Damp problem in new van

[Tracker]

1footinthegrave - 2013-11-30 12:56 PM

 

That's your opinion Rich, of course no one knows the extent of the problem / damage on here, so I'm out of it. ;-)

 

Why are you out of it Mike - your view is just as valid as anyone else's?

 

And at least we can agree to differ without resorting to insults!

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

Tracker - 2013-11-30 1:01 PM

 

1footinthegrave - 2013-11-30 12:56 PM

 

That's your opinion Rich, of course no one knows the extent of the problem / damage on here, so I'm out of it. ;-)

 

Why are you out of it Mike - your view is just as valid as anyone else's?

 

And at least we can agree to differ without resorting to insults!

 

Rich absolutely no insult intended, I just have nothing useful to add. ;-)

[globebuster]

Exactly, as I said in my first response -

 

Erroneous Reading ? Hence the idea of seeking a second opinion.

 

However - where is the Quality Control? Regardless of how minimal the area of ingress, how did this van slip though [along with many others it would appear] - probably because the build quality is not monitored to a decent standard.

 

Like said a couple of weeks back, judging by what I saw at the NEC - there was fundamentally poor basic construction practice with virtually every British CB van on show - either no pride in the work, or poor guidance from those in control :'(

[Tracker]

1footinthegrave - 2013-11-30 1:02 PM

 

Tracker - 2013-11-30 1:01 PM

 

1footinthegrave - 2013-11-30 12:56 PM

 

That's your opinion Rich, of course no one knows the extent of the problem / damage on here, so I'm out of it. ;-)

 

Why are you out of it Mike - your view is just as valid as anyone else's?

 

And at least we can agree to differ without resorting to insults!

 

Rich absolutely no insult intended, I just have nothing useful to add. ;-)

 

Sorry Mike - in no way have you given any cause for offense - and I didn't read it that way!

I was just pointing out for the benefit of those unable to manage it that a polite discussion can take place in which differing views are respected not scorned, which is how I read this interchange between us.

I also appreciate that you don't knock UK vans for it's own sake - even though you are now a frogophile!

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

Only after I carefully examined it for damp, :D pity I didn't pick up on the Truma C6002EH heater on the blink, and buried behind the "L" shape kitchen. :-( back outside now to continue my Houdini act trying to get the bloody thing out. (!) a beauty of French design.

[Guest Peter James]

Tracker - 2013-11-30 12:29 PM

Without belittling the scale of the problem in any way, damp meters can mislead especially if readings are taken on a cold damp day when the van has been out of use and condensation, even if it is unseen, can be present.

 

I thought a little of my Genius was beginning to rub off on you :-D

 

Tracker - 2013-11-30 12:29 PM

I know this because I had a dealer tell me so

 

But then I read it was because a Dealer had told you so :-|

[Tracker]

Peter James - 2013-11-30 1:38 PM

 

Tracker - 2013-11-30 12:29 PM

Without belittling the scale of the problem in any way, damp meters can mislead especially if readings are taken on a cold damp day when the van has been out of use and condensation, even if it is unseen, can be present.

 

I thought a little of my Genius was beginning to rub off on you :-D

 

Tracker - 2013-11-30 12:29 PM

I know this because I had a dealer tell me so

 

But then I read it was because a Dealer had told you so :-|

 

Thanks Peter!

Perhaps I should have explained that following discussions with the dealership salesman whom I had known for some years ( who has since left the industry) a poor damp test result was miraculously turned into a good damp test result by the application of a little common sense and a few days of sunshine instead of being used as an excuse to make more money at the customer's expense!

[vindiboy]

Seems strange that posters have so much faith in a factory repair, didn't they cock it up in the first place ??????????

[Brian Kirby]

Oh dear! No reference to any particular post above, but sad that the usual carping, sniping, and bickering over irrelevancies has broken out yet again!

 

A damp test has already been carried out by the supplying dealer. It apparently shows that the van is damp on both side walls just behind the cab. It is not clear if the OP has a copy of the test record, if he does not he should get one. Otherwise, the manufacturer appears to have agreed to the problem being rectified by the dealer. So, the warranty route is being followed, through the dealer, and everyone to date has done what they are supposed to do - so far as their minimum obligations to the OP are concerned.

 

Surely, the only reason to get a second damp test carried out by someone else, would be if the OP had already been convinced his van was damp and the test showed it wasn't, or if the manufacturer had rejected the test evidence as inadequate and refused to make good under the warranty? What use would now be served by a second test that says it is damp, or even one that says it is not damp? What possible comfort or advantage would either result bring the OP? The first case merely confirms what everyone already knows, the second leaves him wondering which meter to trust. Sorry, but IMO, pointless, and a waste of valuable time.

 

So, we have a seriously damp van, and dealer, manufacturer, and buyer, are all in agreement that this is the case. The point then, surely, is how the OP is best to proceed in the light of this knowledge.

 

As to his possible remedies, it seems to me there is confusion over the his rights under the warranty, and his rights under consumer legislation.

 

In the case of the former his rights are as defined in the warranty document, which he has no legal basis to challenge. So, if he pursues that route, and is subsequently dissatisfied with the outcome, he has no legal come-back against the manufacturer. If the manufacturer decides to take a generous approach to the terms of the warranty, and is prepared to discuss and agree how the repairs will be made, and preferably agrees to undertake the work himself at his factory, it will almost certainly be the best possible outcome, because the van should then be returned with minimal cost, stress, and delay to the OP in "as new" condition. But, and IMO it is a big BUT, it has not yet been established that the manufacturer will adopt this generous approach. He may adopt a very narrow approach to his warranty, which he cannot be legally challenged for doing, and allow the dealer to carry out only a minimal repair. The OP is notably short on detail of what is proposed, save that the dealer has estimated one month for the repairs. Were I the OP, I should want chapter and verse on what was to be done to MY van.

 

In the case of relying on consumer legislation as the way to proceed, the avenues are, IMO, more fruitful. It is possible, though I think doubtful, that the OP may be able to legally reject the van as unfit. This is by no means guaranteed, and it is notoriously difficult with such complex and expensive items. It is worth considering, but should only be pursued after taking expert legal advice. If it works, wonderful: if it doesn't - plan B. The only party the OP has any legal leverage with, is the supplying dealer, who fortunately has already said, based on his own test, that the van is damp. In this case the dealer is legally obliged to return the OP to the "status quo ante" - to put him into the position he was in before the defect arose. If he fails, unlike the manufacturer, he can then be sued, ultimately for recovery of all his costs, or to have the van replaced with a different van of equivalent type and value.

 

As I have said, I favour the route of putting the dealer in the hot seat, and leaving him to argue the toss with the manufacturer. In this way the OP should be able to leave both doors open, but should also be able to retain control over what is done to his van, and by whom. However, as with rejection, he should take legal advice before proceeding, because the things he does now will influence what he can do if rejection is proved not feasible, and the repair turns out to be unsatisfactory, and things go wrong thereafter. Get it right, and he should emerge with no more than having suffered some stress and inconvenience, get it wrong, and he could significantly multiply his levels of stress and inconvenience, and end up very seriously out of pocket to boot.

 

First course of action, take the legal advice. Second course of action, press for a meeting between OP, dealer, and manufacturer, at which the source of the leakage should be identified, the exact method of repair explained, the dealer quizzed as to his competencies with this kind of work, and the OP invited to agree whether the trust the dealer, or to trust the manufacturer, to make the repair. I'm deeply sorry for the OP, and apologies for adding to his stress levels, but he must act quickly on both the above to maximise his chances of a satisfactory outcome.

 

I'm not looking for a scrap with anyone on this, it is simply my opinion - long winded or otherwise - and is intended to offer the maximum of assistance to the OP.

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

vindiboy - 2013-11-30 2:39 PM

 

Seems strange that posters have so much faith in a factory repair, didn't they cock it up in the first place ??????????

 

I said I was out of it, but EXACTLY, it has to be said a dealer carrying out a repair is less than ideal as well, do you get the recently trained up pet monkey or what, perhaps I've been unlucky, but given my dealings with a few I'd put them up with estate agents, BUT if I was allowed to stand and see the strip down and exactly what was proposed, and the time to also watch the repair done to my satisfaction I might be persuaded otherwise.

 

The bottom line is AFAIC a van of this age should not leak end of.

 

 

Now I'm definitely out of it, got a few probs of my own, but my newly acquired van is 8 years old, not barely out of the factory (!)

[Guest Peter James]

Someone once said 'Lawyers are like Nuclear weapons. We have ours because they have theirs, but once you use them they f*ck everything up'

And who pays their bill?

I tend to view lawyers as a last resort. Autotrail seem to have a good record on warranty repairs, and have accepted responsibility, so its looking good. Looks like you can get it done properly without involving lawyers, and that seems best to me.

[Guest Peter James]

vindiboy - 2013-11-30 2:39 PM

 

Seems strange that posters have so much faith in a factory repair, didn't they cock it up in the first place ??????????

 

so where do you suggest is better to get it repaired than the factory who made it?

[Will86]

There's an awful lot of extended waffle going on here for a patch of damp. Seems like a lot of do-gooders are aggrivating the subject by adding their personal views when no-one except the original poster knows the situation.

 

Must be the Saturday blues thats filtered into the equasion.

[globebuster]

Brian, how can you know the extent of the damage?

 

Or should I assume from your last posting that you are in receipt of further information - hence the term serious?

 

I my original reply I suggested there may have been an erroneous reading, for all we know the extent of the damage could be far less of an issue - conversely it could be worse.

 

Why would you not wish to seek a second opinion? - for all the valid reasons I've stated previously and won't bother to repeat. Surely a second professional appraisal will only reinforce your case if your worst fears are confirmed.

 

I would surmise from your comments that your life's your mantra is to always believe the first thing you're told!

 

In my opinion - only mine of course - to base any action going forward on one interpretation is naïve in the first place, followed closely by dumb.

 

Now if further evidence has come to light - and the integrity of the structure is clearly seen to have suffered moisture ingress, then that might be different - BUT given the age of the van and the considerable investment, I would still seek the knowledge of a third party, even if its to audit the work.

 

Maybe I'm not as incisive as others, but I believe that second opinions, and a bit of diligence serve you well in life.

 

I'm keeping out of this now, I'll leave it to the experts - but I hope the outcome is favourable for you Badger.

 

 

 

 

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

Stick around a while and you'll learn Brian Kirby can always be depended upon to use a thousand words when a few would do, and without being unduly unkind I think his aim in life has been to know a little about everything, and assume the rest of us know nothing. ;-)

[Brian Kirby]

Peter James - 2013-11-30 3:16 PM

 

Someone once said 'Lawyers are like Nuclear weapons. We have ours because they have theirs, but once you use them they f*ck everything up'

And who pays their bill?

I tend to view lawyers as a last resort. Autotrail seem to have a good record on warranty repairs, and have accepted responsibility, so its looking good. Looks like you can get it done properly without involving lawyers, and that seems best to me.

Peter, if you look at what I've said, recourse to the law is plan C (the last resort), after plan A (rejection) is proved unworkable, and plan B (repair by whoever the OP chooses) has proved unsatisfactory. The legal bill is one of the plaintiff's costs, so can be included in his claim. Ultimately, if it all goes wrong, the OP will have three choices, 1 live with the consequence, 2 trade it at considerable cost to himself, or 3 sue. If he wishes to reserve the latter course, he must prepare his ground at the outset. If he wishes to reject the possibility of suing, he is quite at liberty to do so. I'm not trying to persuade him down any path.

[bolero boy]

globebuster - 2013-11-30 4:13 PM

 

Brian, how can you know the extent of the damage?

 

Or should I assume from your last posting that you are in receipt of further information - hence the term serious?

 

I my original reply I suggested there may have been an erroneous reading, for all we know the extent of the damage could be far less of an issue - conversely it could be worse.

 

Why would you not wish to seek a second opinion? - for all the valid reasons I've stated previously and won't bother to repeat. Surely a second professional appraisal will only reinforce your case if your worst fears are confirmed.

 

I would surmise from your comments that your life's your mantra is to always believe the first thing you're told!

 

In my opinion - only mine of course - to base any action going forward on one interpretation is naïve in the first place, followed closely by dumb.

 

Now if further evidence has come to light - and the integrity of the structure is clearly seen to have suffered moisture ingress, then that might be different - BUT given the age of the van and the considerable investment, I would still seek the knowledge of a third party, even if its to audit the work.

 

Maybe I'm not as incisive as others, but I believe that second opinions, and a bit of diligence serve you well in life.

 

I'm keeping out of this now, I'll leave it to the experts - but I hope the outcome is favourable for you Badger.

 

 

 

Mike, are you in the trade? Just spotted that your email address starts 'ribrefurb' , RIB being the rear 'rock-roll' seats used in some VW comversions.

[globebuster]

No Chris,

 

But I've learnt something there!

 

I actually work in the Marine Trade and that's one of my off shoots, relating to Rigid Inflatable Boats design and development etc.

I work primarily on Super Yachts now, as an independent - construction techniques, product D&D, specialist sealants.........

 

So in relation to this thread I do know a little about GRP, Wood, Aluminium, Composites and the like.

 

Funnily enough I've worked on Thermal Conductivity and Hygroscopy quite a bit too.

 

But keep it under your hat - that's just between you and me (lol)

[RubyExsis]

Thought that this response was positive and based on factual circumstances. (Roger C - 30Nov)

 

My brother -in - law also had a similar situation where a leak was found on first habitation check.

It was sorted supportively between the dealer and the manufacturer - the dealer being authorised to carry out the repair.

 

Hope that the problem can be satifactorily sorted without too much stress.

 

Fred

[Brian Kirby]

globebuster - 2013-11-30 4:13 PM

 

Brian, how can you know the extent of the damage?

 

Or should I assume from your last posting that you are in receipt of further information - hence the term serious?

First question: I don't. However, we do have a rough description of the extent of the water ingress and that, if untreated, will do considerable damage. Forgive me, but you do seem very intent on splitting hairs.

 

Second question: because of this - "I have a Auto-trail tracker FB 2013 model which was in for the first habitation service yesterday and has a major damp problem in both side walls just behind the cab." "Major damp problem in both side walls" = "serious" to me.

 

I my original reply I suggested there may have been an erroneous reading, for all we know the extent of the damage could be far less of an issue - conversely it could be worse.

 

Why would you not wish to seek a second opinion? - for all the valid reasons I've stated previously and won't bother to repeat. Surely a second professional appraisal will only reinforce your case if your worst fears are confirmed.

With the first point, I disagree, for the reasons I stated. High moisture content in van walls, that have been accepted as worthy of warranty repair, are unlikely to be illusory. Why do you assume the dealer's meter may have given an inaccurate, high, reading, in just these two areas? The true extent of the ingress cannot be known until some dismantling has taken place. Only then can the scope of repair be properly assessed.

 

On the second point, the OP has no case to make: he has already said the dealer will carry out the repairs, so both dealer, and AT, seem to have accepted the reading as sufficient evidence of water ingress. Which other relevant party needs convincing?

 

I would surmise from your comments that your life's your mantra is to always believe the first thing you're told!

 

In my opinion - only mine of course - to base any action going forward on one interpretation is naïve in the first place, followed closely by dumb.

 

Now if further evidence has come to light - and the integrity of the structure is clearly seen to have suffered moisture ingress, then that might be different - BUT given the age of the van and the considerable investment, I would still seek the knowledge of a third party, even if its to audit the work.

 

Maybe I'm not as incisive as others, but I believe that second opinions, and a bit of diligence serve you well in life.

 

I'm keeping out of this now, I'll leave it to the experts - but I hope the outcome is favourable for you Badger.

Then, you surmise wrong but, as I said, I'm not looking for a scrap, though your language seems designed to provoke one. Goodness knows why. Simply, I do not agree, under the known circumstances, that a second opinion is worthwhile. At this time of year, IMO, the time will be better spent getting the ingress cured. It really is that simple.

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

Yawn..................................................................... (!) Just why do you do it ? for once accept that your view is not the authoritative one, and it does not need repeating ad infinitum in any event.

[Guest pelmetman]

I might be OT ;-)...............Surely by now motorhome manufactures, should "not" still be churning out campers with such basic faults that can only be down to incompetence *-).............and this is from apparently the quality end of the UK market 8-)

[Brian Kirby]

1footinthegrave - 2013-11-30 5:39 PM

 

Yawn..................................................................... (!) Just why do you do it ? for once accept that your view is not the authoritative one, and it does not need repeating ad infinitum in any event.

I am trying to give the OP the best advice I can. Globebuster and I disagree only over the need for a second damp test. What is your point?

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

Brian Kirby - 2013-11-30 5:58 PM

 

1footinthegrave - 2013-11-30 5:39 PM

 

Yawn..................................................................... (!) Just why do you do it ? for once accept that your view is not the authoritative one, and it does not need repeating ad infinitum in any event.

I am trying to give the OP the best advice I can. Globebuster and I disagree only over the need for a second damp test. What is your point?

 

I doubt you'll ever see "the point" as you demonstrate time and time again the same modus operandi.

 

As for giving the best advice, are you really incapable of understanding that's what most folk on here do, without endlessly banging on as you invariably do, whatever the subject matter happens to be.

[Guest Peter James]

Brian Kirby - 2013-11-30 4:44 PM

Peter, if you look at what I've said, recourse to the law is plan C (the last resort).

 

This is the bit I read;

 

Brian Kirby - 2013-11-30 3:00 PM

First course of action, take the legal advice.

 

As far as I can see, it looks like Autotrail are prepared to honour their obligations. In which case legal advice is as superfluous as another damp test, (and therefore you couldn't expect Autotrail to pay for it)