Is it better to buy from a Dealer close to you.

[rebbyvid]

Copied from another forum

http://www.motorhomecraic.com/forum/topic.php?t=15502

[Keith T]

In principal, yes its always best to buy from a dealer near to you or somewhere you may regularly travel to.

However, surely this motorhome is under warranty, and if I am correct is part of the Rapido Group.

I am sure they will be represented at Birmingham Show, but given that there is an admission of the damp by the dealers you purchased from, which was supposedly repaired to full satisfaction, getting either of these to accept liability may be difficult.

Was there a warranty with it when you purchased the vehicle, assuming if was new., If 2nd hand then did you not have a full habitation check and documentation showing no damp? ON the basis you have stated, if the latter, then I would have thought the selling dealer has responsibility. Are the an approved dealer for these vans?

would be interested to see your further posts as to resolution of the problem. .

[Derek Uzzell]

Keith T

 

I believe you’ll find that “rebbyvid” has posted on this forum to publicise the plight of the Irish owner of the Itineo motorhome mentioned in the link he provided.

 

(See link below)

 

http://www.rebbyvid.co.uk/a-bit-about-me/4521956988

 

 

 

 

[lennyhb]

All 3 of my vans I've bought in Belgium, never had a problem with warranty work I either go to my local Hymer dealer or back to Belgium whichever is the most convenient at the time.

[aandncaravan]

You have my full sympathy, but we have done quite a lot of work for Dixons customers on Dixons behalf and every time the transaction has been a happy one with customers also very happy in their dealings with Dixons. Believe me we get customers with strings of complaints from some Dealers.

 

Dixons have authorised work to be carried out without the slightest quibble, ever. Always seem to put the customer first.

Not heard a bad word from anyone.

 

 

The damage you describe and can be seen in the photos would, IMO, be significantly worse if it had been going on longer than 2 years.

 

You probably don't want to hear this, but that doesn't look like 'old' Water Ingress?

 

I would suggest that the Water leak was not fixed at source, ie. where it was coming into the wall, I suspect the 'repair' just stopped water from leaking into the habitation area, not getting into the wall void.

 

The Water may not have even been entering at the top of the window, possibly higher up near the roof as that damage is above the window, whereas you might normally expect water damage from a leaky window to be below the window not above?

 

I would suggest that if the water has been coming in higher up than the window, then it may be worse than you think and you need an expert to find out your starting position.

 

 

Even if the water leak was there prior to your purchase, because a repairer has become involved that could have created 'new' leaks as well as not fixing 'old' ones, the Courts might think it is unreasonable for the supplying Dealer to rectify another's failings, which may or may not have occurred.

 

 

On the other hand, Hagans had a duty of care to investigate and fix ANY water ingress any where near the leaking area. Any Water ingress or rot when they investigated should have been resolved, so any damage prior to you purchase would have been fixed and sorted (or should have) by Hagans.

 

So either that has occurred since, or it wasn't investigated and sorted as it should have been.

 

 

I would suggest that you get an independent report so you have an expert opinion on the cause and timeline.

 

Might also be worth finding out EXACTLY what the Hagans repair entailed, did they seal the roof or just remove the window and seal that to stop water entering the habitation area but not rectify the leak itself into the wall?

 

Dependent on what the report shows will then dictate your next action, but I think you should be going back to Hagans, which they won't like me saying and we do work for them too!!!

 

 

 

 

 

[Derek Uzzell]

As I highlighted above, the original poster (rebbyvid) on this thread is NOT the owner of the problematical Itineo motorhome referred to in the link (repeated below)

 

http://www.motorhomecraic.com/forum/topic.php?t=15502

 

Apparently there are only two Itineo dealerships in the UK - Wokingham Motorhomes near London and Dicksons of Perth in Scotland (see following link).

 

http://www.itineo.co.uk/motorhome_concessionnaire.php

 

The owner of the damaged motorhome lives in Northern Ireland and in 2015 chose to purchase an Itineo from Dicksons of Perth. It should have been obvious that, with no Itineo dealership presence in Ireland, purchasing from Dicksons of Perth carried potential risks.

 

Motorhomes have a water-ingress warranty and, if a leak appears, the vehicle will normally be attended to by the vending dealership or another dealership that sells that marque of motorhome. Unsurprisingly that did not happen in this case and Dicksons delegated the repair work to Hagans Motorhomes located north of Belfast.

 

Itineo is one of Rapido Group’s brands and I’m guessing that a 2015 Itineo had a 3-year-duration water-ingress warranty requiring an annual inspection by an authorised Itineo dealership to maintain the warranty’s validity. However I can find nothing in the Motorhomecraic Forum discussion to indicate that any such inspection was carried out. It’s possible that Rapido MIGHT have agreed to a Rapido dealership performing the annual inspection (there is one Rapido dealership in Northern Ireland)

 

http://www.rapido-motorhome.co.uk/distributeur-camping-cars-rapido.php

 

but there’s nothing to suggest this happened.

 

If an ‘under warranty’ inspection had been carried out in 2016 one might reasonably expect a serious damp issue to have been identified then and appropriate action taken. If the (hypothetical) 2016 inspection failed to identify a damp issue and the recent bed-related disaster has resulted from that failure, then whoever carried out the inspection could be considered responsible.

 

The title of this thread is “Is it better to buy from a dealer close to you?” If you buy a new motorhome from a dealership close to where you live, there’s no doubt that any subsequent problems SHOULD be easier to resolve than if you buy long-distance. When taking the motorhome to the vending dealership will involve long drives and a sea crossing, and there are no agents in the country you live in for the marque of motorhome you have chosen to buy, potential difficulties will escalate.

 

I hope this Itineo-related problem ges sorted out satisfactorily but, in my view, the buyer of the motorhome must accept some responsibility for putting himself at risk when the dangers were so visible.

[rebbyvid]

As mentioned i am not the owner of the van in question ,as the owner is a friend i will keep you updated on his plight. As for my feelings on this I have bought 2 vans (both Hymers) from dealers who were not close to me. The first from Brownhills at Newark , only problem i had was a water pump packed up on a trip to Holland and it was sorted by them on my way back home from Dover so did not have the problem of going from Manchester to Newark. The second i bought from a dealer the other side of Preston ,I did have a few problems with this van and even though it was only 60 miles away the hassle of getting trains and buses to take the van back and then get home again i decided it was easier to sort any of the little niggles myself .( a lot of the problems were a 7 year old van with one owner that had hardly been used ).My local dealer Spinneymotorhomes who i have bought 4 vans off is only half hour away and they also supply a courtesy car so ideal. (i don't intend to buy any more vans by the way).

[Tall_Mike]

Sorry about the horrendous issues others are experiencing - however I am going to respond to the title of this thread.

 

We bought our first Motorhome from a recognized dealer whose depot is 6 miles down the road from us. There are definite benefits in this - We were not the most experienced in the art of M/H, so it was easy to drop over and ask the questions we needed, I got confused about the Truma heating sources and how to set it up - not the only person by a long way and they talked me through it, We have needed some small warranty issues resolving, a leaking tap, and our leisure battery dropped a cell, I broke a couple of things, also have had some small changes made - Solar panel fitted, second TV mount wired in etc and it's easy to drop the van off and get these things done. - The van was a demonstrator with all the warranties in place.

 

Being local - I have been able to build a relationship with the dealer, - they kind of know where I am coming from and me them, which is useful, it isn't everything but the "How are you doing today mike" hows the van etc, is good. - I am not naive though, of course they have an eye for my next purchase.

 

Our local dealer has done a deal with a local pub, - if as a customer you come from far away, there is a pleasant stop set up very close to the dealership - so it makes it easier to camp over if you need to.

 

As we consider an upgrade, we see better deals are to be had from dealers further way, in some cases the other end of the country - If we want to stick with the same make of van, - we need to travel as our dealer no longer sells the brand, however we are more experienced, the need to pop back would be lot less, we know what's what and where to buy anything we need, - also reputable and recommended business's in our area that could help - for example if we wanted solar fitted.

 

My own view is that for a first van - buying local is a very good thing, however once braver and more knowledgeable - then it levels out, - You can bet that at some point your van will need to go back to the dealer. I think we can get a better deal by travelling, however would the money saved be spent in other areas if the inevitable snags occur?.

[Brian Kirby]

The simple answer to the question is yes - with the twin provisos that the dealer has what you want, and that the dealer is reputable.

 

Looking at the subject van, the initial leak seems to have been through the front, driver's side, window. The owner says Dixons suggested taking the van for repair locally, rather than returning it to Perth, and Dixons then paid for the repair (presumably by reimbursing the owner). The leak seemed not to reoccur after the repair.

 

Question: as Dixons agreed to the repair being carried out by a third party, and agreed to reimburse the owner, have they any liability for the apparently unsatisfactory repair? They seem to be seeking to wash their hands of this, by their claim that the owner "recommended" Hagans. Properly (and I suspect to comply with the terms of the Itineo warranty), the van should have been returned to Perth, and Dixons should know that.

 

The owner claims to have damp checked the van subsequently, which implies to me that these checks were not professionally executed and, as Derek points out, were unlikely to have been carried out by the only two UK firms presumed authorised to do so. So, manufacturer's warranty now likely to be void.

 

That leaves Dixons fully liable under consumer legislation although, by apparently allowing the warranty to become void, the owner has greatly increased their liability. The owner would have been wise to leave the collapsed bed as it was, and arranged for the van to be transported back to Perth. He has greatly disadvantaged himself by removing the collapsed bed without (apparently) seeking agreement from Dixons. He also admits to having broken it in the process. It is clear from the photographs that most of the evidence of why it failed has now been destroyed. He has not greatly helped himself!

 

So, no warranty, not much hope of investigating the cause of the failure, and a dealer for whom a dispute with the manufacturer has probably been prejudiced by the owners interventions.

 

He could try suing Dixons but, on the basis of what I've seen, including his crude attempt to extract satisfaction from Dixons under threat of damaging publicity, he had probably shot him self in the foot.

 

My conclusion, which I realise will be most disagreeable for the owner, is that he has probably by now lost his best prospects of getting his van properly repaired at the dealer's expense. His only course, IMO, seems to be to get off the forums and talk to a good lawyer about how much his legal rights could be salvaged at this stage. I'm assuming that Trading Standards and Citizen's Advice at both available in Ulster? I'd suggest he gets in touch with either (or both) as soon as he possibly can. He should get initial advice at no cost. He might also look at his vehicle and home insurance policies, as these often include legal advice.

 

Hopefully, there may be a bit that can be done, particularly around that initial repair and what liabilities Dixons/Hagans might have for its apparent failure. He may have grounds to sue both Dixons and Hagans, on the basis that the expert (upon whose advice the owner should be entitled to rely) seems to have put their faith in (and paid) an unauthorised and (presumably) unknown to them, third party, who failed to execute a satisfactory repair. But he's made it pretty difficult for himself, so I'd think he may have to accept some of the responsibility (meaning cost) for his present circumstances.

 

His only alternative would seem to be to complete the repairs as well as possible himself and then either sell the van as is for whatever he can get, or just use it.

[Keithl]

Two points that strike me,

 

First it appears the MH was already FOUR years old when 'Ally' purchased it.

His Motorhomecraic forum signature states "Registered 08/2011' and the opening line of his post is "Purchased the following van from Dicksons of Perth in October 2015"

So was the leak and/or damp already present?

 

Then looking at the photos, the entire drop down bed is WAS fixed to the body sides by maybe 20 short wood screws each side! Surely a disaster waiting to happen? I would have expected some more structural type of supports than simply screwing into the walls?

 

'Ally' appears to have 'made good' the MH for now with wall cabinets fixed over the damage so would his best option be to carry on using the MH as is and ditch the drop down bed completely?

 

But the biggest question must be, has he found the source of the leak that caused the damage and fixed it properly, otherwise any attempts at repair will be futile.

 

Just my opinions!

 

Keith.

[Derek Uzzell]

Keithl - 2017-10-06 6:30 PM

 

...His Motorhomecraic forum signature states "Registered 08/2011’...

 

Keith.

 

I think that’s when ‘Ally’ registered on the forum, not when the Itineo was registered.

 

But having said that, this advert

 

https://www.gumtree.com/p/campervans-motorhomes/itineo-740jb-a-class/1209448834

 

for a 2009 look-alike model does make one wonder when Ally’s Itineo was built.

[Keithl]

Derek Uzzell - 2017-10-06 6:53 PM

 

Keithl - 2017-10-06 6:30 PM

 

...His Motorhomecraic forum signature states "Registered 08/2011’...

 

Keith.

 

I think that’s when ‘Ally’ registered on the forum, not when the Itineo was registered.

 

Oooops, my bad :-(

[Derek Uzzell]

Keithl

 

Your querying the age of ‘Ally’s’ Itineo motorhome was nevertheless very vald.

 

Because Dicksons of Perth have an Itineo agency it was generally assumed in the postings prior to yours that the motorhome had been purchased new in 2015 and, hence, should still be carrying Itineo habitation and water-ingress warranties.

 

However, on referring to my French motorhome magazine back-issues, it becomes evident that Ally’s motorhome is (at the latest) a 2011 model-year vehicle as Itineo significantly revised the front-end treatment for the 2012 model-year. (See attached photo of 2012 Itineo 740)

 

Buying a secondhand Itineo motorhome that’s (at least) 4 years old from Dicksons of Perth is obviously a different scenario from buying a brand-new Itineo, as the secondhand vehicle’s warranty’s terms and conditions will relate to the vending dealership not to the motorhome’s manufacturer. It would also explain why Dicksons were prepared to address the 2015 water-leakage problem by allowing the non-Itineo Northern Irish dealership (Hagans Motorhomes) that was recommended by Ally to carry out repairs.

 

As far as I can make out Ally is not contemplating legal action against Dicksons or Hagans, and telling the story on the MotorHomeCraic forum (and linking to that entry on other forums) is more of a cautionary tale than a realistic tactic to get Dicksons to improve their ‘goodwill’ offer to refit the drop-down bed at a discounted rate.

 

There’s no doubt that a potential buyer (private or trade) familiar with Itineo A-Class motorhomes will wonder where the drop-down bed has gone and why there is a batch of small lockers on the over-cab side walls that don’t match the other lockers. And if they ask about this and are told that the bed fell off due to a damp-related problem, this is unlikely to inspire them to purchase the vehicle.

 

It’s up to Ally how he wants to proceed, but I don’t envisage internet forum ’naming and shaming’ encouraging Dicksons to better their offer - in fact, quite the opposite.

[Brian Kirby]

Derek Uzzell - 2017-10-07 8:12 AM

 

Keithl

 

Your querying the age of ‘Ally’s’ Itineo motorhome was nevertheless very vald.

 

Because Dicksons of Perth have an Itineo agency it was generally assumed in the postings prior to yours that the motorhome had been purchased new in 2015 and, hence, should still be carrying Itineo habitation and water-ingress warranties.

 

However, on referring to my French motorhome magazine back-issues, it becomes evident that Ally’s motorhome is (at the latest) a 2011 model-year vehicle as Itineo significantly revised the front-end treatment for the 2012 model-year. (See attached photo of 2012 Itineo 740)

 

Buying a secondhand Itineo motorhome that’s (at least) 4 years old from Dicksons of Perth is obviously a different scenario from buying a brand-new Itineo, as the secondhand vehicle’s warranty’s terms and conditions will relate to the vending dealership not to the motorhome’s manufacturer. It would also explain why Dicksons were prepared to address the 2015 water-leakage problem by allowing the non-Itineo Northern Irish dealership (Hagans Motorhomes) that was recommended by Ally to carry out repairs.

 

As far as I can make out Ally is not contemplating legal action against Dicksons or Hagans, and telling the story on the MotorHomeCraic forum (and linking to that entry on other forums) is more of a cautionary tale than a realistic tactic to get Dicksons to improve their ‘goodwill’ offer to refit the drop-down bed at a discounted rate.

 

There’s no doubt that a potential buyer (private or trade) familiar with Itineo A-Class motorhomes will wonder where the drop-down bed has gone and why there is a batch of small lockers on the over-cab side walls that don’t match the other lockers. And if they ask about this and are told that the bed fell off due to a damp-related problem, this is unlikely to inspire them to purchase the vehicle.

 

It’s up to Ally how he wants to proceed, but I don’t envisage internet forum ’naming and shaming’ encouraging Dicksons to better their offer - in fact, quite the opposite.

Well found, Derek. That changes things somewhat!

 

The implication I would draw from this is that it seems probable that the leak existed at the time of purchase, and that water had accumulated above the driver's-side window while it was static on Dickson's forecourt, to be released when the vehicle was driven. The question, at this distance from the event, and after the owner has inflicted so much additional damage on the interior, is whether this could ever be proved.

 

It appears that there was no further inrush of water during the bed collapse - at least none is mentioned, so it seems Hagans probably had successfully fixed the leak.

 

It also appears that the timber fixing battens in the side wall at the bed frame support point had rotted, allowing the bed frame to pull free. There is also some visible mildew or similar on the wall lining behind the bed support bracket, that may support this view.

 

Assuming there is no physical damage to the roof, or to the roof verge joint cover strip, it is difficult to see how the leak could have been the owner's responsibility.

 

This seems to me to leave Dickson's potentially liable for the damage, on the assumption (far from easy to prove now) that the leak was present at the time of sale. Whether there is the slightest chance of pursuing that through the courts, on a "not of merchantable quality" basis, only experienced legal advice can say. So, I still think his options are Trading Standards or Citizen's Advice, or his various insurance policies, for that advice, or grin and bear it.

 

If only he hadn't rushed in and destroyed the evidence when the bed collapsed. He really has made his chances of gaining recompense an order of magnitude more difficult than it need have been. That, I think, is the real lesson for the rest of us.

[crocs]

I have always assumed that the MH was used rather than new, given the lack of action by Dicksons, but Derek's research seems to have dated it accurately.

 

The owner seems to have shot himself in the foot by publicising on forums before all recompense avenues have been exhausted. I think his best course of action is now to negotiate hard with Dicksons and/or Hagans and take the hit on the balance.