Jump to content

Floor parting company from van


Recommended Posts

We have an Elddis Affinity 550 bought new in May 2018. We noticed recently that the front offside corner steady did not align with the hole for the winder. Took a photo and sent to the dealer. Van was going in for other warranty work so agreed to it being fixed in January.

Dealer contacted us to say that the floor is parting company with the body and would need to be returned to the factory for repair as it's unsafe to tow. Still waiting after 4 weeks to be advised when it would be fixed but dealer advises that Elddis keep requesting more information from them.

Is anyone else having (or had) this type of problem with their Elddis?

Towcar - Ford S-Max 2. 0 TDCI

Caravan - Pegasus 534

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your rights here are against the dealer under the Consumer Protection Act. It may be necessary to write to them pointing out your rights and saying you are entitled to a reasonably prompt repair and if no date is forthcoming soon you will be looking at a court case.

If you bought the caravan on HP or used a credit card for any part of the purchase you have similar rights against the finance companies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Wildwood said:

Your rights here are against the dealer under the Consumer Protection Act. It may be necessary to write to them pointing out your rights and saying you are entitled to a reasonably prompt repair and if no date is forthcoming soon you will be looking at a court case.

If you bought the caravan on HP or used a credit card for any part of the purchase you have similar rights against the finance companies.

Thanks for the heads up. The reason I am posting is, that after 6 months, the onus is on me to prove it's a faulty van. I feel it would be a stronger case if I could cite that there are others with the same problem. I'll give them a couple more weeks then start an action against the dealer.

Towcar - Ford S-Max 2. 0 TDCI

Caravan - Pegasus 534

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand your problem. There is a legal term abreviated to "res ipsa" which you can suggest. Basically the idea is that the thing speaks for itself, in this case you can say that rotting of the floor is so wrong and out of the way that they need to explain how it happened, as a correctly built caravan should not suffer that at that age.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CocoPops said:

Thanks for the heads up. The reason I am posting is, that after 6 months, the onus is on me to prove it's a faulty van. I feel it would be a stronger case if I could cite that there are others with the same problem. I'll give them a couple more weeks then start an action against the dealer.

Get an independent qualified caravan technician i.e. AWS to do a report on the caravan. May cost about £50, but adds weight to your case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wildwood said:

I understand your problem. There is a legal term abreviated to "res ipsa" which you can suggest. Basically the idea is that the thing speaks for itself, in this case you can say that rotting of the floor is so wrong and out of the way that they need to explain how it happened, as a correctly built caravan should not suffer that at that age.

Res ipsa loquitur is a doctrine that infers negligence from the very nature of an accident or injury in the absence of direct evidence on how any defendant behaved.

I don't quite see how that applies to faulty goods!

40 minutes ago, Supervan said:

I have found this online Government Portal for County Court judgements works and is reasonably quick  https://www.gov.uk/make-court-claim-for-money/enforce-a-judgment

In order to make a claim you must first have suffered a financial loss i.e had to pay for the repair yourself. I believe the OP is chasing a warranty repair at no cost to themselves. No one has refused to cover it under the warranty, just dragging their heels getting repairs arranged.

Edited by Legal Eagle
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Legal Eagle said:

Res ipsa loquitur is a doctrine that infers negligence from the very nature of an accident or injury in the absence of direct evidence on how any defendant behaved.

I don't quite see how that applies to faulty goods!

In order to make a claim you must first have suffered a financial loss i.e had to pay for the repair yourself. I believe the OP is chasing a warranty repair at no cost to themselves. No one has refused to cover it under the warranty, just dragging their heels getting repairs arranged.

 

Bought May 2018 was thinking about the Guarantee Elddis offer the van is only 22 months old and the fault occurred some time before it was presented as a warranty repair. I would be looking towards a replacement van or refund of money.

 

View Elddis warranty is it not worth the paper it is written on the 3 year warranty 

 

http://www.elddis.co.uk/help-support/help-advice/warranty

Edited by Supervan
omission
Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be interesting to see some photo's of the problem areas, also to know if the problem is caused by water ingress, i.e. timbers, floor rotten, or is another caravan manufacturer suffering from Swift-itis , spread from manufacturer to manufacturer by the saving pennies-poor design virus,. 😉

  • Like 1

Common sense isn't a gift, it's a punishment because you have to deal with everyone who doesn't have it.  :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Supervan said:

 

Bought May 2018 was thinking about the Guarantee Elddis offer the van is only 22 months old and the fault occurred some time before it was presented as a warranty repair. I would be looking towards a replacement van or refund of money.

The 3 year warranty may not be the one to claim under. It's the Body Integrity Warranty that could apply to this case as the body has parted company from the floor.

Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 you have no statutory entitlement to an unquestionable full refund after 30 days and the legislation makes no provision for  a replacement. Between 30 days and 6 months you must allow one repair attempt, which is unsuccessful, to be entitled to a full refund. You must bear in mind that the fault wasn't, apparently, detected during the first service so to prove it was present from the outset it would have to be shown that the service was sub-standard and the technician negligent. That's where the independent report suggested by Durbanite comes in.

The best that can be hoped for is the factory repair which should be perfectly acceptable. If that repair fails and rejection is tried, the dealer is under no obligation to take it back but if they do it may only achieve a partial refund or part exchange offer which takes into account age, condition and use.

Edited by Legal Eagle
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh  Crickey , ours is in for its first service now, pray they don’t find the same issue..

Good luck and really hope you reach a satisfactory resolution as hopefully like us you like the van

2018 Volvo XC60  D4 AWD + Penshurst Premier Plus (AKA Elddis Affinity 550)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jacko1 said:

Oh  Crickey , ours is in for its first service now, pray they don’t find the same issue..

Good luck and really hope you reach a satisfactory resolution as hopefully like us you like the van

 

Possibly a good idea to do your own thorough check when you get it home, for peace of mind.

Common sense isn't a gift, it's a punishment because you have to deal with everyone who doesn't have it.  :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Res ipsa loquitur is a doctrine that infers negligence from the very nature of an accident or injury in the absence of direct evidence on how any defendant behaved.

I don't quite see how that applies to faulty goods!"

 

I did consider this, but in practice I do not see that it does not apply. The fact is that the floor should survive many years, and with nothing happening to explain the problem the claimant here is in the same position as the guy the barrel fell on, in that he has a problem where only the defendant can truly offer an explanation. I think most solicitors would balk at trying to defend against this point, so although an expert opinion is possibly the best option, if you cannot get one then this is certainly worth a try.

Edited by Wildwood
Link to post
Share on other sites

Also in addition to getting a report by an AWS technician I would strongly advise the OP to get in touch with Which Legal Services for expert legal advice.  It must be remembered that the contract is with the dealer to resolve the issue if Elddis is giving hassles.  OP should not have to continually chase dealership for updates.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Wildwood said:

"Res ipsa loquitur is a doctrine that infers negligence from the very nature of an accident or injury in the absence of direct evidence on how any defendant behaved.

I don't quite see how that applies to faulty goods!"

 

I did consider this, but in practice I do not see that it does not apply. The fact is that the floor should survive many years, and with nothing happening to explain the problem the claimant here is in the same position as the guy the barrel fell on, in that he has a problem where only the defendant can truly offer an explanation. I think most solicitors would balk at trying to defend against this point, so although an expert opinion is possibly the best option, if you cannot get one then this is certainly worth a try.

In practice it does not apply simply because it isn't an accident or injury, unlike a barrel falling on someone.

Never surmise what will be challenged in court - especially if you follow the wrong doctrine! There is nothing self-evident here as mis-use or external forces (e.g. pot holes) could equally be to blame.

As usual, conclusions about legal action have been jumped to. The dealer has agreed the repair should be made under the warranty but at the factory. After only 4 weeks, the manufacturer is taking it's time and asking more questions. No one has done, or not done, anything to warrant the necessity for legal action to even be considered at this time!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can understand the posts so far as wanting action. I'm a bit like that, if something is wrong , I want it put right. My OH  attitude is give them  time and they will do  what they can, they know what's wrong, be patient.  My son   says to tell them what has happened in a calm manner, tell them what you want and ask them when they are going to do it.  I have tried this and it does work.  However you have tild them what's wrong  and that you want it fixed. The dealer has  has agreed with you and is waiting at  for the makers to fix it. The question to ask is when will  it be done, he can get in touch with the makers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Legal Eagle said:

In practice it does not apply simply because it isn't an accident or injury, unlike a barrel falling on someone.

Never surmise what will be challenged in court - especially if you follow the wrong doctrine! There is nothing self-evident here as mis-use or external forces (e.g. pot holes) could equally be to blame.

As usual, conclusions about legal action have been jumped to. The dealer has agreed the repair should be made under the warranty but at the factory. After only 4 weeks, the manufacturer is taking it's time and asking more questions. No one has done, or not done, anything to warrant the necessity for legal action to even be considered at this time!

Is 4 weeks waiting for answer regarding a repair on a unit that cost in excess of £20k considered to be reasonable for the consumer as they are unable to use the unit in the meantime?  Does not matter if it is a radio or a Rolls Royce.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Legal Eagle said:

In practice it does not apply simply because it isn't an accident or injury, unlike a barrel falling on someone.

Never surmise what will be challenged in court - especially if you follow the wrong doctrine! There is nothing self-evident here as mis-use or external forces (e.g. pot holes) could equally be to blame.

As usual, conclusions about legal action have been jumped to. The dealer has agreed the repair should be made under the warranty but at the factory. After only 4 weeks, the manufacturer is taking it's time and asking more questions. No one has done, or not done, anything to warrant the necessity for legal action to even be considered at this time!

 

I think we will have to disagree onthis one. In the modern world products are now far more complex and the idea that you have to prove that was faulty is something that must be getting outdated. I appreciate that it might not work but given most of these claims are going to be in the small claims court I cannot see many solicitors wanting to advise their clients to risk the sums in defending for what is involved.

On larger claims it will come assuming someone does try to defend it but at the worst I think most will try to at least compromise it, as if a court accepts it, then the flood gates are open.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Durbanite said:

Is 4 weeks waiting for answer regarding a repair on a unit that cost in excess of £20k considered to be reasonable for the consumer as they are unable to use the unit in the meantime?  Does not matter if it is a radio or a Rolls Royce.

That will entirely depend on what the reason is. 28 days is not an uncommon time frame for many things. We don't know what questions are being asked and why. Maybe it's connected to ascertaining exactly what is involved and arranging materials, staff and suitable and sufficient factory space and time. 

It all hinges on what, taking absolutely everything into account, is reasonable under the circumstances.

50 minutes ago, Wildwood said:

 

I think we will have to disagree onthis one. In the modern world products are now far more complex and the idea that you have to prove that was faulty is something that must be getting outdated. I appreciate that it might not work but given most of these claims are going to be in the small claims court I cannot see many solicitors wanting to advise their clients to risk the sums in defending for what is involved.

On larger claims it will come assuming someone does try to defend it but at the worst I think most will try to at least compromise it, as if a court accepts it, then the flood gates are open.

You are referring to a doctrine which is applied to personal injury claims,  in particular medical negligence. This isn't a personal injury claim. In fact it isn't even a claim, it's a warranty repair so why suggest, inappropriately, a complex legal route?

Edited by Legal Eagle
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...