Jump to content

Autocruise Alto


Recommended Posts

Hi to all.

Just returned from a three week "tour de france" in my motorhome. Covered approx 2500 miles in total and the sun shone each and every day!!

I wrote to the forum last April to unburden my tale of woe over the purchase ( March 6th ) of my brand new Peugeot Autocruise Alto panel van conversion. In short, I started out on two consecutive holidays and the van failed on both occassions and ended up in the Peugeot dealers for repair to various electronic devices such as loose connections on glow starter plug and limp home mode light showing ( visit 1 ) and failure of exhaust recycle valve and limp home mode light showing once again ( visit 2 ) !!

Naturally enough I lost all confidence in the van and felt that the product was not fit for purpose: then started a prolonged debate with the supplying dealer, Autocruise and Peugeot.

Autocruise said that the faults related to the base vehicle; Peugeot pointed out their small print exonerating themselves of any re-imbursement as they had fixed the problems which thus ended their responsibility but offerred a good will gesture of a first free service! This I declined and sought legal advice which concluded that Peugeot and their contracts of sale were watertight and I would spend a lot of money to gain nothing. I was so depressed and felt that the world never favoured the little person who had spent his life savings on a dream, brand new motorhome that was unreliable.


Step forward a real knight in shining armour in the guise of Becks Motorhomes, the supplying dealer. They knew of my troubles and had been most supportive in getting me numerous contact details to advance my complaints, even contacting Autocruise on my behalf to try and find a resolution. To cut a long story short, they asked me if I was happy with the layout etc of the van. As I had looked at numerous models and variations before buying the Alto, I told them it was exactly what I wanted. Two days later they sourced another brand new Alto BUT this time on a Fiat chassis. I had always had Fiats on my previous motorhomes without any major problems so I had no worries to go and look at this one except that I had spent my budget on the Peugeot! Imagine my surprise when they offered me the van in part exchange for the two month old Peugeot for a very small payment to cover some of their costs.


The moral of my tale is to beware of the problems in buying a new motorhome and the fact that you may end up with a lemon with numerous problems and have no recourse to exchanging it. Further more, choose a local and well respected dealer to supply your motorhome and you should end up getting some good old fashioned service as I did.


Can any one recommend an automatic satellite dish/dome that does not look out of place on the roof of a panel van and is simple to use and gives excellent reception??






Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glad you got it all sorted.

Re the sat dish-always think a dome looks a bit silly on a pvc (bit like a pimple!) so would suggest an automatic dish-we have an Oyster and can't fault it to date. It's an 85cm dish but haven't been further than Northern Spain yet so don't know how far south it will work.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right a little more time to give an answer.

To say you are happier with a Fiat than a Pug for build reasons is very strange, they are made at same factory by the same people.

Not sure what legal advice you where given, but it should have been made clear to you that even if the van had complete breakdown that left it unusable you have no claim against Peugoet or Autocruise, your contract is/was with Beck's and it should be up to them to sort it. Saying that it's good to see that Beck's have given you a deal that has left you satisfied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Dido, welcome to the mad house! :-D


Whilst I'm very happy that you're now happy, I can't help feeling that your praise for Becks is somewhat misplaced. THEY should have been sorting our the problems for you, you shouldn't have had to do it.


Now all that has happened is that you have had to pay THEM a bit more money to get the van that YOU should have received in the first place - a reliable one (hopefully!).


Confused of E Yorks! :-S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

colin - 2012-08-21 5:20 PM


Twothings of note.

Fiat and Pug are built in same factory.

The dealer should be the one sorting it


Although Fiat Ducato and Peugeot Boxers are built in the same Italian factory, that doesn't mean they are necessarily identical. For example, with current models, the 2.3litre motors fitted to Ducato are not fitted to Boxer, and the 2.2litre motors fitted to Boxer are not fitted to Ducato. In that example, as the motors are different, it's logical that the controlling electronics (which Dido had problems with) will also be different, so Boxer-type electronics problems may not be present on Ducatos (and vice versa, of course!)


In Dido's case (as I understand it) the electronics problems caused consequential financial losses (curtailed/cancelled holidays), but were corrected under warranty by Peugeot. As has already been said, this type of financial loss is not covered by warranties and, although I would expect a motorhome dealer to make every effort on behalf of a customer to have vehicle problems addressed and corrected as quickly as possible (which Beck's apparently did), I see no reason why a dealership should be expected to pick up the tab for consequential losses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Derek Uzzell - 2012-08-22 9:53 AM.......................... As has already been said, this type of financial loss is not covered by warranties and, although I would expect a motorhome dealer to make every effort on behalf of a customer to have vehicle problems addressed and corrected as quickly as possible (which Beck's apparently did), I see no reason why a dealership should be expected to pick up the tab for consequential losses.

Not in direct response to Derek's post, but he makes a good point. If a buyer suffers loss as a consequence of the actions, or inactions, of a seller, in supplying or rectifying defective goods, he can be liable for those losses.


However, the buyer has to prove the losses were the consequence of what the seller did, and that is not necessarily easy.


In the case of motorhome sales, most seem to be under the SMMT standard form of sales contract, that has more get-outs than a rabbit warren. I strongly suspect this form seeks to disbar compensation for any consequential losses resulting from manufacturing defects in the vehicle - over which no dealer has control.


All he can do is try to get the defect properly rectified within a reasonable timescale and, in the meantime, to place the buyer in the same position as he expected to enjoy post purchase - usually meaning the provision of a loan car until the defect is remedied.


The problem in this case should have been referred to the seller, but would have to have been pursued under warranty as the vehicle failed (presumably) while away from home. One failure is bad enough, but after the second, the unreliability of the vehicle should have resulted in it being returned to the seller for remedy, notwithstanding that they may not be competent to directly remedy the defects. It was for them to deal with Peugeot et al on behalf of their client. If not capable of quick repair, pending the defects being satisfactorily remedied, the buyer should have had continued enjoyment of what he had bought: a motorhome. That, as I understand it, was the seller's legal obligation.


Taking the vehicle back and replacing it with another goes some way beyond that obligation, so all credit is due for that. Some use was gained from the original vehicle, and some time had passed since its purchase, plus it had been registered, so even without the persistent defects, it had devalued. That is now the seller's loss. If the additional costs the buyer agreed to pay in respect of the swap are as nominal as he says, they are likely to be well below the cost to the seller.


Consumer legislation does not remove all risk from a transaction, but it does greatly reduce it. The deal that was offered seems to me generous, and was clearly acceptable to the buyer.


The seller still has to get the defective vehicle rectified before he can sell it as used, albeit with low mileage, so he will suffer those losses. It is the only case I have heard of where a seller replaced an entire motorhome because of defects in a base vehicle. Think juddergate! Surely this is a good outcome from a good dealer, who should be held up as exemplary for the way he has discharged his obligations, rather than being criticised for what he could not have done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you to all replying posts.


Most of what people thought or advised was indeed carried out by the seller, however, the point worthy of note is that they located and virtually swapped another new vehicle, for my troublesome one, to alleviate my anxieties and ensure customer satisfaction........


Having just read this months ( Sept ) MMM letter on page198, I am even more appreciative of the attention and service received from my dealer!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Create New...