Sorry - Caravan Club Again - But not slagging off

[Vernon B]

This is not intended to be another slagging off of the CC because as a member for more than 35 years I have enjoyed and valued their services. The February edition of the magazine does raise an important issue however and I'd be interested in views.

 

On page 17 Barry Williams makes recalls the following incident:

 

"An acquaitance of mine got in touch recently to ask what I could do about his 18-month old caravan which he said was "falling apart". He knows I work for the Club and seemed to think I might have some sway over the manufacturer to sort things out. I had to point out that this is not what the Club is here to do. Our remit is to provide members with services - principally sites - but not act as a watchdog."

 

I'm not arguing that that is indeed a fair statement of what the CC does and does not do but my question is "Should the CC act as a Watchdog?" It seems to me that through its substantial membership, long standing reputation, independence, technical and issurance resources it is ideally placed to perform such a role and frequent threads here seem to suggest that it would be very welcome.

 

Any thoughts?

 

 

Vernon

 

[Derek Uzzell]

You've only quoted the 1st paragraph of Barrie Williams's "A Good Deal?" article. This goes on to mention the value of the CC's Quality & Reliability Surveys in encouraging manufacturers to improve their products, the CC's legal helpline, and that a leisure vehicle purchaser's legal contract is with the dealer not the manufacturer.

 

As the CC has no legal teeth, what would its suggested 'watchdog' role actually involve?

[Basil]

Hi Vernon,

 

Yes as a long term member myself I can see where you are coming from. Am I deluding myself here, but does not a representative of the Caravan Club sit with the Caravan Council and are they not normally involved with commitees that guide the industry so is in part a Watchdog.

I wonder whether Barry Williams friend is trying to involve him and the club in what is really a civil matter?

Though I would have thought advice and guidence would be the course of action for any member with a problem such as this.

 

Bas

 

Edit P.S. My post crossed with Derek's and I agree with what he has said.

[Vernon B]

Hi Derek thank's for your contribution to this thread.

 

It wasn't my intention to be selective when quoting from the article but rather focus on the concept of a "watchdog" role for the CC. I do recognise that the CC have been involved with various commendable initiatives on design and quality standards but have to say I see no hard evidence of that being translated into real improvements for the customer. I know that's a personal perception but in the absence of any realiable data my view is as valid as any one elses. I'd certainly be surprised if anyone argued that improvements in caravan/motorhome quality and reliablity had matched those of the motor industry, white goods, electronics, etc etc over the last 15 years. I'd also say that you're still as likely to end up buying a "lemon" as you were 20 or 30 years ago and much less likely than with those other industries to obtain a satisfactory remedy. If you can show me that I've got it wrong I'd love to see the stats.

 

As far as other replies are concerned I'm not suggesting that the CC should "represent members" in any "legal" sense but rather be more prominent in highlighting shortcomings that are sufficiently wide spread to be unacceptable. In that regard I see the term "Watchdog" and its echoes of the BBC TV programme of the same name as a very appropriate benchmark. And in that respect I don't see why acting in that way would be at odds with the Club's ethos or expose it to damaging litigation.

 

As I see it the CC are in a unique position to do this. I think I'm right in saying it has a membership of over 300,000 and thereby has access to an incredibly large data-base of customer experience; unlike the trade press it is not dependent upon advertising revenue and in the absence of any other organisation I see it as a fitting role.

 

Finally, when quality issues are discussed it is often said that it is unfair to compare caravan/motor manufacture with motor cars because of the much smaller scale of production and the "cottage industry" aspects involved. That myth has been largely exposed by the profile of Peter Smith in the Feb edition of the CC mag which reveals that Swift have an annual turnover of £170m - sounds like a pretty big cottage to me.

 

 

Vernon

 

 

[Guest Frank Wilkinson]

It's peanuts! Last year Ford sold 400,000 cars in the UK and GM over 300,000. Total UK sales were 2.3 million cars.

Ford's turnover, assuming an average price of £15000 would have been £6 billion, that's six thousand million!

When you consider that Swift's £170 million would also have included caravans, its total sales of motorhomes  would be about 3% of the number of Ford Focuses sold.

Whilst a cottage industry is a slight understatement, it's still a tiny business compared to even the smallest car makers (excluding the likes of Morgan etc. which really are cottage industries).

[Brian Kirby]

It is tempting to see the clubs in this role.  However, maybe it is better that they don't confuse their true purpose, of providing advice, guidance, and sites, for their members. 

The magazines benefit from advertising revenues from manufacturers, just as does MMM, and the commercial considerations that brings must, surely, prevent them being too strident about this or that product.  That said, there are some quite sharp comments made from time to time, which presumably have greater effect for not being continual criticisms.

However, the clubs don't always help as much as they might.  Ex caravanners, like me, must have scratched their heads from time to time at favourable reviews of vehicles' towcar capabilities, where the car has a 50Kg towbar noseweight limit, which immediately eliminates any caravan weighing more than 700Kg - when sub 700Kg caravans are a relatively rare breed.  Even more so when, from time to time, they'd hitch up an 800Kg caravan, saying they knew it was above their own recommendation but, hey, they were very experienced caravanners, but don't try this at home!  However, I guess this is no more than is normal when trying to make positive comments, rather than negative, about individual products.  Also, if they do "blob" a particular car/caravan, there will always be an outburst of dissent in the letters pages from irate owners, saying how dare they!

There is, thus, an element of can't win in this.  Mind you, I did read one review in the CC mag, where the tester criticised the waste water outlet on a motorhome for being too low for him to get his wheeled, caravan, waste tank under it!  Lost the plot?  Durrrrr!

Even that great consumer champion Which? has gradually become more anodyne in its (general) reviews.  Much of this may be due to improved product design and reliability, for which, to a considerable extent, Which? can take credit.  Some, no doubt, is due to increased sensitivity to litigation.

Notwithstanding the difficulties, a sort of motorhoming Which? would be a very useful journal, but it seems it would be very expensive to produce.  It could never realistically expect to buy and review the very large numbers of vans necessary to encompass the full market.  However, if individual buyers could be persuaded to grant full test access to their own new vans, perhaps in exchange for some benefit, who knows?  It might be possible.

A detailed investigation of loading and driving qualities, assessment of fit and finish, condition on delivery, functioning of all components etc etc might be very revealing, and might make some of the industry backsliders sit up and listen.  However, the risk for the owner of the shiny new motorhome, would be for it to be be labelled just about the worst example of a motorhome ever reviewed.  Bit of a downer, if it happened, and the tradability just might take a knock!

But the clubs?  No I don't think it is realistic to expect much more than they do at present, appealing though the thought is.  The best we can hope for, I think, is to read between the lines of the reviews.  The shortcomings are generally there, somewhere, if we learn to recognise the clues.

[Vernon B]

Hi Frank The point I was trying to make is that Swift (as an example only) have a size of business that should be capable of installing quality systems that are equivalent to those of the motor industry, rather than those of a chap knocking something up his back garden, and that's how they should be judged. Certainly during my working life I was regularly involved with manufacturing firms of a tenth of Swift's size that did achieve those standards. Sadly from a thread entitled "roof problem" and my own personal experience I think the caravan/motorhome industry has a long way to go.

 

Vernon

[Guest starspirit]

Judging by letters in MMM over the years the small one man band business making one off vans has a far better reputation than Swift will ever have, and that's the one reason why I would never buy a Swift new or used!

[Supertractorman]

Brian,

 

I think the main point of where the CC should be is in your first paragraph "guidance".

In the event of somebody purchasing the "dud" then CC should be able to tell them exactly how to deal with the problem, possibly providing the names of contacts within the larger companies and dealers even quoting any case law if applicable, and identifying if Trading Standards should be involved. It is then up to the indivdual to fight the case not the CC.

 

David

[Guest Frank Wilkinson]

Vernon B - 2007-01-27 3:33 PM Hi Frank The point I was trying to make is that Swift (as an example only) have a size of business that should be capable of installing quality systems that are equivalent to those of the motor industry, rather than those of a chap knocking something up his back garden, and that's how they should be judged. Certainly during my working life I was regularly involved with manufacturing firms of a tenth of Swift's size that did achieve those standards. Sadly from a thread entitled "roof problem" and my own personal experience I think the caravan/motorhome industry has a long way to go. Vernon

I'm not disagreeing with you in the slightest. No matter how small the firm they should strive for a quality product. I'm pretty convinced that they do though because the simple law of supply and demand should ensure that manufacturers satisfy their customers.

Just look for instance at the average car, caravan or motorhome sold today and compare it with one from twenty years ago. The equipment levels and facilities provided now are amazing.

I remember my first Sprite Alpine, bought second-hand in 1970 for £300. I treated myself to a foot pump to pump the cold water (there was no hot) and thought it was the bees knees. Can you still buy replacement gas mantles by the way?

Any supplier who doesn't provide a quality product will soon go out of business. They may not get it right every time but I'm still convinced that they do try!

[flicka]

Supertractorman - 2007-01-27 3:46 PM

 

Brian,

 

I think the main point of where the CC should be is in your first paragraph "guidance".

In the event of somebody purchasing the "dud" then CC should be able to tell them exactly how to deal with the problem, possibly providing the names of contacts within the larger companies and dealers even quoting any case law if applicable, and identifying if Trading Standards should be involved. It is then up to the indivdual to fight the case not the CC.

 

David

 

It's difficult to see how a Club, representing it's Members interests can go much further than to offer guidance, unless it were to "sell" it's own insurance covering legal / arbitaration costs.

Whilst they can have representatives on National committees, the manufacturing industry would not accept them as sole Abitrators, because they would see them as biased towards their members and therefore NOT independant.

In the event that a member had to resort to law, surely it would be prudent to advise their solicitor, (who should preferable be a " Consumer" law and "Sale of Goods Act" specialist,) to liase with the CC for legal advise, as you should not expect in general that solicitors will keep up with specifically Camping, Caravanning or Motorhome case law.

Flicka

[Vernon B]

I'm not completely convinced Frank. Certainly competitive pressures normally result in better products and services for the customer but I think there's a cosy relationship going on in the, broadest sense of the word "caravan trade", which inhibits true competition. A similar situation existed in the motor industry before the Japanese broke all the rules - interestingly by "using" quality systems invented in the USA but only paid lip service to.

 

I'd also make a distinction between product development and quality. I too had a 1960's Swift Caravan and would agree that the latest offerings provide far more sophisticated gizmos BUT is build quality any better - my view, no it's not. I also had a Renualt 16 at that time - is the build quality of todays cars any better? - you bet ya - that car nearly bankrupted me.

 

As I mention to Derek I accept that these are my personal, subjective, views, but it would be possible to check them out. I'm sure manufacturers' keep records of warranty claims relating to the basic build quality of their products and it would be interesting to see whether there had been any measurable improvements over the last 15 years. My guess is it would relatively easy to obtain these statistics for the motor industry but caravan/motorhome manufacturers would be reluctant to release theirs. As a member of the CC I'd happily make a contribution to some research being carried on this sort of project - the results would be extremely interesting.

 

In short I feel both the industry and the consummer would benefit from a shake up - the Japanese aren't going to do it and hence my suggestion that the CC might have a role to play. I note that other contributors see this as outside the CC remit but personally I regard it as more central to addressing members' needs than offering Credit Cards ... but there you go

 

Vernon

 

 

Vernon

[Ralph]

Frank Wilkinson - 2007-01-27 5:02 PM

I remember my first Sprite Alpine, bought second-hand in 1970 for £300. I treated myself to a foot pump to pump the cold water (there was no hot) and thought it was the bees knees. Can you still buy replacement gas mantles by the way

 

Frank,

 

My first caravan was a 1970 Sprite Alpine (bought a bit later than yours and for £700!)

Just done a Google search and yes, gas mantles are still made.

 

I thought the footpump was wonderful because you had both hands free.

Listen for a faint variation on the Monty Python Yorkshiremen sketch...

[Guest Frank Wilkinson]

Actually, the thread about Applecross brought it all back. My wife to be and I were camping in Scotland in 1969, just before we were married (separate sleeping areas in the tent naturally!). We were on the campsite at Morvich, which in those days was run by the Forestry Commission (it's now CC). Needless to say it was raining hard and as we knelt under the extension of our two-man ridge tent, cooking our baked beans on a Primus stove, a caravan rolled up just opposite.

Within what seemed like minutes the couple had set up the van, put a vase of flowers on the table, put the kettle on and, just to rub it in, opened a bottle of wine!

Sod this I thought! I'm having one of those! A pal was buying a new 'van so we bought the afore-mentioned Sprite from him.

Those were the days, we were poor but we were happy!

[david lloyd]

I know this has been a very good debate about this subject and that, so far, it has managed to avoid the pitfall of becoming another CC bashing exercise - however, if the general concensus is that the club isn't really the organisation to try and influence manufacturers on such issues as the quality of their products or even advise on what caravan. M/home users want, then perhaps it should also refrain from making highly influencial speeches to international conferences on topics such as the provision of motorhome stopovers places in other countries?

 

Regards, David

[Basil]

david lloyd - 2007-01-28 2:50 PM

 

I know this has been a very good debate about this subject and that, so far, it has managed to avoid the pitfall of becoming another CC bashing exercise - however, if the general concensus is that the club isn't really the organisation to try and influence manufacturers on such issues as the quality of their products or even advise on what caravan. M/home users want, then perhaps it should also refrain from making highly influencial speeches to international conferences on topics such as the provision of motorhome stopovers places in other countries?

 

Regards, David

 

I believe it is there to do all of those things, and does, what it isn't there for is to intervene directly with a supplier/ manufacturer on what is after all a Civil matter. Clearly the 'friend' thought that using the 'old pals act' would assist him in his Civil matter, not on really in my book.

Having said that I still feel the advice and guidance and the legal department advice should be forthcoming.

 

Bas

[Guest starspirit]

But just think of the much needed kudos that a helping telephone call or two to a recalcitrant manufacturer on behalf of a member would bring the CC when (or is that if?) a positive result followed.

 

A pretty cost effective return I reckon?

[maggyd]

I actually read that peice not half an hour ago and wondered why the caravan wasnt named is it a legal thing? the club is affraid of being sued! If a customer has a complaint and the customer service doesnt put it right I think they should be named and where better than in a cc club magazine that has thousands of potential customers.

[david lloyd]

Hi maggyd

 

Yes it's amazing isn't it how magazines are quite prepared to print good comments about companies but shy away from printing the bad.

 

In this month's (March!!) edition of Practical Motorhome there is a letter from a reader who suffered badly at the hands of a manufacturer who failed to put right what appeared to be a significant and serious design fault with his brand new van.

 

He goes on to say that, out of exasperation I think, he rectified the problem himself and what a great job he seems to have made of it. Having suffered a similar fate with the same manufacturer last year I know all too well how he feels. In the end the manufacturer eventually lost our business but that will be little consolation to the many (often new to the pastime) buyers who subsequently buy their brand.

 

I have to applaud Practical Motorhome on this occasion for printing the letter as it is clear that some magazines and clubs do steer well clear of taking a position against the manufacturers or dealers.

 

Best regards, David

[Guest bil h]

Not depedant on advertising revenue I hear you say, then some one must be having a good few beers in the sunshine.

 

Take out all the adds in the magazine and it would slip into an A5 envelope. That alone would save them a large amount.

 

I'll give you a count next week

 

bil h

[Vernon B]

bil h - 2007-01-29 12:51 AM

 

Not depedant on advertising revenue I hear you say, then some one must be having a good few beers in the sunshine.

 

Take out all the adds in the magazine and it would slip into an A5 envelope. That alone would save them a large amount.

 

I'll give you a count next week

 

bil h

 

 

No need to do that count bil h just take a look at the CC published accounts I think you'll find membership/site fees and insurance/travel commisions are the big income streams. And remember most of the ads don't relate to vehicle manufacturers. Upsetting one or two of them wouldn't make a jot of difference were as adopting a proactive role as a "watchdog" might even increase membership.

 

Vernon

[Brian Kirby]

Vernon B - 2007-01-29 8:14 AM

bil h - 2007-01-29 12:51 AM Not depedant on advertising revenue I hear you say, then some one must be having a good few beers in the sunshine. Take out all the adds in the magazine and it would slip into an A5 envelope. That alone would save them a large amount. I'll give you a count next week bil h

No need to do that count bil h just take a look at the CC published accounts I think you'll find membership/site fees and insurance/travel commisions are the big income streams. And remember most of the ads don't relate to vehicle manufacturers. Upsetting one or two of them wouldn't make a jot of difference were as adopting a proactive role as a "watchdog" might even increase membership. Vernon

I think you'll find the magazine has its accounts separate from the main Club accounts.  The advertising revenues go to the mag, not to the Club, so aren't identifiable in the Clubs accounts.

[Brian Kirby]

maggyd - 2007-01-28 9:09 PM I actually read that peice not half an hour ago and wondered why the caravan wasnt named is it a legal thing? the club is affraid of being sued! If a customer has a complaint and the customer service doesnt put it right I think they should be named and where better than in a cc club magazine that has thousands of potential customers.

Maggy

"It came off in my hand" is sometimes true, and sometimes due to abuse by the buyer (plain ham fistedness, or undue force used, for example).

I don't think any magazine could ever just print letters from disgruntled customers, unless the complaint can be verified and agreed fair, or unless the manufacturer of the product agrees  - in which case I would expect them to reserve a right of reply.

Disputes invariably involve more that one person - so more than one point of view.  People notoriously don't read the technical details of motorhomes before they buy, then they don't read the handbooks and don't follow instructions after they bought them.  Just that contributes to a lot of indignant misunderstandings.  For example, complaints that a van is deficient in something the buyer thinks ought to have been, or just assumed would be, there, but was, in fact, never claimed to be present by the maker.

It would need a conciliation service, within which the van was subjected to a detailed expert examination, before any responsible publisher could really be certain that the product was a lemon, so justifying publication of its shortcomings.  That would be a good idea, but I don't know who'd pay for it!

Back to the CC, they do publish an annual reliability survey, based on member's experiences of actual defects, which surely is a constructive move.  The same culprits (both failings and makes) do seem to appear with depressing regularity, but some makers take the hint and make quality improvements.

[olley]

Hi 61 pages out of 124 are advertisments in this Feb's CC mag.

 

Olley

[Guest Frank Wilkinson]

olley - 2007-01-29 1:38 PM Hi 61 pages out of 124 are advertisments in this Feb's CC mag. Olley

But does it matter? If half of TV programmes were adverts then it's a pain as you have to sit through them but with magazines you simply ignore or even enjoy them depending on your needs.

And there is absolutely no doubt that without adverts magazines would be twice the price, so I for one am quite happy to put up with them. There is also the point that some people buy mags for the adverts because they are in the market for new products.