Murvi Mallard Mediocrity

[Robingreathead]

Murvi Mallard Mediocrity. I recently took delivery of a VW Murvi Mallard after a wait of over a year and at just under £37K. Our requirements are for a comfortable long distance cruiser with a facility for over night use but no interest in a washroom or even wardrobe. A warm comfortable base for hill walking and the facility of the sliding seat for more car like travel with the grandchildren is more important. I have owned small motor caravans for most of the last forty years and recently have owned a Synchro T3 and a Trident Autosleeper T4. I decided on a Murvi Mallard after considering it for a number of years when the tiptronic gearbox became available on the VW T5. Had the similar box become available in this country on the Fiat Citroen group I might well have gone for that. I have no regrets with he base vehicle, it is superb, even though I have had reservations about VW in the past. When ordering I requested a top opening compressor fridge, as fitted in the Mirage, instead of the normal three way usually fitted. This was agreed. The delivery should have been late June early July, but was delayed until at the earliest the 21st July and I was unable to get down to Devon until Friday 28th July to collect. With limited time I could not stay down in Devon to sort out any problems but Murvi receive so many accolades for quality and design that there should have been be no need. Murvi had promised the fridge arrangement would allow it to be used either in the cupboard where the absorption fridge would have been, or at the end of the work surfaces. Neither position was satisfactory in that, in the cupboard, the contents could not be accessed or the fridge withdrawn while it was still connected and at the end of the work surfaces, it being slotted in between two cushions, the fridge air vents were blocked off causing overheating. Also if left in that position while travelling it could become a lethal weapon in the case of an accident as it was unrestrained. The fuel filler cap is a different shade from the rest of the vehicle. The finish of the cabinets is poor with the grey vinyl type surface ragged at the edges and the trim, it being wider than the board, protrudes to catch dirt and food scraps. Trim is poorly attached and in one place missing. Not a patch on the quality of the Autosleeper. Roof lights in the cab had metal rod type switches pointing down to impale ones skull. The vehicle had 90 miles on the clock when collected. I only realised this when adding fuel close to the collection point. The confusion arose because the VW shows the trip in large digits and the odometer in small and I had confused the two. The jack was just left loose with no dedicated fixing. The loose mats are just that, and skate around uncontrollably The vehicle was supposed to be fitted with a Thatcham accredited alarm system. When insuring the vehicle with Safeguard I was asked for details and so I went back to Muvi to be told that it was Thatcham and fitted by VW. Safeguard insisted that if Thatcham it would have a designation such as Cobra. Murvi eventually admitted that they no longer fitted a Thatcham alarm system because it affected the other electronics on the vehicle and the standard VW alarm was very good! Other things Murvi no longer fit which were cited in the test reports in such glowing terms are the safe, the storage fixing of the table in front of the work units, and the facility of the rear seat to easily slide out to make available all of the rear for bulky items. I wrote two polite letters to Murvi in August and as yet have not had the courtesy of a reply. For all of the above it is still an excellent vehicle but not what one would expect from Murvi.

[messerschmitt owner]

And yet, when I tested a Murvi Mallard on the fiat chassis in July, it was fantastic - I really liked it - and it was much better than the Danbury, I looked at the day before.

[Robingreathead]

To Messerschmitt Owner Hi, Like you, when I tested the Mallard, as like as not the same vehicle, it was ideal. However the production model has not turned out as expected, as indicated in my piece. I naturally have photographs to substantiate my comments. One could of course go through a new vehicle with a fine tooth comb and reject it, but in the glow of obtaining a new vehicle with all the plans for its usage and the problems associated in getting your 10% deposit back, few take that course of action. There is also the point that one would not expect to find defects on a demonstrator. Regards,

[Keff]

We have a Murvi Morello on a Ducato 18 on a 03 reg it has done 50000 mile touring Europe and the only problem we have had it the toilet blind and rex posted us a new one after phoning him. We tow a Hymer caravan with it and it been a wonder full vehicle, we like the flexibility of the bed it makes for a good sun lounge I do hope that rex and the team have not got to complacent with their success and your trouble are a one off the will be fixed soon.

[Hymeroid]

Sounds like the ship has been spoiled for a ha'porth of tar, and an expensive ship at that. surprised that murvi didn't bother to reply or offer to remedy the situation

[Brian Kirby]

Well, it's a long trip back to Devon to get the shortcomings sorted out, but I guess you'll have to do just that.  I assume your letters listed your complaints, so there is no real excuse for the failure to respond?  If I might, I'd suggest you phone them, to ask why they haven't replied.  It is just possible there is a reason.  So, to be fair, it would be worth asking.

If the vehicle supplied doesn't comply with the quality of the test vehicle, you can legitimately claim you relied upon the test vehicle as your quality sample, in the expectation that your own vehicle would be delivered to at least that quality.

Any material variation from the brochure description, (possibly the alarm etc) which is normally included in the standard price, should have been drawn to your attention in your order confirmation.  If the alarm fitted is not Thatcham approved, but is still of equal value, in view of their comments on compatibility of electronics, I doubt you could claim compensation.  However, if Thatchan costs £700, and that fitted £300, I think you may have a case.

In these respects, provided there is not a more general misunderstanding between you and Murvi, Murvi should be liable for your reasonable costs in rectifying their defects.  So, if you need to return the vehicle to them for remedial work, it should be at their expense.

Regarding the fridge, if Murvi confirmed it would be as the Mirage, that is how it should be.  They should remedy the cabinet work as necessary to correct their mistake.  If they subsequently found this was impossible due to size constraints, they should have informed you accordingly.  All I would add, is to be very clear that you have understood exactly what/how they intend making amends, and that you are happy with the proposal.  Experience teaches that half hearted remedial work often results in a worse bodge than the first attempt.  Regarding its use on the work surface, I wonder if Murvi really understood that you intended driving with the fridge in that position?  It would seem unusual to do so.

The fuel cap presumably merely requires painting?  As Murvi seem normally to "colour code" the water filler, electrical connection point and fridge grilles, the fuel cap should be easy for them to fix.

Rod switches to roof lights (are these in fact toggle, as opposed to rocker, type switches to ceiling lights): were these not as the demonstrator?

I don't think 90 miles on delivery is exceptional, although it is near the upper end I would expect.  I expect Murvi has the vehicles driven to them, or collects, from a VW van centre, or distributor.

Things in test reports cannot be relied upon, only what is specifically stated in your order to be within the agreed price, or included in the basic specification.  These may well have been extras fitted to the test vehicle, that the tester failed to identify as such.  Unfortunately, you have no contract with the tester, so can't claim from him/her!

If, on speaking to them, you get no satisfaction, I think a trip to Trading Standards would be in order.  A claim through the small claims court may well be the solution, but probably Trading Standards first.

Good luck, and I hope this helps.

[Robingreathead]

I would like to thank Brian Kirby for the comprehensive input to my comments on the Murvi Mallard. A few points of clarification: 1) Murvi in their specification included the accredited Thatcham alarm and only when pressed admitted that they did not now fit it but insisted the standard alarm system as fitted by VW was of equal standard. It is obviously a point that can be pursued. 2) With regard to the fridge. The alternative position is not on the worktop but at the lower seat/bed level to the rear of the vehicle along from the work units. The Mallard worktop only goes so far along the side of the vehicle with extra cushions making the top end of the bed the full width of the vehicle. Brian’s comments are all relevant with regard to the action one would have expected from Murvi in finding that they had problems. 3) Neither the water filler nor the electrical connection point are colour coded and there are no fridge grilles. The fuel filler flap is situated just behind the passenger door and of course surrounded by panels with original paint work. Consequently any shade variation stands out. It is possibly the same shade as the high top but because that is separated from the rest of the vehicle by the gutter any difference is not noticeable. 4) Toggle switches pointing down within inches of ones skull are definitely not advisable and I am sure would not pass any safety inspection. I most certainly was not aware of them in the demonstrator. 5) The vehicle was supplied by Murray’s of Plymouth, a distance of some ten miles! My original reason for addressing the forum was merely to bring to attention the problems one can experience in purchasing a motorcaravan, even from a converter whose reputation is supposed to be better than most. The questions one must answer are: Is it worth the cost and time involved in a 900 mile round trip and overnight accommodation while the faults are remedied? As Brian says possibly a worse bodge. Is litigation worth the hassle when invariably the only people to benefit are the lawers? Involving third parties, including trading standards, involves much time, effort, and invariably cost. Are companies like Murvi who do not have the courtesy to reply to letters worth all the bother?

[Brian Kirby]

Well, Robin, only you can answer your questions.  It isn't Murvi who need to be "worth the bother", it's you and your Mallard.

All I'd question is this: if you can't be bothered to approach Murvi, as I suggested, and talk to the MD, and you can't be bothered to contact Trading Standards, which again is only a phone call, why spend all that time complaining about them here?  Don't tell us, tell them!

You must have undertaken a journey to see the Murvi, and again to collect.  Tedious and expensive yes, but surely worth it in relationship to the cost of the van?

Muttering on the forum won't fix the problem, but a bit of action from you might.  Advice from Trading Standards won't cost you anything (I'm assuming the service exists in Scotland on the same, free, basis as in England), so they're a good place to start.  They have an excellent website with clear, informative, self help leaflets on your buying rights (English and Scottish law versions both available), that you can download, so no excuses for not investigating where you stand.

However, ultimately, it's your money!