is in administration, it has assets in its stock and property, but it seems the administrator has decided to liquidate the entire stock via an on-line auction. Potential bargains here for the brave! This looks to me like a "fire sale", and gives more the impression of a liquidation than of administration pending sale. There is more, more factual, information on Discover's website, now under the control of KPMG as administrator. It was noticeable that the answer to almost all FAQs, was no. Bankruptcy has very harsh outcomes for almost everyone, generally excepting those whose companies are declared bankrupt, and, IMO, is now treated far too lightly under UK law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robinhood Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 I'm not at all sure that this is true. Though I have little doubt that it may not be easy in practical terms to overcome the issues (of who would hold the deposit, and what the associated fees would be), the nub of the problem is the nature of the contract that is entered into when the deposit is placed and the way that is enacted. I think it would be at least legally possible to define a contract whereby the deposit is paid (into escrow) subject to the final delivery from the supplier, such that it would be forfeited to the supplier if the buyer (and not the supplier) defaulted on the transaction. In essence, this is the core of escrow arrangements in general, simply expanded to cover the deposit (and I can see no legal "stop" on this). This would equably serve the interests of both parties, and would make the deposit safe from any administration/liquidation if the supplier were to go under. ...and edited to add the following link, which has some relevant and supportive info on client accounts and escrow for deposits. http://www.realassurance.org.uk/pdf/client-account-faqs.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HymerVan Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 I drafted a long post in response to Brian but it seems not to have been posted and it is partially superceded by "Robin Hoods" post. Although Brians comments were broadly correct there were not completely so (Brian I will PM you in detail if you are concerned). In particular :- 1. A dealer acquiring the business of a company in administration will not neccesarily acquire the obligation to fulfil the contract (to supply the new motorhome). It depends on the whole circumstances and terms of the contract. Often the purchaser will just be buying assets. 2. A properly created escrow arrangement WILL defeat claims by a liquidator. Although Mr Hoods material indicates that escrow arrangements exist I suspect these relate to land and building related contracts where sums are very high (and risks of non performance significant) In conclusion IF there is a general awareness that deposits can be lost then it would be in everyones interest and especially traders if a guarantee scheme could be created. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 You may be right, Robin, but to be sure one could shelter one's deposit against bankruptcy of the trader, I think one would need legal advice on how this should be written into the contract. The problem though, was to protect the buyer's deposit against bankruptcy of the trader, rather than to protect the trader against default by the buyer - unless you mean to offer reciprocal protection of the trader's interest as a quid pro quo: a sweetener, if you will. It is true that providing the intent is legal, a contract can include anything the parties agree to include. However, most dealers seem to work with a standard form, and I guess they'd be somewhat reluctant to depart from that on a one-off basis. I suppose they might agree if the escrow trustee was close to them, such as their company solicitor, but it seems one is nearing the point at which the legal costs of setting it up, and getting it all in place, would exceed the sum demanded as a deposit! It was that vision of complexity that led me to surmise it wouldn't prove the answer. I'm also still a little uncertain as to whether such a device would, in fact, prove legal. It is far from my field, but is there not a concept in bankruptcy that all legal debts are collectable as part of the distributable assets? If so, I would expect an administrator to challenge such a contract on the grounds that its intent was to defraud the other creditors. Sorry Laurence, I read your post after I'd responded to Robin's. I'm intrigued at what you say about it being possible to construct an escrow arrangement so as to defeat a liquidator, but I'm happy to remain intrigued, as I think in purely practical terms, in relationship to buying motorhomes, we may be ever so slightly painting castles in the air! :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robinhood Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 Brian Kirby - 2011-11-25 7:03 PM The problem though, was to protect the buyer's deposit against bankruptcy of the trader, rather than to protect the trader against default by the buyer - unless you mean to offer reciprocal protection of the trader's interest as a quid pro quo: a sweetener, if you will. I think you misinterpret my words on this. The monies (deposit) are paid into escrow under an arrangement such that they are not the property of the seller until and unless the overall deal is completed. They thus do not form part of the supplier's assets if they should subsequently become insolvent before that deal is complete, and would be returned by the "escrow agent" to the buyer. The balancing clause in the arrangement would be that, should the buyer withdraw from the deal, or not come up with the final payment, then the deposit would pass (via the "escrow agent") to the seller, thereby providing the "in good faith" element.. I have some significant experience of working escrow arrangements, albeit in an entirely different context, and have little doubt that this is an entirely legal and workable arrangement. The issue would be whether you would find it practical (in engaging an "escrow agent") or cost effective (given the potential contract and agents fees) for the relatively small amount of money involved in a deposit for a motorcaravan. The link I provided specifically details how the arrangements of Client Accounts or escrow agreements can protect a buyer against supplier insolvency (though this is not the only circumstance in which they are useful) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
postnote Posted November 25, 2011 Author Share Posted November 25, 2011 Brian Kirby - 2011-11-24 6:17 PM Sadly, I think it offers no protection if the cost of the goods exceeded £30,000. A deposit on goods costing more than £30,000 may be recoverable from a credit card company, but only if there is a specific provision to that effect in the credit card agreement. Similarly, it may be covered under an insurance, possibly under a provision of a house contents insurance covering financial losses. However, neither of the above remedies stem from provisions of the Act. What ever you say about deposit protection, the best protection is to name and shame. It seems that if this had been done for Discovery then many people would not be in the position of losing money or their MH's There are people within these forums that are in the know as to when a dealer is on financial shaky ground, but they seem to think it is better not to inform the public but help put up a buffer to protect them. Time has come, that not only we write post of compliment but posts of complaint naming the dealer and the problem. A closing thought, it’s not the advertisers that keep MMM going it’s us the reader. How long would they continue to publish if we didn’t buy the magazine? >:-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robinhood Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 postnote - 2011-11-25 7:29 PM What ever you say about deposit protection, the best protection is to name and shame. It seems that if this had been done for Discovery then many people would not be in the position of losing money or their MH's There are people within these forums that are in the know as to when a dealer is on financial shaky ground, but they seem to think it is better not to inform the public but help put up a buffer to protect them. Time has come, that not only we write post of compliment but posts of complaint naming the dealer and the problem. ................well, yet another well thought through bit of prose! *-) At best this would only be likely cause earlier failure, with just the same personal financial impact.......just different people! :-( postnote - 2011-11-25 7:29 PM A closing thought, it’s not the advertisers that keep MMM going it’s us the reader. ......whatever makes you think that! postnote - 2011-11-25 7:29 PM How long would they continue to publish if we didn’t buy the magazine? How long would they continue to publish if they didn't have advertisers? Whether you like it or not, it's a symbiotic relationship, advertisers and readers. :-S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
postnote Posted November 25, 2011 Author Share Posted November 25, 2011 Robin, stick with what you know best... (lol) (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 Robinhood - 2011-11-25 7:28 PM...................I think you misinterpret my words on this. You are right, I had misunderstood. The monies (deposit) are paid into escrow under an arrangement such that they are not the property of the seller until and unless the overall deal is completed. They thus do not form part of the supplier's assets if they should subsequently become insolvent before that deal is complete, and would be returned by the "escrow agent" to the buyer.............................................The link I provided specifically details how the arrangements of Client Accounts or escrow agreements can protect a buyer against supplier insolvency (though this is not the only circumstance in which they are useful) Yes, I understand now. I must also confess I missed the link! :$ I had always been under the impression that a liquidator had the right to call in any such payment, because it related to a pre-existing contract and would form part of the firms assets. Clearly not. Any idea what the costs are? One would have thought a reputable firm might offer its clients that kind of security as a sign of goodwill on its part. You link implies that the costs are not that great. They might even benefit from taking a higher than usual deposit, given the security provided, although I suppose the risk of losing his deposit in through sudden illness, or death, might make that unattractive to the client. Still, there must be insurance provisions that could cover that, as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robinhood Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 postnote - 2011-11-25 8:55 PM Robin, stick with what you know best... (lol) (lol) ...........and just what exactly would that be? *-) (Though I do admit that an intimate knowledge of the novels of Dornford Yates is quite diverting, every now and again I do still feel the need to respond to the utter tripe (IMO) that is posted by some people on here (other tripe is available), and lets face it, your contribution to the best way to avoid losing the deposit for a motorhome was about as much use as a crocheted condom! :-D ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 postnote - 2011-11-25 7:29 PM..............................What ever you say about deposit protection, the best protection is to name and shame. It seems that if this had been done for Discovery then many people would not be in the position of losing money or their MH's There are people within these forums that are in the know as to when a dealer is on financial shaky ground, but they seem to think it is better not to inform the public but help put up a buffer to protect them. Time has come, that not only we write post of compliment but posts of complaint naming the dealer and the problem. ........................................... Postnote, you are a one-note! :-) I have seen some examples of your name-and-shame proposal, and what I have seen does not persuade me that it is fair, or reasonable. Errors happen, and it is unreasonable to publicly castigate firms before they have been given a chance to make amends when they have done wrong. It may be reasonable to name a firm that has refused to put right something that is wrong, but some posters haven't even got that far before naming a firm whose service has displeased them, so that the first the firm hears of it is when they read it on a forum. But even where a poster has sought remedy without success, who is to say they are being reasonable in their claim? There must be protection for good companies against unreasonable customers, just as much as for good customers against bad companies. A claim that company X provides bad service is liable to damage the company's reputation, and so its business. If such a claim were made maliciously, or to extort money, how could the company prevent its business suffering while it deals with its accuser? Who could decide if such a claim was fair and reasonable, and how could such an assessment be made before a company suffered damage if, eventually, it was shown a poster had acted from misunderstanding, malicious intent, or simply hopelessly unrealistic expectations. Beyond that, the poster, and the publisher of the claims, are both liable to court action by the accused for defamation or slander. Potentially hugely costly cases to defend, which is why publishers go to such lengths to avoid them. Name and shame, and then find yourself bankrupted for your trouble, is in whose interest, exactly? I know of cases where buyers have claimed under warranty for damage they obviously caused, and have stormed at dealer's staff for refusing to carry out free repairs. Suppose claims of that nature were put up vindictively, merely to "punish" the dealer? Who decides? Customers have a degree, albeit not I think adequate, of legal redress against dealers, and I think that even with all its shortcomings, it remains a far better way to resolve difficult issues than this proposal could ever offer. Sorry, but we are just not going to agree over this, at least until someone can show me a way it can be made fair in operation to both parties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.