Buyer Beware, Buying from Wellsbridge

[capnjaj]

I recently I bought an Auto-Trail Cheyenne from Wellsbridge Motorhomes, among its extras were advertised a reversing camera. When I was getting used to the vehicle I found the reversing cameras did not work properly. When I got in touch with Wellsbridge this was there answer,

 

"Please note that any retrofit equipment like satellite systems, reversing camera’s, solar panels, etc, are not guaranteed and note also we do not formally test these items as we do not maintain/repair or replace this sort of equipment."

 

SO BUYER BEWARE.

 

[Spadge]

I purchased from Wellsbridge, but never again for a different reason, when viewed the van had a 30mtr EHU cable and a Gas Barbeque on board in the under-floor lockers, when I collected the van the key to the lockers was strangely missing. 3 wks later after I had managed to source a key I find both of those items gone. Their response was & I quote 'No idea what you are talking about ' I would hate to get onto the damp issue that I found later after I had been reassured during the sales pitch there wasn't any. :-(

[Rayjsj]

I believe that a reversing camera is standard Autotrail fitment on the Cheyenne model, so, should be covered by the Warranty,

[Keithl]

capnjaj - 2015-09-04 10:02 AM

 

I recently I bought an Auto-Trail Cheyenne from Wellsbridge Motorhomes, among its extras were advertised a reversing camera. When I was getting used to the vehicle I found the reversing cameras did not work properly. When I got in touch with Wellsbridge this was there answer,

 

"Please note that any retrofit equipment like satellite systems, reversing camera’s, solar panels, etc, are not guaranteed and note also we do not formally test these items as we do not maintain/repair or replace this sort of equipment."

 

SO BUYER BEWARE.

 

Rayjsj - 2015-09-04 11:24 AM

 

I believe that a reversing camera is standard Autotrail fitment on the Cheyenne model, so, should be covered by the Warranty,

 

Geaorge, 2 questions.

 

First what year is your Cheyenne? As Ray points out ALL AT's from 2005MY on had a reversing camera as standard.

 

Second, Did Wellsbridge make you aware of this restriction before purchase or is it anywhere on the paperwork you where given before purchase? If not then I believe under description of goods act any item being described as included must function and they cannot later say they are excluded. Check with your local trading standards for clarification. Obviously this only applies if the camera is actually a later add on and not an AT original fitment. As if original fitment there exclusion does not apply!

 

Finally you can download AT brochures for most years from their website if you don't already have a copy... Link to AT. This will show whether a camera was standard fitment to your Cheyenne.

 

Keith.

[Brian Kirby]

capnjaj - 2015-09-04 10:02 AM

 

I recently I bought an Auto-Trail Cheyenne from Wellsbridge Motorhomes, among its extras were advertised a reversing camera. When I was getting used to the vehicle I found the reversing cameras did not work properly. When I got in touch with Wellsbridge this was there answer,

 

"Please note that any retrofit equipment like satellite systems, reversing camera’s, solar panels, etc, are not guaranteed and note also we do not formally test these items as we do not maintain/repair or replace this sort of equipment."

 

SO BUYER BEWARE.

If you still have the advertisement, and can prove the camera was included in the advertised extras, and no-one told you it was inoperative before taking your money, it is reasonable to expect it to be functional. I don't think it matters a hoot whether it was original fit, or after market-fit, if it was advertised as being present, it should work.

 

If the vehicle is still covered by AT's warranty, and if the warranty covers the reversing camera, taking the defect up with AT may be a less stressful route to pursue.

 

Have you advised the dealer in writing that the camera is defective? If not, you should, and should explain that you relied on their advertisement when buying, do not accept their reason for rejecting your complaint, and want them to rectify the defect within a reasonable time (say two weeks). As they do not formally test, repair or maintain such items themselves, they are simply obliged to rectify the defect by employing someone who does.

 

If they point blank refuse to budge, I think you can have the camera repaired yourself, and reclaim the cost via the Small claims procedure. However, try to get them to see sense first (calmly and politely, of course), and do talk to either Citizen's Advice or Trading Standards before turning to the courts. Either will give you good general advice on the steps to take. You could also look at your vehicle, house, or contents insurances, or even the terms of your bank account, to see if any of those include a personal legal advisory service. Many do.

[terry1956]

Adding to this a bit.check all the paperwork given to you re standard equipment. If there is a mention of the camera, then said camera should be working. The small claims court only deals with cases over a certain amount and is a very toothless long winded affair, I know due to having to take a dealer to court. Are there any other defects with the van.how long how you owned it.you maybe able to claim a not fit for purpose claim if other defects have come to light within 28 days.but remember once you go that path you must hold on to the end and be very firm.jichael

[vindiboy]

When I traded my Hymer  for my now van I was told to keep my hook up cable as it was illegal to supply a used hook up cable to a new purchaser so it was no use to the dealer.,[ Elf and safety ]

[Brian Kirby]

Michael, I'm wondering if there may be a misunderstanding over which procedure this relates to? All the information I can find says there is no minimum value for a claim under the small claims track. The present maximum is £10,000 (except in the case of tenants claiming against landlords).

[StuartO]

vindiboy - 2015-09-04 2:51 PM

 

When I traded my Hymer  for my now van I was told to keep my hook up cable as it was illegal to supply a used hook up cable to a new purchaser so it was no use to the dealer.,[ Elf and safety ]

 

It's certainly common practice for dealers to want to avoid guaranteeing accessories so they usually take stuff like TVs out, maybe reversing camaras too. They would rather the purchaser of the MH bought stuff like that again so they can sell it and charge for fitting it and have a manufacturer's guarantee if it goes wrong.

 

But if they sold you a MH and didn't remove the reversing camera and didn't specifically excude it from the guarantee before the purchase I would have thought you are very much in the right by expecting them to repair or replace within the guarantee period of your MH purchase.

[Randonneur]

Again a Salesman Todds Motorhomes at Lostock Hall, who is an excellent dealer, advised that they ask all would be sellers to remove any afterfit equipment as they cannot guarantee them. I can see their point as they give a 12 months warranty and they would have to do the same on that equipment although it could be written into their Contracts so that they are not covered.

[capnjaj]

The Motorhome is a 2008 Auto-Trail Cheyenne 635 SE.

Thanks for all your comments so far.

[Brian Kirby]

StuartO - 2015-09-04 3:52 PM.........................But if they sold you a MH and didn't remove the reversing camera and didn't specifically excude it from the guarantee before the purchase I would have thought you are very much in the right by expecting them to repair or replace within the guarantee period of your MH purchase.

This is true, but I wonder if the reference to the warranty (or guaranty) may mislead.

 

Under the Sale of Goods Act 1979, all goods sold must be as described, of satisfactory quality, and fit for purpose. This applies also to used goods, although your expectations should take account of their age when bought. Clearly, a 20 year old van cannot be expected to perform as reliably, or for as long, as when new. But generally, your statutory rights under the Act will be likely to exceed whatever rights any warranty may grant.

 

However, if the van is more than, say, 5 years old it would be worth checking whether any warranty given by the dealer might cover the camera, and if so what remedy is offered (which just might be better than you could expect under the Act), but otherwise I would say forget the warranty and rely on the Act. You can take the supplier to court to obtain redress under the Act, but you can't under a warranty.

 

On reflection, I'm not sure whether including the reversing camera in the advertisement for the van is relevant. It is a fixture, so part of the van as bought and, as such, unless you were advised that it didn't function before you bought the van, I think the dealer may be obliged to make it work. I think this may be true even if it was working when you bought it, but failed soon after. The dealer can opt for repair or replacement, or to reimburse the value of the defective item. He remains liable under the Act for six years from the date of sale, although the extent of his liability reduces over that time, depending on the nature of the goods in question.

 

So, the age of the camera or monitor may influence the outcome. If, for example, it is older than the normally expected life span of similar items, a court might not require a new (or any) replacement to be fitted free of charge. It might be held that it was part of the risk in buying used goods, and that you should bear part of the cost. This is why you should take expert advice before legally challenging the dealer. Depending on the cost of replacing or repairing what has failed, and its age, you may be advised to forget pursuing the dealer, and just replace the defective component/s at your own expense.

[yeti]

capnjaj - 2015-09-04 4:09 PM

 

The Motorhome is a 2008 Auto-Trail Cheyenne 635 SE.

thanks for all your comments so far.

Its a fitment I had a 2008 AT Scout which came with a camera as standard. Do you have the centre drop down screen with the tv tuner? If so is part of the conversion. If still no luck Trading standards should be contacted.

[Keithl]

George,

 

The AT Owners Club website has a link to a company which is supposed to be the authorised repairers for some models of the drop down TV and reversing camera system. Copied from ATOC...

 

New official spares and repairs centre for out of warranty repair to Auto-Trail Audio Visual products such as the 12ele2000 etc. as fitted to the X250 range.

Les Evans & Son Ltd (Website)

Unit 2 No 93

Whitchurch Road

Shrewsbury

Shropshire

SY1 4EQ

01743 450457

[Brock]

Interesting thread.

 

George, the OP, simply stated his version of events around his dealing with Wellsbridge. He has done so in unemotional terms and ended with a warning for buyers.

 

I suggest that if George does want advice, then he asks for it and sets out what he wants to achieve. If he doesn't want advice, then I think he has made his point very clearly and it acts as the warning intended when dealing with Wellsbridge and can be applied to other dealers. My concern is that George's warning gets lost in the morass of subsequent posts.

 

I'll finish by saying, "Thanks George for the warning. It is appreciated."

[Keithl]

John, I'm very sorry if you felt my reply took the original warning off thread but in reading George's OP it seemed to me that he had taken Wellsbridge;s answer as 'Fait accompli' and was not going to pursue repair with Wellsbridge any further.

 

What Ray then posted was to inform George that Wellsbridge's information was incorrect and as such the reversing camera should be repaired at their cost and I then re-iterated this and also added that unless George was made aware of the posted restrictions BEFORE the sale then Wellsbridge where likely contravening the trades description and/or sale of goods acts by imposing them later.

 

This information was posted for Georges attention as obviously both Ray and I thought he had been misinformed and 'fobbed off' by the dealer.

 

George, I hope you appreciate the information that Ray and I have posted for you and do not feel we have diluted your warning about this dealer in doing so. If you do then please accept my sincere apologies, this was not my intention.

 

Keith.

[Brian Kirby]

I echo Keith's sentiments, but would add this. The forum is public, and posts are not private conversations. They are read by many more folk than contribute, and I think a topic such as a dealer seeking to evade his responsibilities is worth broadening, as it has value for more than the OP alone, including some among those "silent readers".

 

I am a little surprised that the string survives, as experience hitherto has been that when a trader is named, the string is soon taken down. We have only heard one side of a dispute, and it may not be without bias. For that reason, I would have been more comfortable had the dealer remained anonymous, reducing the likelihood of the string being removed.

[capnjaj]

I have already had the cameras replaced by MED in Norwich while they were doing other work. I have also emailed Wellsbridge with copy of the Forum so they could read it and giving them a chance to comment,

All I have had back from them so far is denial and excuses

I am off to France on Monday for a few week I am sure a drop of Vino will help. B-)

Thanks for all your advice. My post was to make people aware of what happens out there.

Cheers George

[StuartO]

Brian Kirby - 2015-09-05 12:28 AM

 

I echo Keith's sentiments, but would add this. The forum is public, and posts are not private conversations. They are read by many more folk than contribute, and I think a topic such as a dealer seeking to evade his responsibilities is worth broadening, as it has value for more than the OP alone, including some among those "silent readers".

 

I am a little surprised that the string survives, as experience hitherto has been that when a trader is named, the string is soon taken down. We have only heard one side of a dispute, and it may not be without bias. For that reason, I would have been more comfortable had the dealer remained anonymous, reducing the likelihood of the string being removed.

 

For purposes of the libel laws, publishing a damaging falsehood to a single third party is potentially enough to make something actionable, so it probably doesn't matter except for issues of scale of damages whether the form is a widely read public or a tiny password-protected owners club forum.

 

The forum owners liability (in our case Warners) only arises when they are told about the libellous material (eg a compaint) at which point most publishers would probably take it down to be on the safe side. Forum owners are not always or immediately liable for libellous content since it is recognised that they cannot realisticaly be aware of everything on their forum. The author's liability arises the moment the post goes live but there are of course a range of defences available, for example that the damaging comment is true, that the post is fair comment and a few others. Adverse opinion is not necessarily libellous.

 

There is of course a public interest arguement for the publication of information and suppliers renaging on guarantees and one of the things I respect about Warners is that they don't automatically remove critical stuff about the MH trade. They do sometimes of course, so if you slag off one of their big advertisers, don't expect your post to survive very long!

 

 

[david lloyd]

Brian Kirby - 2015-09-05 12:28 AM

 

I echo Keith's sentiments, but would add this. The forum is public, and posts are not private conversations. They are read by many more folk than contribute, and I think a topic such as a dealer seeking to evade his responsibilities is worth broadening, as it has value for more than the OP alone, including some among those "silent readers".

 

I am a little surprised that the string survives, as experience hitherto has been that when a trader is named, the string is soon taken down. We have only heard one side of a dispute, and it may not be without bias. For that reason, I would have been more comfortable had the dealer remained anonymous, reducing the likelihood of the string being removed.

 

I understand the point you make Brian, however, had George left out the dealership ID then the whole purpose of his post (the warning) would be worthless.

 

It would be far better if dealerships were advised that the post was going to be placed and the facts as the person who is complaining knows them will be stated giving the dealership every opportunity to respond - or even head the whole thing off by putting right any 'errors' in their handling of the complaint.

 

David

[Brock]

Worth pointing out that the Defamation Act 2013 came into force on January 1 2014.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/defamation-act-2013-guidance-and-faqs-on-section-5-regulations

 

It deals with forum operators' liability for defamation and the steps they can take to avoid liability. I am sure Warners know the steps they will need to take.

 

As for posters, we have to be continually aware of the impact of what we post and avoid posting untrue statements that "cause or are likely to cause serious harm" to individuals' or businesses' reputation.

[Brian Kirby]

Well, yes, but we only have one (partial) account of the facts, and one has no actual knowledge of what was said by either party at the time, or since. Not every dealer is a rogue, and not every motorhomer is a saint. The "warning" is clearly intended to cast a shadow over the particular dealer. It is not a plea for assistance on what he can do to get things put right, as the OP himself seems subsequently to acknowledge. Had it been that, there would have been no point in naming the dealer.

 

So, my question is, why do that? My next question is does anyone reading the OP take it at face value? If they do, what is their likely reaction? Does the dealer deserve that reaction? They might, if the disgruntled poster's account is completely accurate and unbiased, but what if the poster's motivation is to extract something to which he is not truly entitled from the dealer, under threat of adverse publicity?

 

These are the reasons I think the naming is at least unwise, and to an extent unfair. Should the dealer respond? What can he say? He will know who was his customer, so he may respond via his solicitor. On the other hand, he may come on here to say there has been a terrible mistake (which would be nice), or he may say he had advised his customer that the camera didn't work, and that advice seems since to have been forgotten. So, in the latter case would any of us be any wiser? Who then should we believe, the OP, or the dealer? One person's word against another's. Toss a coin?

 

"Name and shame" is fine, but there should first be the trial, in which the (in this case) dealer is found guilty. Otherwise, these "name and shame" posts smack to me of the old wild west joke. Shouldn't we hold a trial before we hang him? No, lets hang him first, and then hold a trial!

[Archiesgrandad]

This is more or less the situation we encountered when we purchased a used motorhome from a well known dealer in Bournemouth. I still have a copy of the sales leaflet which describes the wonderful condition of the van, and the comprehensive list of extras that were fitted, and we were aware that we were paying over the odds for a van in very good condition, with a layout that was perfect for us, and that had some very desirable extras, especially the air conditioning and the cruise control. The sales contract did mention that the warranty did not cover some aftermarket fitments and gave a list of those items that were not covered, but air conditioning and cruise control were not on the list, and we were not advised that they would not be covered.

Customer service was very poor, and on the day we collected the van we felt that they couldn't wait to get the money and send us on our way. Within a few days we were off to France for our summer holidays and that's when we found out that in addition to the cruise control and aircon, the electric windows did not work either, and the exhaust system broke.

One way or another we did enjoy our holiday, and coincidentally found the house in which we now live, and on our return to the UK we contacted them and arranged to return the van to them on the following Saturday. When I got the van to their premises they were closed, a wasted 86 mile journey each way, and when I challenged them they said they always closed at midday on Saturdays, and when I pointed out that all their literature and adverts said 5.0 oclock, they said that they always closed at midday.

I made arrangements to make the trip again, and they repaired the exhaust system, said that they had done all they could to repair the electric windows, without success, and denied any responsibility for the aircon ad cruise control.

We exchanged a number of emails to no avail, and in the end I contacted my local Trading Standards people who explained that my problems were outside their sphere, but I should contact the Citizens Advice Bureau. This I did and gave them all the information I could, and they eventually advised me that I had a case, and that I needed to start with formal letters, moving on to small claims court etc.

Our move to France was getting closer, I had other more pressing things to deal with, and regretfully I decided to let it go.

I really feel cheated, and to some extent they took away some of the joy that we should have felt at the acquisition of our new van, but life is too short, and I doubt that I could have successfully pursued the case from France. I was not prepared to name them for legal reasons, so they got away with it.

AGD

[david lloyd]

Archiesgrandad - 2015-09-06 10:52 PM

 

This is more or less the situation we encountered when we purchased a used motorhome from a well known dealer in Bournemouth. I still have a copy of the sales leaflet which describes the wonderful condition of the van, and the comprehensive list of extras that were fitted, and we were aware that we were paying over the odds for a van in very good condition, with a layout that was perfect for us, and that had some very desirable extras, especially the air conditioning and the cruise control. The sales contract did mention that the warranty did not cover some aftermarket fitments and gave a list of those items that were not covered, but air conditioning and cruise control were not on the list, and we were not advised that they would not be covered.

Customer service was very poor, and on the day we collected the van we felt that they couldn't wait to get the money and send us on our way. Within a few days we were off to France for our summer holidays and that's when we found out that in addition to the cruise control and aircon, the electric windows did not work either, and the exhaust system broke.

One way or another we did enjoy our holiday, and coincidentally found the house in which we now live, and on our return to the UK we contacted them and arranged to return the van to them on the following Saturday. When I got the van to their premises they were closed, a wasted 86 mile journey each way, and when I challenged them they said they always closed at midday on Saturdays, and when I pointed out that all their literature and adverts said 5.0 oclock, they said that they always closed at midday.

I made arrangements to make the trip again, and they repaired the exhaust system, said that they had done all they could to repair the electric windows, without success, and denied any responsibility for the aircon ad cruise control.

We exchanged a number of emails to no avail, and in the end I contacted my local Trading Standards people who explained that my problems were outside their sphere, but I should contact the Citizens Advice Bureau. This I did and gave them all the information I could, and they eventually advised me that I had a case, and that I needed to start with formal letters, moving on to small claims court etc.

Our move to France was getting closer, I had other more pressing things to deal with, and regretfully I decided to let it go.

I really feel cheated, and to some extent they took away some of the joy that we should have felt at the acquisition of our new van, but life is too short, and I doubt that I could have successfully pursued the case from France. I was not prepared to name them for legal reasons, so they got away with it.

AGD

 

"And so they got away with it"

 

Says it all really.

[Rayjsj]

Sorry guys, No it hasn't been pulled, So, friendly warnings are still allowed, provided they are the truth.