Romahome roof problems

[Derek Uzzell]

Just an observation...

 

While there are indeed on-line complaints about water-ingress regarding recent Romahome R20 Lo models, all of these seem to relate to water entering when the roof is raised or through the canvas or through ‘seals’. However, I’ve not read anything (other than here) about the rigid roof becoming deformed.

 

There are photos of the latest R20 Lo here

 

http://www.caravanguard.co.uk/news/romahome-r20-lo-the-mouse-that-toured-4446/

 

Comparative pictures indicate that later R20 Lo models (post-2012?) have a less-convex roof design than their predecessors but, whatever the case, it stands to reason that this type of roof should be convex and that a roof that starts out convex should never become concave.

 

Whatever the vendors of barnplatt’s motorhome plan to do to address the water-ingress, I’d also want either a new roof fitted or the present deformed roof returned to its original convex shape.

 

 

 

 

[barnplatt]

Derek Uzzell - 2014-11-02 9:35 AM

 

Just an observation...

 

Comparative pictures indicate that later R20 Lo models (post-2012?) have a less-convex roof design than their predecessors but, whatever the case, it stands to reason that this type of roof should be convex and that a roof that starts out convex should never become concave.

 

Whatever the vendors of barnplatt’s motorhome plan to do to address the water-ingress, I’d also want either a new roof fitted or the present deformed roof returned to its original convex shape.

 

 

Totally in agreement with you Derek & from glimpses of internal email messages being passed back & forth between manufacturers (Addaback Ltd) & dealer (Freeborn Motorhomes Ltd) it would appear that a part of the cotingency plans surrounding repairs has made allowance for a new roof to be moulded.

 

Maybe these attached images show the extent of my roof subsidence a little more clearly.

[colin]

When you first posted that the roof had become concave I pictured it as slightly sagging in the middle, which is fairly common in GRP products that are made light and flat, what the photo appears to show is not any sagging, but failure of the GRP

[Rayjsj]

Barnplatt,

Wish you well with your latest attempt at repair/redress. Comment : If you cannot reject a vehicle at 6 months (the minimum time,I would have thought,for MAJOR problems to show themselves on a complex construction,like a motorhome) then WHEN can you ?? do you have to wait until the complete interior is ruined by water ingress ? any 'Legal' bods out there, can you advise ??

Such a shame that a soundingly 'simple' EU directive can 'screw up' a previously 'well thought of' British Manufacturer, albeit a minor one. Shame.

 

Just seen and read the above, WHY did they change an already successful design ? cost cutting by 'Addaka' or whatever they call themselves ? looks like lack of support bracings within the Glassfibre moulding ?

 

Please let us know how you get on. Ray

[barnplatt]

colin - 2014-11-02 10:36 AM

 

When you first posted that the roof had become concave I pictured it as slightly sagging in the middle, which is fairly common in GRP products that are made light and flat, what the photo appears to show is not any sagging, but failure of the GRP

 

My thoughts also Colin, but would you believe manafacturers have implied it's possible someone may have climbed upon the roof & I am unsure quite how this could have been achieved with in the confines of my lock-up garage. :-S

[Brian Kirby]

Rayjsj - 2014-11-02 10:38 AM

 

Barnplatt,

Wish you well with your latest attempt at repair/redress. Comment : If you cannot reject a vehicle at 6 months (the minimum time,I would have thought,for MAJOR problems to show themselves on a complex construction,like a motorhome) then WHEN can you ?? do you have to wait until the complete interior is ruined by water ingress ? any 'Legal' bods out there, can you advise ??

Such a shame that a soundingly 'simple' EU directive can 'screw up' a previously 'well thought of' British Manufacturer, albeit a minor one. Shame.

 

Just seen and read the above, WHY did they change an already successful design ? cost cutting by 'Addaka' or whatever they call themselves ? looks like lack of support bracings within the Glassfibre moulding ?

 

Please let us know how you get on. Ray

I think the best answer, for anyone who wants a fuller understanding of this, will be to follow this link to the relevant part of the Citizen's Advice website: http://tinyurl.com/kjcwlyh

 

The right to reject is not contractual, it arises through the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and is, as I have said before, highly conditional.

 

Barnplatt was somewhat misguided in persisting with attempts to reject, and could have been better advised had he sought advice from Trading Standards (TS) or Citizen's Advice (CA). From his update, it seems he may not have done this.

 

However, he is still entitled to redress under Consumer Legislation, but must bear in mind that all his rights are against the seller, not the manufacturer. The fact that they are both, in effect, the same "company", is a red herring. The seller is a trading entity (whose name will appear on his purchase invoice) and he has legal rights against them that he does not have against the manufacturer, which is a separate trading entity, (and whose name is different). I suggest he reads the linked TS advice, and then drills down a bit further under the "Next Steps" heading at the foot of that page, to see what avenues remain open to him.

 

However, as the main problems, on a vehicle that is inevitably assembled from numerous components, are leakage through side screens and deformation of the roof, it is improbable that he could at present claim a full refund. The roof can be replaced, and the sealing of the side screens can be remedied. Consequential damage from the leakage can also be made good. The questions are whether the seller is prepared to do the replacements and making good, and if he is, whether the results are acceptable. If the repairs are not reasonably acceptable, then refund may be the only fair settlement. But, it is imperative that the correct legal procedure is followed at every step.

 

If Barnplatt has not already sought legal advice, starting with TS or CA, I would strongly urge him to do so.. He has, in effect, already lost round one by pursuing an unattainable objective, he now needs to be certain, in his own interests, that he enters round two on a sound footing.

[barnplatt]

Rayjsj - 2014-11-02 10:38 AM

 

 

Just seen and read the above, WHY did they change an already successful design ? cost cutting by 'Addaka' or whatever they call themselves ? looks like lack of support bracings within the Glassfibre moulding ?

 

Please let us know how you get on. Ray

 

Can only offer supposition as to why my roof has taken its progressive metamorphic transformation from convex to concave & believe there to be little if any internal support bracings :-o

By his own confession Romahome MD has stated that the new roof design was adopted simply to avoid exceeding their 6' 4'' vehicle target maximum height.

 

Will of course keep the forum notified of results as & when they may occur.

[globebuster]

I would suggest you get an independent inspection of the roof, prior to repair/replacement, to establish where any structural defect may lie.

 

I don't know your location in the UK, but any decent Marine or Structural GRP man will be able to advise.

 

A Marine Surveyor would be the best choice, and might reinforce your case [sorry about the pun] regardless of whether it's repaired or replaced.

 

I cannot personally make an opinion [educated guess] without a picture showing the whole roof area, but if you PM me I might be able to help in finding someone to give you an unbiased opinion. Or if you live in the South West I would be happy to make an inspection, if that helps.

 

The more ammunition you have the better......

 

 

[barnplatt]

(lol) If the weather outside this morning is causing you to feel depressed, then this should raise a smile to your lips. (lol)

The following is a quote from Romahomes MD Mr Andrew Jones (We know that name don't we Brian Kirby?) & was sent by way of reply to suggestions that any Romahome roof canvas could possibily allow the ingress of water.

 

"The water resistant canvas skirt acts as the weather-screen and will be a barrier to rain but cannot be 100% watertight." (?)

 

"Will be a barrier to rain, but not 100% watertight"..."Yes" you read that correctly & IMO that's bordering upon oxymoron territory (lol)

[barnplatt]

Brian Kirby - 2014-11-02 11:50 AM

 

If Barnplatt has not already sought legal advice, starting with TS or CA, I would strongly urge him to do so.. He has, in effect, already lost round one by pursuing an unattainable objective, he now needs to be certain, in his own interests, that he enters round two on a sound footing.

 

Is this not where we need to be Brian? http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/consumer_e/consumer_common_problems_with_products_e/faulty_goods_e/faulty_goods.htm

 

All looks clear cut to me:

 

The Sale of Goods Act 1979 says that any item you buy from a trader must be:

 

Of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose & match any description given.

 

Don't see any section or clause which excludes Motorhomes, but of course I know little of the devious escape avenues which may be accessable to more learned & cash heavy corporate entities.

 

Likely to be over simplistic in my belief that fair play should be the way foward here, in that the item I have purchased is clearly NOT Of satisfactory quality or indeed fit for purpose.

 

Now lets rearrange the words; 'science', 'not', 'it's' & 'rocket' into a well known phrase or saying ;-)

 

Hardly feel in need of legal representation at this point as the dealer is attempting to rectify that which is deemed to be of an 'unsatisfactory quality', so lets see what the outcome is before going in with both barrels blazing maybe?

 

My opening gambit is on the table by way of official rejection & if in need of bolstering at a later date owing to non compliance by the dealer/vendor to my 'reasonable' demands, then so be it.. :D

[Brian Kirby]

barnplatt - 2014-11-03 8:43 AM...............Hardly feel in need of legal representation at this point as the dealer is attempting to rectify that which is deemed to be of an 'unsatisfactory quality', so lets see what the outcome is before going in with both barrels blazing maybe?....................

I'm sorry my friend, but that is not what I suggested. I suggested taking ADVICE from people with knowledge of the legalities. Representation, and possibly "blazing guns", would only arise if you decided, finally, that prosecution was your only way to gain satisfaction.

 

If you read beyond the line you quote from the CA website, you will see that the process is not "clearcut". There are a number of provisos as to what the remedy might be, and how to best proceed to secure them. There steps to follow that both improve your chances of eventual success, and also clearly signal to your dealer etc that you know what you are doing and how to do it, and that you are serious in your intent and are not just having an impotent hissing fit.

 

They've now bounced your rejection claim on more or less the grounds I suggested they would in my earlier post. That is why I was urging you to take advice then, and still think it would be wise to take advice now.

 

Your objective is clear, and the reason for your dissatisfaction is clear, I just think you might benefit from a bit of assistance in hitting the target. However, if you feel otherwise, I can only wish you luck. I have no wish to interfere with your life.