Reject van, where do we go from here?

[ColinT]

Developments:-

 

marquis said they wont change PSU because if they send it back and it isn't faulty Sargent will charge them for the unit. Sargent & Swift say that is not true, they don't pay for the unit but don't get their labour for fitting it. So marquis arguing over a £15 labour bill against nearly £43k of motorhome? Sargent are brilliant, I said I could fit it and he said they would post it direct to me but I think with all the other problems I shouldn't get involved.

"manager" from marquis calls me to say my van is ready for collection, I say is it repaired, he said yes, but earlier you told me you have ordered a door? so it's not ready is it? He then went on to say that if I wanted everything done before I take it back it would be another 2 months, of coarse that's nothing compared to what we have waited already. He said the van was repaired enough for us to use, even with the non existent electrical fault, and wasn't going to keep it there on his forecourt and said he would drive it over and put it on our drive!!

Swift tell me they haven't got involved yet but for some reason things are starting to move. it may be @colin0456 but he says not and what I am writing on the social media is slander, I told him I am just telly my true story, if it's slanderous then get your legal team to contact me!!

[Symbol Owner]

ColinT - 2014-07-10 4:01 PM

Swift tell me they haven't got involved yet but for some reason things are starting to move. it may be @colin0456 but he says not and what I am writing on the social media is slander, I told him I am just telly my true story, if it's slanderous then get your legal team to contact me!!

 

They obviously dont even know their legal terms (i.e.'Ar*e from elbow') fellow-Colin:- Slander is spoken defamation; LIBEL is written!

 

Best of luck with them, keep at it!

 

Cheers,

 

Colin.

[Guest JudgeMental]

Heavens......They sound like an absolute shower! Its really better to write rather then email in serious cases of negligence.....

[rolandrat]

AliB - 2014-07-10 12:23 PM

 

If you have not already done so, you should write to Mike Crouch, the Managing Director, at the address shown at the bottom of the contact page on their website.

 

http://www.marquisleisure.co.uk/about-marquis

 

[/

QUOTE] If every company in the leisure industry conducted themselves in the manner that Sargent do it would be a far better place, they are so switched on to customer care in the highest degree. There's obviously someone in Marquis not doing their customer relations and reputation any good. Do they care? Let's see.

[ColinT]

I don't honestly think they care, not locally anyway, and if I were doing any of their jobs I would be so embarrassed having the customer coming back with the same faults, not re-occurring faults or new faults just the ones they can't fix.

Couldn't agree more about Sargent very helpful, couldn't do more!

Great idea to write to Mr Crouch and see if that brings any resolve.

 

marquis "manager" calling me this afternoon could not understand what my problem was as he was going to repair the van and give me this that and the other. I'll only believe they can fix it when I see it!!!

He said it does not matter what I do you will never be happy. He is probably correct, we have lost our enthusiasm for the van and our enthusiasm for motor-homing, they have caused that, I said you are about 9 months too late trying to fix it to make us happy. We will be satisfied with a complete repair but will we ever be happy with that van, only time will tell. It's really not the vans fault the faults are not that major just their inability to fix minor problems. It leaves a sour taste, I hope it will go off.

Still we haven't got the van back yet!!!

[ColinT]

I got a letter off, recorded, to Mr. Crouch their MD so will wait and see if it brings any resolve. If he is anything like the local "manager" we wont hear from him at all!

 

marquis have agreed to replace the damaged habitation door now and also the PSU, which they weren't going to change even after I had called Sargent and found out what the possible fault was for them. marquis manager said to me "if we change the PSU and sent it back and it's not faulty Sargent will charge us for it" both Sargent and Swift say that does not happen, if it's not faulty the dealer just doesn't get the labour charge, I believe were talking under £20 here, our motorhome was nearly £43k. marquis "manager still wont have this and say everyone else is wrong!!

I would not blame Sargent for charging because I am sure there are a lot of cases where these dealers "repair" by trial of replacement part, in other words don't know what's wrong with it but keep fitting parts until it's fixed. Think we had this with our fire in the van, wouldn't light so they ordered and ignite, didn't fix it so tried something else. They say it's fixed but took a lot longer than the three days they estimated to fix it!! We find out which part is faulty then order that part and fit it.

Thanks for all you help and advice.

 

Colin

[ColinT]

Of on Holiday now for 10 days, van still not back so have to make other arraignments. What a company!!

Supposed to get it back 1st August all fixed HaHa, heard it all before, haven't managed it in 12 months so why should I believe it this time. I suppose because they will have had it nearly 7 weeks!!!!!

 

Glad they don't organise any drink parties we have at the brewery!

[ColinT]

Well, the end of the month has come and gone still not got our motorhome back yet. Didn't think they would keep to their second repair date. Their fist was 3 days from the 16th June (2014) so not that bad!!!!

 

I've never in all my life dealt with such an inept group of people.

 

Swift obviously have no control over then either!!

[Brian Kirby]

But have you asked, or have they volunteered, why the repairs are not yet completed?

 

It is equally possible, until proved otherwise, that Marquis are awaiting delivery of parts, from Swift or others, whose factories may by now be shut-down for the summer.

 

It is fair to criticise Marquis for their apparent performance failures to date, but not necessarily fair to criticise them for non-completion if the fault is not theirs.

 

If it factory closure that is the problem, Marquis may be open to criticism for failing to anticipate that, and to make appropriate enquiries, before giving you a completion date, but surely unfair if they were then given assurance that others have since broken?

 

Sadly, the manufacturers do not, generally, enjoy a good reputation for timely delivery of spares.

 

I would suggest asking Marquis where the problem lies, and then getting on the phone to whoever lies at the root of your problem.

 

You have to manage the process. You have established to your satisfaction that Marquis can't manage, so if you don't, who will?

 

Forget whether you think it is right: it is not, and we all know that, but it is, surely, what is expedient in your own interests.

[mike 202]

A friend had a lot of problems with your dealer group and sent an E-mail to the MD and said that if his problems were not sorted he would publish the True facts (no embelishment) on the various forums that he blonged to. It produced a good result, I wonder if the reaction of potential readers of his situation (if published) would way on the minds of the sales team - lost reputation/sales which of course means lost revenue.

It may of course be possible that the MD was at that point unaware and remedied the situation asap.

 

I would like to think it was the latter.

 

 

[ColinT]

No I have not asked, they said they would keep me informed of the progress and it would go for body repairs on the 28th. I do know on the 28th it was driven to Bishops Walthem and then over to Middle Wallop, presumably to have the body work done. It returned to Upham on 30th where it remains. I was told that even if the door had not been replaced, hadn't been delivered, I would have to remove the van from their premises as they would not "store" it for me.I had a letter saying the van was fully functional but that I had" declined the opportunity to collect the van in preference to allowing us to store your motorhome on your behalf"

I was away on holiday, without a motorhome, when this letter came, the holiday already booked because we didn't think they could repair it in time. Also in the letter it states I will have to sign to say everything's okay before we have time to test it!

 

The letter to the MD brought another letter, whilst away, from the "group aftercare manager" that was the man who said they weren't going to repair the damage even though we had an email from them saying they would!!!!

He say's that the "request to receive a full refund is wholly disproportionate to the issues raised and therefore declined" I written again to the MD to ask how many months/years would we have to wait for repairs before a refund would be appropriate.

 

It's such a long story and I'm going to learn how to do a blog, I just feel it's important to let people know not to make the same mistake that we have made.

[pepe63xnotuse]

Hi Colin..

First off, did you inform them that you would be going away during the period that they had the van?...

(..if you didn't, how were they to know..?).

 

Secondly, and apologies if this isn't the case but you're giving the impression that you let things slide and over-run, only to then complain about it after......?

 

After a year of this, where that approach clearly hasn't worked, why aren't you more in their face and checking up on progress?..and if they really are really that appalling, then why haven't you got the likes of Trading Standards involved by now...? :-S

 

Also, I thought that you had established a line of communication with Swift?..and that they sounded sympathetic to your case?...So are you continuing to chase via that route? (ie.to get the work carried out by another approved dealer etc?), if not, why not?

 

After a year, there seems very little, if any, point in just complaining to the very people, who you are complaining about.....

 

It's almost starting to sound as if a "refund", rather than a sorted van, is uppermost in you mind.... :-S

(..as I said, apologies if that's not how it actually is, but it is how it's starting come over as...)

[candapack]

ColinT - 2014-08-05 2:42 AM

 

No I have not asked, they said they would keep me informed of the progress and it would go for body repairs on the 28th. I do know on the 28th it was driven to Bishops Walthem and then over to Middle Wallop, presumably to have the body work done. It returned to Upham on 30th where it remains. I was told that even if the door had not been replaced, hadn't been delivered, I would have to remove the van from their premises as they would not "store" it for me.I had a letter saying the van was fully functional but that I had" declined the opportunity to collect the van in preference to allowing us to store your motorhome on your behalf"

I was away on holiday, without a motorhome, when this letter came, the holiday already booked because we didn't think they could repair it in time. Also in the letter it states I will have to sign to say everything's okay before we have time to test it!

 

The letter to the MD brought another letter, whilst away, from the "group aftercare manager" that was the man who said they weren't going to repair the damage even though we had an email from them saying they would!!!!

He say's that the "request to receive a full refund is wholly disproportionate to the issues raised and therefore declined" I written again to the MD to ask how many months/years would we have to wait for repairs before a refund would be appropriate.

 

It's such a long story and I'm going to learn how to do a blog, I just feel it's important to let people know not to make the same mistake that we have made.

 

I notice that a few of your posts, like this one, are made in the "wee small hours". That makes me think that this issue is maybe affecting your sleeping, and therefore your health.

It seems to me that whatever happens, you will never be happy with this van, and will never have a decent relationship with Marquis. Are you in a position to ask Marquis to buy the van back, and start again with another dealer? If you can afford to take the financial loss, it might be the best option, not a satisfactory one of course but health comes first.

[ColinT]

Hi, yes I told the workshop? manager we were going away but it was another manager that wrote to me, they don't talk to each other. When we have booked van in for repair and given a written list when we collect the van the workshop say they didn't know about that fault!!

How can I "let things slide" I'm not doing the work, if I were it would all be done by now. Although I would like to punch someone in the face I don't think it would help, so I can only ask them to repair it. This time when we collect it I have no faith it it being done and I feel will be forced to take it elsewhere for repair and pursue them in small claims court? I have contacted Trading Standards and they say I can reject the van but as most of you know on here it isn't that easy, marquis also tell me that their legal team, with lots of money, will make it very difficult for me.

Swift were (seemed) very sympathetic and have contacted their dealer but it doesn't seem to have had an effect yet, but would it that quickly? I phone Swift to see if the habitation door had been posted out and they told me it was "nothing to do with them it was between marquis and the supplier of the door" so great help to me!! I did phone Swift to see if I could use another dealer and yes I can when I get it back, problem now is the door replacement is through damage not through guarantee as marquis were claiming!

Yes you are correct, after a year of them trying to fix it a full refund is uppermost in my mind and I don't think I'll ever be happy with the van again. Do you think that I should still be happy with a repair after all this time and all the failed attempts to repair it. I asked their MD for a full refund and £2000 compensation for the year of HELL this company have caused. Oh we only started asking for a refund after the year and talking to Trading Standards, To marquis repair the van ib a month or refund, they have failed on both counts. Thanks for listening.

[ColinT]

Hi Chris, thank you very much for your concern, it is now getting me down, very much, and starting to get angry and that knotted feeling but not really affecting my sleep, I do stay up late.

I would never ever do a deal with marquis over anything, I would rather scrap the van, if they were the last dealer on earth they will never get my, my family, friends or work colleges business ever.

 

 

Again, thanks for your kind thoughts, sleep well :-D

 

Colin

[pepe63xnotuse]

Hi Colin..

 

Just to clarify, when I said, "..you let things slide..", in my previous post, I wasn't siding with the dealer, far from it, it's just that with you having had a year of being constantly let down by them, you have left it very late in the proceedings to start contacting the manufacturer and asking about having the works carried out elsewhere?.. :-S

 

I admire your patience...and hindsight is a wonderful thing, I know but I think most people would have at least been pestering the manufacturer(re: the alternative dealer), within the first few weeks/months of this sort of shambles (especially with it being a "new" van)..and if you had done that, these the faults may well have been rectified and you would've had a totally different experience.

 

(I was on the phone to/writing to/emailing the manufacturer at our very first, "..the parts weren't on the delivery van.. they've sent the wrong ones..you'll have to wait 'til next month now, mate.." fob off...).

 

You/we shouldn't really have to "chase" things, we know but unfortunately, it is what it is...

 

As it sounds, it seems that it's this specific dealer/workshop that you need to "reject", not the van...

(..just get it to another dealer, approved by the manufacturer)...

 

..and if this experience("..year of HELL" ?) is getting you so wound up (and affecting your health?)then I'd suggest forgetting all about going down the legal route of rejecting it, with "compensation" etc...as I should imagine that that'd be a real pain in the backside... :-S

[mike 202]

It seems to me that you should go to another dealer and get a PX value on your current van then you will where you stand financially. It seems that you are getting nowhere with Marquis. The best you can hope for is to put off as many prospective customers as possible, using the internet and talking to people at campsites and shows. It will not aid you financially but may give you some satisfaction.

 

[pepe63xnotuse]

mike 202 - 2014-08-06 10:30 AM

The best you can hope for is to put off as many prospective customers as possible, using the internet and talking to people at campsites and shows. It will not aid you financially but may give you some satisfaction.

 

I can't see the point in that all....Besides, ColinT has already said that they've noted his social media postings on the topic and that they view it as libel, so if he isn't careful he may find he makes more trouble for himself..?

 

"The best", most productive, thing that Colin can do is to get it to another, Swift approved dealer asap and to just forget about muddying the waters with(possibly empty?) *threats of "rejecting" it and "compensation" etc... :-S

 

*As has been said elsewhere on this thread, if you are going to threaten something(ie "rejection" etc), then you must at least go some way to seeing it through...

 

[nowtelse2do]

pepe63 - 2014-08-06 5:33 PM

 

I can't see the point in that all....Besides, ColinT has already said that they've noted his social media postings on the topic and that they view it as libel, so if he isn't careful he may find he makes more trouble for himself..?

 

pepe, That would be for Marquis to start legal action, and if Colin has a good paper and email trail then what's he got to lose. Why haven't they started proceedings already, are they afraid they will lose. Trading Standards have given their verdict. My solicitor gives the first half hour free, I'd think about going there next.

 

Dave

[Pampam]

When we were in similar position (comfortmatic gearbox konked out and the dealers were flumoxed and couldnt repair it we were without our van for two months ,we wrote and rejected the van ,wherein the service manageress telephoned and told us that we COULDNT reject the van ,just on a whim ,and where was it? She was dumbstruck when i said it was in their workshop and had been for seven weeks: however what we did was return van to them and buy another from them in a word we part exed it for another(yes it stuck in the throat to give them more money) but it was making me ill chasing it up all the time ,and i reckon health comes before money ,id read a column written by Gentleman Jack ..he shoots from the hip : and he said about the same thing, , so no more stress and worry with sleepless nights ; and moved on to another van :with hindsight we should have pulled it out and taken it to a fiat commercial garage ,but hindsights a marvellous thing good luck pp:)

[pepe63xnotuse]

nowtelse2do - 2014-08-06 7:13 PM

 

Why haven't they started proceedings already, are they afraid they will lose Trading Standards have given their verdict...

 

Dave

 

I thought Trading Standards "verdict" was that rejecting it,wouldn't be easy?...so maybe Marquis are thinking the very same thing?

 

It's all very well folk being in the right but at some point they do need to ask themselves where it's getting them...

 

How many more holidays does the OP want to miss?...does he really want another year of even more hassle?..especially when, by his own admission, most of the original "faults" were little more than niggles that he could've rectified himself(but understandably chose not to on a 45k van)...

...and surely the more major faults could just get sorted by a different, Swift sanctioned, dealer.

 

Colin- Just get it fixed up at another dealer..and if you still can't stand the van, then flog it/trade it in...

 

Life's too short..:-S

 

[nowtelse2do]

pepe63 - 2014-08-07 8:39 AM

 

nowtelse2do - 2014-08-06 7:13 PM

 

Why haven't they started proceedings already, are they afraid they will lose Trading Standards have given their verdict...

 

Dave

 

I thought Trading Standards "verdict" was that rejecting it,wouldn't be easy?...so maybe Marquis are thinking the very same thing?

 

Life's too short..:-S

 

No pepe, Trading Standards said he can reject the van. Colin said it wouldn't be easy. I'd still see if a local solicitor would give free 1/2 hour advice though....what's there to lose in that.

 

I do agree though, that life is too short.....and marquis seems to be making it shorter for Colin. Just another point pepe, if colin had started to do these simple jobs....how would it affect the warranty on the van if they became aware that he had done work on it. 8-)

 

Dave

[Brian Kirby]

nowtelse2do - 2014-08-07 7:19 PM..................No pepe, Trading Standards said he can reject the van. Colin said it wouldn't be easy. I'd still see if a local solicitor would give free 1/2 hour advice though....what's there to lose in that.

 

I do agree though, that life is too short.....and marquis seems to be making it shorter for Colin. Just another point pepe, if colin had started to do these simple jobs....how would it affect the warranty on the van if they became aware that he had done work on it. 8-) Dave

On the first point above, I suspect what TS actually said is that he could seek to reject it, not that he actually could. Rejection is a legal process that greatly relies on timing. The further in time from the point of purchase, the more difficult it becomes to reject. The ideal is to reject before taking the goods away, on the ground that they are so deficient as not to conform to what the buyer had originally contracted to buy. Not easy with a motorhome!

 

Once taken away, with the full agreed price paid, the buyer is essentially deemed to have accepted the goods. He can then only reject if significant defects or deficiencies come to light, that he could not reasonably have been expected to have detected when taking posession of the goods. So, the buyer then has to establish that these deficiencies are so severe as to make the goods unusable for their intended purpose, and that he could not have spotted them any earlier. Again not easy with a motorhome, especially where it is a series of relatively minor defects that emerged over time, and that the dealer has failed to repair within a reasonable time, that lie at the root of the problem.

 

Part of reason for the OP seeking rejection is not in fact a defect at all, but damage claimed to have been caused by the dealer while the vehicle was in his care. Even this happened some time ago, and it seems the circumstances remain somewhat unclear with the dealer first rejecting liability and then offering repair. We do not know whether this offer was made following acceptance of liability, or was on a "goodwill" basis while rejecting liability. However, that is a case for damages, not for rejection under consumer law.

 

Personal view, and I'm not a lawyer, but I think rejection is, by now, way out of reach. A better bet, IM (non-lawyer's) O, would be to serve formal notice on the dealer that he now has, say, 28 days within which time he must rectify all outstanding defects to the reasonable satisfaction of the customer, or the customer will remove the van from the dealer's premises to an alternative repairer, and seek reimbursement for his costs in so doing, including all his out-of-pocket costs, through the courts if necessary. Then, on the 29th day he MUST act, and do exactly as he has said. The only reason for relenting would be if the dealer contacts him in a timely fashion to report that vital components, that were ordered promptly, cannot be obtained within the set timescale. Leaving that notification until day 27 would not be sufficient.

 

All of this must be put in writing, with the deadlines, and delivered to the dealer by provable means (guaranteed next day or similar which is trackable, and where a copy of the recipient's signature can be taken from the Royal Mail tracking website). It seems all this would have to be emphasised to this particular dealer, in detail, at a meeting, and that his acceptance of the terms, or any variation to the terms accepted by the OP, to would then need to be confirmed in writing back to the dealer, preferably copied to their head office A/O the MD, delivered by provable means, as above.

 

However, if this is to get to court (more probabaly mediation or arbitration) the OP will need to be able to substantiate all his claims with evidence in the form of letters, copies of e-mails, and/or a diary or journal that was convincingly maintained contemporaneoulsy with the events. Otherwise, all that could ensue would be two people making verbal claims and counter-claims, leaving the mediator or arbitrator to judge where the balance of probablities lies. Somewhere around 50/50 would be a good outcome under those circumstances!

 

Plainly the dealer is clueless as to his legal obligations, and unfortunataly the OP has been far too tolerant of the dealer's incompetences, and perhaps a little inclined to procrastinate, to his own now considerable disadvantage. But, he is where he is. I have also suggested above that he looks at his insurance policies to see if any entitle him to legal assistance in matters such as this, as many now do. If he has not yet done this, I would urge him to do so without further delay. Once he has the van fully and properly repaired, if he then wants to sell it and start again that will be up to him.

[nowtelse2do]

Brian, Colin posted that TS said he 'can' reject it, how long ago that was I don't know. I think your assessment is v/good but I would still try to get 1/2 hour free advice with a solicitor or his own motor insurance legal team.

 

Trouble is that not everyone is made the same, some would have been banging on the dealers door within minutes others would hold back thinking that they are a reputable company and are happy to go along with what was said and promised.

 

I might be wrong here and I'm pretty sure you would be able to confirm if I'm wrong ;-) Is there some sort of EU rule about a 6 year warranty that might cover this. It's not as if these problems have only just cropped up they have been more or less on going since he bought the van, and it doesn't matter whether the problems are small or not, they are still problems that should have been attended too.

 

Dave

 

Just re-read Colin's 1st post, it looks like he has been having problems from day one. Think I'd be parked outside their gate with the van plastered all over it saying what was wrong with it and what kind of service future customers should expect if they get a problem.

[Brian Kirby]

nowtelse2do - 2014-08-08 2:15 PM

 

1 Brian, Colin posted that TS said he 'can' reject it, how long ago that was I don't know. I think your assessment is v/good but I would still try to get 1/2 hour free advice with a solicitor or his own motor insurance legal team.

 

2 Trouble is that not everyone is made the same, some would have been banging on the dealers door within minutes others would hold back thinking that they are a reputable company and are happy to go along with what was said and promised.

 

3 I might be wrong here and I'm pretty sure you would be able to confirm if I'm wrong ;-) Is there some sort of EU rule about a 6 year warranty that might cover this. It's not as if these problems have only just cropped up they have been more or less on going since he bought the van, and it doesn't matter whether the problems are small or not, they are still problems that should have been attended too.

 

Dave

 

4. Just re-read Colin's 1st post, it looks like he has been having problems from day one. Think I'd be parked outside their gate with the van plastered all over it saying what was wrong with it and what kind of service future customers should expect if they get a problem.

(Paras numbered by me for ease of reference.)

 

Para 1. Yes, I'd read that Dave, but suspect that what TS would actually have said may have got a bit "lost in translation"! :-) I've "borrowed" this from the Consumer Council's website. As can be seen, they are quite cautious over rejection, and the grey area over the unspecified time limit within which it can be done. All I'm saying is that I would expect TS's advice to have reflected that caution.

 

"Sale of Goods Act 1979

 

Under the Act you are entitled to expect that any goods you buy from a trader are:

•of satisfactory quality

•fit for any particular purpose made known to the seller

•as described.

 

Satisfactory quality means that the goods should meet the standard a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory taking into account the description of the goods, the price (if relevant) and all other relevant circumstances. The quality of the goods applies to their state and condition including their appearance and finish, freedom from minor defects, and safety and durability. They should also be fit for all purposes for which goods of that kind are commonly supplied. Your rights under this Act are against the person who sold you the goods and not the manufacturer.

 

You have no real grounds for a complaint if you:

•were told about the fault before you purchased the item;

•examined the item when you bought it and should have seen the fault;

•made a mistake when purchasing the item; or

•simply changed your mind about the item.

 

Remedies

 

If you've bought something not of satisfactory quality, not fit for a particular purpose or not as described, the law gives you a number of remedies.

 

If you complain to the retailer within a reasonable time, you're entitled to get a full refund. However, the law does not say what a reasonable time is. Each case may be different. So the sooner you make your complaint, the better.

 

Once you go beyond a reasonable time to reject the goods, you're only entitled to claim compensation. You can also claim for any consequential losses that result directly from the goods being unsatisfactory.

 

Alternatively, you may wish to ask, in the first instance, for a repair or replacement.

 

Such repair or replacement has to be carried out within a reasonable time and without any great inconvenience to you. The retailer has to bear any costs, such as transporting the goods.

 

However, the retailer can refuse either of these remedies, if it can be shown that the other one would be less costly.

 

If a quick and trouble-free repair or replacement is not possible, you can ask for a full or part-refund. Whatever benefit you may have already had from the goods will be taken into account in deciding any refund."

 

Para 2. Very true.

 

Para 3. Not sure it is EU legislation, but a seller is, broadly, responsible for what he sells for a period of 6 years under UK consumer law. However, this concept is also full of "reasonables" and "practicals". First the goods must be expected (given normal use and maintenance - another proviso) to last more than 6 years. Second, as the CC says in their last para, the value of any compensation to be paid would probably be reduced to take account of the proportion of its normally expected life that had passed when the defect was notified. So, if a product with a widely expected life of 10 years fails after 5 years, the owner should not expect more than 50% of the price to be returned. Don't know whether that would be set against the replacement price at today's cost, or the price originally paid, but rather suspect the latter.

 

Para 4. Yep, something like that! :-D