Message Forums

The OP does not say whether the van was bought cash or HP. The way you bought the van determines what legals you use to back your case for the dealer to pay for the repair. It is the dealer you go against unless you wish to make a claim under the warranty. No point in the dealer saying its Elddis’s problem – they sold it so, under the Sale of Goods Act it’s down to them if you paid cash.

Let's assume that you paid cash (maybe via a bank loan). Under the Sale of Goods Act (SOGA) your caravan should be of satisfactory quality, sufficiently durable and free from any defects. Further it should be "as described". It clearly wasn’t so there is a breach of the SOGA

Timing is important under the SOGA as that determines just what rights you have. As the original problems were mentioned less than six months since the date of your purchase then, under s48B of the SOGA ( as amended by the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002) you are entitled to demand a replacement or a repair. s48A3 of the SOGA, make it clear that where the kind of defect you found is found within six months of delivery of the caravan to you then the law deems that defect to have been in place on the date you contracted to buy it. The dealer has to prove otherwise to avoid its liabilities under SOGA. So, assuming that you did nothing wrong like, say, pulling the doors off their hinges, the law says that the Seller is at fault. Don't let the seller try and get out of that. 

The OP elected to have the caravan repaired, so by virtue of section 48B of the SOGA (as amended) the dealer had to comply with two statutory obligations:-

1. to undertake the repairs within a reasonable period of time, and
2. without causing significant inconvenience to the OP

If the OP had said that he wanted a replacement the day he complained about the problems he could not legally enforce that requirement if that request was impossible to perform or disproportionate to the repair remedy. From the OP’s post it appears that replacement was disproportionate so repair was the way forward and that was undertaken. However, with regard to the roof, perhaps that fault was reported in the six month period, In any event there appears to be evidence that Glossop's knew of the fault when sold so the game starts again.

Can it be repaired without causing significant inconvenience? Sounds as though it may be a full roof replacement and that could be months. Ask the dealer how long it will take to get fixed so that he commits himself to a period of time that will cause that “significant inconvenience.”

Under section 48C of SOGA you can, as a last resort rescind the contract and the Dealer has to give you your money back. However, you can only rescind if it is impossible to repair or replace without significant inconvenience or such repair/replacement is disproportionate or at an additional cost to the dealer. So, rescinding the contract has difficulties, if the dealer sticks to the letter of the law.

No joy from the dealer and its down to litigation. You can try Trading Standards at Derbyshire County Council but I have found such departments hopeless. They will fight for issues that fall in line with their policy focus and if caravan dealerships are not on the list forget it.

Remember that, generally, once you have made your choice of remedy you are stuck with it. Once they start the repair work, you can’t then say that you have changed your mind and want a new van unless that repair is taking an unreasonable length of time. You may wish to drop them a line..maybe.....

Dear Sir,

With reference to my caravan, purchased from you on the [    ] July 2013, you have acknowledged that the damage to the roof was in existence when you sold me the van and of course you did not draw my attention to it when buying.

In accordance with s48B of the SOGA I am entitled to have the caravan repaired at your cost. I would therefore be grateful if you could now confirm that you will undertake those repairs and within a reasonable period of time and advise me of the length of time this work will take.

I reserve my rights under the Act to rescind the contract and call for a full refund in the event that you are unwilling or unable to undertake the repairs within a reasonable period of time, or, in the alternative, find a replacement caravan.

yours faithfully.

.........................................................................................

If you bought the van using an HP arrangement, say via Black Horse, then the legal route is different.

If this is an HP arrangement then you have not actually bought the van.  Glossops sold the van to the HP company and you are merely hiring it and paying the HP company for that hire. Once you have paid an agreed amount to the HP company ownership of the van will then transfer to you. Thus you do not have a contract with Glossops to which the rights under the Sale of Goods Act applies.

In the case of HP it would be down to the HP company to get Glossops to put the van right. s10 of the Sale of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973 states that in a Hire Purchase agreement there is an implied term that the goods supplied under the agreement are of satisfactory quality. Satisfactory quality includes a principle that the van must be free of even minor defects. Thus it should not have a defective roof so the Hire Purchase company is in breach of contract. 

You could reject the caravan, your HP agreement ends and the HP company take issue with Glossop to get their money back.

The rights to reject you get under the Sale of Goods Act are different in the case of Hire Purchase. Rather than having the benefit of statutory protection you have to rely on general contract law principles. Under HP the right to reject goods is only lost when the contract is affirmed, and this requires a positive decision by you to carry on with the HP contract after having gained knowledge of the defect. So the sooner you write to the HP company to start discussions the better

You write to the HP company to advise it of the roof issue and mention that "it is clearly not of satisfactory quality". Remind the HP company of its obligations under the 1973 regs.  You ask the HP company to talk to Glossops to get it to agree to undertake the repairs at Glossop's costs otherwise you will "not affirm the HP agreement, the caravan will be rejected and the credit agreement will then be deemed to be at an end necessitating a repayment of all monies paid under that agreement"  Use those words.  The HP company should then lean on Glossops.  

Courts tend to side with hirers in these cases.

If you get no joy from the HP company then advise them that you will ask the Financial Ombudsman Service to investigate. I reckon that they will decide in your favour on the facts you have given in this thread. Just for your peace of mind here is a report of a decision of the Ombudsman back in 2001 in a similar case he was asked to investigate.....

" Mr H bought a new caravan by hire purchase. With this type of arrangement, until the consumer has made their final payment, the vehicle does not belong to them but to their finance provider.

On the day the caravan was delivered to him, Mr H was concerned to find a number of faults in the interior fittings and parts of the décor. He contacted the dealer from whom he had bought the caravan and complained that none of these faults should have been present in a brand-new vehicle – particularly as it had been made to order.

The dealer arranged for three of the faults to be remedied almost immediately. However, eight months later Mr H was still waiting for the remaining repairs to be done. At that stage he contacted his finance provider and said he wished to reject the caravan on the grounds that it had been ‘unfit for purpose’ when it was sold.

The finance provider told Mr H that it would contact the dealer to ensure the outstanding repairs were completed. Several attempts were then made to carry out the repairs but the remedial work was badly done and in a couple of instances it caused additional problems.

Mr H again complained to the finance provider, repeating his request to reject the caravan. The finance provider said it could not accept this. It said that, in its opinion, the caravan was ‘of a satisfactory quality’. The faults were cosmetic – not structural – and they had all been remedied except for the fitting of new flooring, which would be undertaken shortly.

Mr H then referred his complaint to us.

complaint upheld
Mr H told us that a number of repairs were still outstanding. He said the flooring had not yet been replaced, the kitchen work-surface trim remained loose, the seating was not bolted together as it should have been and a bracket was missing from the corner seating area.

On the basis of the evidence we saw, we concluded that the finance provider had failed to ensure the caravan was of a satisfactory quality when it was supplied. We said that the fact that most of the faults were not structural did not prevent Mr H from exercising his right to reject the caravan.

We noted that Mr H had acted reasonably in agreeing to allow time for the repairs to be carried out, rather than rejecting the caravan outright. And we accepted that the finance provider had not initially been aware of the faults, as Mr H had contacted the dealer direct. But we said that once the finance provider became aware of the problem, it should have ensured that matters were put right promptly.

We upheld the complaint and told the finance provider to allow Mr H to reject the caravan. Mr H had asked for a refund of all his payments. We did not agree to this, as we had seen evidence that he had been able to make use of the caravan – and had sub-let it on a number of occasions. We said the finance provider should release him from the finance agreement and return his deposit of £17,000, plus interest."

A resolution may take some time...be patient.

This advice has been given on the basis of the information the OP has supplied. If the facts are any different, or there is any additional information the advice may be different. Each case turns on its facts.

All the best

Phil

Quote: Originally posted by cwdc56768 on 21/1/2014

---

The OP does not say whether the van was bought cash ............

---

You say....I have been in touch with Ralph Thorman again at Glossop

His response reads as though he is unrelated to Glossop, that he is a middle man seeking to negotiate with Glossop. Is he? Or is he an employee of Glossop pretending to be independent of them such that you are being kept at arms length from the Company? Sounds like trickery to me or else just very poor letter writing.

You gave them options to resolve the matter and one was to repair the Van and provide compensation but you have not specified what the compensation is for. You are not entitled to compensation other than perhaps for the depreciated value of the van because of the defect. In terms of litigation your position may be prejudiced if you ebb and flow with what you want. You have to be specific and stick to it.

Don't threaten litigation unless you intend to go through with it.

If you are happy with repair and compensation (and I don't know if £5000 would represent the actual value of the van after the repair, but assume it does) could I suggest the following and which is a tad blunt but isn't it gloves off time?

Dear Ralph,

Without Prejudice to my rights to have a replacement van or my money back under the Sale of Goods Act

With reference to your letter of the [date], can I firstly thank you for your acknowledgement of liability by your open offer.

I may be willing to explore the option of the repair plus compensation provided that you are able to satisfy me that your Company can meet its legal obligations under the Sale of Goods Act (SOGA)

Under s48B of the SOGA (as amended) your Company is required to comply with two statutory obligations:-

1.     to undertake the repairs within a reasonable period of time, and

2.     without causing significant inconvenience to me

Your company has clearly failed thus far so I need you to provide me with a considerable degree of confidence that you can overcome that failure if we proceed along the lines you have suggested. Please set out in detail your proposed work programme taking into account that I have a holiday booked for the [date] March 2014.

You are also required by the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 to undertake the work using reasonable skill and care. Please provide me with details as to how you will satisfy that requirement including details of the particular skills of the individuals who will be undertaking the work.

Should your Company be unable to meet its obligations under the legislation I have mentioned then the only options appear to be

1.     Replacement Van

2.     Refund of my money plus interest over the period. I would suggest that interest be calculated in accordance with Section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984

I appreciate that you are in discussion with Elddis over this matter but the primary responsibility lies with your Company under the terms of your contract with me and the conditions incorporated into that by the SOGA. I expect you to have provided me with a full response to this letter within the next seven days otherwise I shall have to consider that discussions are at an end and that litigation is the only way forward. I am sure that your own legal advisors will be recommending that you meet my requirements in these particular circumstances.

In the even that litigation is necessary then please advise as to whether proceedings should be served at your registered address or upon your Solicitors. If the latter, then please provide their name and address, and reference.

Yours sincerely

Phil