• Welcome to the LegalBeagles Consumer and Legal Forum.
    Please Register to get the most out of the forum. Registration is free and only needs a username and email address.
    REGISTER
    Please do not post your full name, reference numbers or any identifiable details on the forum.

* WON * Campervan dispute...

Collapse
Loading...
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • * WON * Campervan dispute...

    Good morning

    I'd really appreciate some advice/help and I apologise for the long post.

    On the 25th October I purchased a 2005 Campervan from a reputable dealership. Before I took delivery of the vehicle the dealership agreed to make right the advisories on the MOT and confirmed that everything would be corrected and I would have "nothing" to worry about.

    The van underwent some work and a fresh MOT was produced.

    I took delivery and everything seemed in order. Apart from a few cosmetic issues but that wasn't a big deal for me. Anyway, a couple of weeks later I had a rear camera installed by a professional company. Whilst the technician was completing his work he made me aware of a fluid leak coming from the engine.

    I immediately messaged the dealer and asked for their advice on what to do. I didn't get a reply, although later on they said they did reply (I will give them the benefit of the doubt). A few days later I called the dealer and they suggested I take it to an RAC approved dealer. As it's a large vehicle I was struggling to find a garage that would take the van. Eventually I did find one and asked the Dealer if they were happy for me to use them. I didn't receive a reply and at this point I was beginning to be concerned as my 30 day short term right to reject the vehicle was nearly up. So, on the 27th day I formally rejected the vehicle. At which point the dealership agreed to get the van inspected at the RAC Garage.

    The garage found the below faults with the van:

    Please see below a list of faults or possible faults with the vehicle that will need attention or further investigation.

    • Ashtray broken.
    • N/S/F arm rest missing.
    • N/S/F door check strap split on A-post.
    • Top induction boost pipe damaged, (rubbing on rad panel).
    • PAS fluid dirty.
    • Gearbox oil leak (diff seals and sump plug).
    • N/S CV gaiter has hole.
    • N/S/F tyre tread perished.
    • O/S/F strut leaking.
    • O/S/F chassis, subframe and wing area heavily corroded.
    • Spare tyre worn low.
    • Brake compensator valve lever seized.
    • O/S/R spring mount/chassis corroded through.
    • Spare wheel carrier rusted through cross member.
    • O/S/R outrigger/inner sill rusted through.
    • O/S/F inner wing /brake pipe mount insecure and corroded.
    • Engine oil leak from front crank area.
    • Possible fuel pump leak (wet).
    • Fuel tank seams corroded (wet), but could be the gear oil blowing down the vehicle.
    • Wiring loose and insecure rad fan area.
    • Wiring running through the chassis and cross member through bare holes.
    • Wiper arms worn.
    • Heavy fumes from the exhaust.
    • Rear brake pads shims corroded away.


    Obviously some of these faults are more important than others, some of the faults would be deemed as an MOT failure.
    I immediately followed up with an email to the dealership confirming that I wanted a refund as per my rejection letter.

    They have now got their legal team involved and have stated that:

    We understand that you allege there are a number of faults with the Vehicle. You believe that you are entitled to reject the Vehicle under the CRA. We can advise that you have no grounds upon which to reject the Vehicle at this stage. We note that you did not comply with the short term right to reject in that you failed to provide any evidence to our Client as per s19(14) CRA 2015. The short term right to reject ceases at the end of 30 days.
    From my understanding the short term right to reject is active at the point the consumer makes the company aware of their intention to reject the goods and the 30 days is paused while a fault is investigated and repaired. This is to stop a dealer taking 31 days to investigate a fault and then decline to refund or repair because it’s outside the legal window. I submitted the rejection letter well within the 30 day period and I am within my rights to reject the vehicle based on the independent assessment from the RAC approved garage and the garage that the dealer instructed.

    The dealer took back the van and had their own inspection on the van, although not using an RAC approved garage. It was the same garage that put the MOT on the van just before I purchased it.

    The dealers assessment confirmed that there were three faults at point of inspection. This is in line with some of the faults found by the garage I used.

    • Corrosion of the O/S/R spring mount/chassis
    • Spare Wheel Carrier rusted
    • O/S/R outrigger/inner sill rusted.



    They claim that the above corrosion was not present at the time of sale and in fact the corrosion was caused by a hammer. They are also saying that the MOT is proof that the above issues were not present at the point of sale.

    I know this is a long post and I do apologise but I am totally lost at what to do next. I'm guessing I will have to use the money claim online service but at £410 this is very expensive.

    Any advice or guidance would be great appreciated.

    Thank you in advance.

    Regards

    Iain
    Tags: None

  • #2
    Re: Campervan dispute...

    tagging [MENTION=71570]R0b[/MENTION] [MENTION=39710]des8[/MENTION]

    to LB [MENTION=110620]IainJames[/MENTION] :wave
    Debt is like any other trap, easy enough to get into, but hard enough to get out of.

    It doesn't matter where your journey begins, so long as you begin it...

    recte agens confido

    ~~~~~

    Any advice I provide is given without liability, if you are unsure please seek professional legal guidance.

    I can be emailed if you need my help loading pictures/documents to your thread. My email address is Kati@legalbeagles.info
    But please include a link to your thread so I know who you are.

    Specialist advice can be sought via our sister site JustBeagle

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Campervan dispute...

      thank you for the warm welcome Kati.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Campervan dispute...

        Hi and welcome.

        Corrosion caused by a hammer !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        They themselves have confirmed faults sufficient to support your right to reject as goods not of satisfactory quality and should refund the purchase price within two weeks.

        You are correct in that you rejected within the thirty day period.

        The court costs will be added to your claim, and so paid (eventually) by the trader

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Campervan dispute...

          Originally posted by des8 View Post
          Hi and welcome.

          Corrosion caused by a hammer !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          They themselves have confirmed faults sufficient to support your right to reject as goods not of satisfactory quality and should refund the purchase price within two weeks.

          You are correct in that you rejected within the thirty day period.

          The court costs will be added to your claim, and so paid (eventually) by the trader
          thank you [MENTION=39710]des8[/MENTION]

          There Legal team are adamant that the MOT they provided clears them of any issues with van.


          They have said

          "Further in relation to the rear brake pads allegedly being corroded, we
          note that these are a serviceable item. We note that there were no advisory items
          on the Vehicles MOT in relation to the brake pads allegedly being corroded, our
          Client will seek to rely upon this to discharge the burden that the brakes were
          of satisfactory quality at point of sale"

          How on earth can brake pads corrode in less than 30days.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Campervan dispute...

            That list you produced was pretty comprehensive and I don't see how an MOT does anything other than say the vehicle passed on a certain date.
            It doesn't cover the points raised in CRA 2015.

            The vehicle has to be of "satisfactory Quality" i.e. what a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory taking into account description & price.
            Quality relates to (a) fitness for all the purposes for which goods of that kind are usually supplied;
            (b)
            appearance and finish;

            (c)
            freedom from minor defects;

            (d)
            safety;

            (e)
            durability.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Campervan dispute...

              Who issued the MOT, the dealer themselves?

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Campervan dispute...

                thanks [MENTION=39710]des8[/MENTION]

                - - - Updated - - -

                Originally posted by ostell View Post
                Who issued the MOT, the dealer themselves?
                It wasn't the dealer that did the MOT but the garage they use for all their vehicles.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Campervan dispute...

                  Originally posted by IainJames View Post
                  It wasn't the dealer that did the MOT but the garage they use for all their vehicles.
                  So they could be slightly biased and not want to lose business.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Campervan dispute...

                    and today I get this....
                    "We understand from your email that you allege your letter of rejection was based on the fuel leak. We would aver that in relation to the fuel leak of which you alleged, the independent third party garage which our Client elected to complete the inspection on the Vehicle could not find any such leak. The independent third party garage left the Vehicle running for an hour whilst on an inspection ramp and concluded that they could not locate any fuel leak.

                    We would aver that in relation to the items of which our Client repaired, the independent third party garage concluded that these faults were not present at point of sale. We note that our Client was not liable for these faults however as a gesture of good will our Client repaired the items.

                    For the avoidance of doubt we can advise that you have no grounds upon which to reject the Vehicle, as the independent third party report confirms that there was no leak located with the Vehicle.

                    Our position as per our previous correspondence of the 04 December 2017 remains unchanged in that, we have sought instruction from our Client who has advised us that as a gesture of good will they are willing to valet and fuel your Vehicle as well as transporting the Vehicle back to your premises.

                    Please ensure that all future correspondence are sent directly to this firm."
                    I have two independent sources, the company that fitted the camera and the independent RAC garage that confirmed a leak. I don't understand how the garage they used and their findings overrides the genuinely independent RAC approved garage that both the dealership and I agreed to using.

                    Given the other faults found at the inspection the vehicle is clearly not of satisfactory quality.

                    This is so frustrating.
                    Last edited by Amethyst; 7th December 2017, 10:59:AM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Campervan dispute...

                      Have you tried these?
                      https://www.themotorombudsman.org/

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Campervan dispute...

                        Before discussing your options can you advise how you purchased the vehicle: cash/ finance/credit or debit card? and the price paid?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Campervan dispute...

                          Originally posted by des8 View Post
                          Before discussing your options can you advise how you purchased the vehicle: cash/ finance/credit or debit card? and the price paid?
                          I paid by bank transfer, that was a mistake I know now, wish I'd used my credit card.

                          - - - Updated - - -

                          Originally posted by Onestepatatime View Post
                          this looks good. thank you.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Campervan dispute...

                            the price paid was £7500. here's the originally advert..

                            https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IFg...ew?usp=sharing

                            - - - Updated - - -

                            Originally posted by IainJames View Post
                            the price paid was £7500. here's the originally advert..

                            https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IFg...ew?usp=sharing
                            original not originally. apologies.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Campervan dispute...

                              Have you checked its MOT history (https://www.check-mot.service.gov.uk)

                              Lots of points picked up in your checks appear to have been a reason for failure in Sept 2017, but passed in Oct 2017.. funny that!!
                              I would be considering a report to DVSA (https://www.gov.uk/contact-dvsa)


                              You could just go back to their legal team (a firm of solicitors?) and point out that 20 Sept 2017 the van failed an MOT because of "Offside Front Subframe mounting prescribed area is excessively corroded" which correlates with your independent inspection where it draws attention to: O/S/F chassis, subframe and wing area heavily corroded..
                              Remind them it is a criminal offence to sell a vehicle in an unroadworthy condition (sec 75 RTA 1988) and you anticipate they will instruct their client to make a full immediate refund
                              of the purchase price and any additional costs you have incurred.
                              In the meantime you are preparing a report for submission to DVSA

                              To show how ignorant those legal boys are they said:/"We note that there were no advisory items on the Vehicles MOT in relation to the brake pads allegedly being corroded"
                              That is not surprising because the fault related to anti squeal shims, which aren't part of the MOT!!

                              Comment

                              View our Terms and Conditions

                              LegalBeagles Group uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience and to create a secure and effective website. By using this website, you are consenting to such use.To find out more and learn how to manage cookies please read our Cookie and Privacy Policy.

                              If you would like to opt in, or out, of receiving news and marketing from LegalBeagles Group Ltd you can amend your settings at any time here.


                              If you would like to cancel your registration please Contact Us. We will delete your user details on request, however, any previously posted user content will remain on the site with your username removed and 'Guest' inserted.
                              Working...
                              X