Message Forums

Thought I would bring this back to the OP. How did you get on with the dealer, and also with Swift? 

If you were not satisfied with this mornings outcome I agree with what others have said I would contact Trading Standards to see what they advise. 

Thought Phil (from previous posts) was a reitred solicitor?, and as such I would hope (and imagine it is) the information he gives on here would be the relevant legal course of action.   

Cheers nanashirley. You get an opportunity to share your expertise, as do many others on here, to assist caravanners. Just don't expect rudeness in return.

Phil

Okay just to let everyone know where I am. I telephoned Trading Standards today and explained everything. They pointed out that my contract is with the DEALER and not the manufacturer. I was also told that they did not consider the time to get sorted acceptable. I was also informed not to go down the Sale of Goods act route. I was asked if the caravan was on HP if so then my quickest resolution would be to call these and not the dealer. I told them it was on HP so they told me to call them up and not to contact the dealer again and the finance company would act on my behalf.

I accepeted this but are now considering if it is HP or a standard loan. If it is a standard loan I am unsure if this advice is the same I will need to look further into it.The problem is that it is in my wifes name so I would have to get my wife to discuss all of this. She will call tomorow with me by her side to feed her the right information. Problem is I have left all my advice at work and cant remember what they told me to quote instead of the Sale of goods act.

Thankyou all for your advice I will keep you updated when I know more. I feel a little weird not talking to dealer about it but want the quickest / easiest option. (Not sure there is such an option)

I'm no expert but my understanding is that you have bought the van on HP, techncally the HP company own the van - they therefore have a contract with the dealer.

If you took a loan then you own the van and therefore deal with the dealer.

Hopefully someone else may be able to confirm this?

In your original post you said that you bought the van. If it is on an HP arrangement then you have not bought the van, in law. The HP company bought the van and they have, in effect, loaned it to you whilst you make the repayments. Upon the last payment it will be yours.

So, your approach to a resolution of the problem would need to be different

If it is under HP then that company may be willing to have a discussion with the dealer. The down side is that you have to pay the HP company whether the van is good bad or indifferent. Thus there may not be much incentive on the part of the HP company to push too much. Hopefully, if it is under HP they will.

If you simply took out a Bank Loan then you did buy the van and your course of action may be along the three options I gave earlier.

Whatever, a chat with the dealer is a must just to see which way he chooses to react

Phil

sale of goods is with the dealer  -  son is a barrister    ignore the rubbish stated above

had some issues re warranty with swift      found them to be less than useless    always avoided the issues     never came up trumps

at least my dealer was on the ball and sorted things out for me-  

would i buy swift again?  unlikely given my experience with them over claims   my worry would be over a biggy that the dealer could not cope with

Sale of good regulates the position between purchaser and seller if the purchaser is buying as a consumer (not in the course of a business.) I mentioned that in my first post. There is the other agreement i.e the manufacturers warranty. As I said, based on the original information, the OP should go back to the seller. However, we now, possibly, have a different scenario, and different legal principles come into play.

If the acquisition was via an HP arrangement then the dealer sold the van to the HP company and the HP company hired the van to the OP. The HP company buying in the course of a business. That is how HP works. As the HP company did not buy as a consumer the legal benefits of the Sale of Goods Act do not apply. The OP would not have a contract with the dealer under an HP arrangement. The HP agreement will include a clause obliging the hirer to keep the van in good condition. The HP company does not have to do anything other than collect the Hire monies. Having said that many HP companies do put pressure on dealers/manufacturers to remedy defects. Dealers/manufacturers need HP companies so its to their advantage to play ball.

Swift warranties are expressed to be for the benefit of the "purchaser" which is defined in that agreement as including anyone who has acquired the van under HP. So that's useful. Some manufacturers warranties are not expressed to be for those who acquire under HP. So if you are buying using an HP arrangement check the terms of the warranty. Your position in law, if you have problems with the van, is considerably weakened if you use the HP route and the HP company will not take action over defects.

Problem here is that if the van is held under an HP arrangement the OP cannot demand that the delaer replaces the van. That's a remedy available if the SOGA applies. Thus the OP can only rely on the manufacturers warranty. Manufacturers workshops have limited space and if there is a lot of warranty work being undertaken then there will be delays.

So, just a little twist in the facts and the legal process is quite different. On the plus side both dealer and Swift have agreed to remedy the problem. The issue is one of timing. Just hope that your arrangement is a loan and not an HP deal. Then you can take issue with the dealer.

Phil

Good Morning Surfer01, how are you today. Well I hope.

Expected a comment so if anyone does not accept how HP works try this

http://www.consumerdirect.gov.uk/before_you_buy/money_and_credit/hire-purchase/

or any other reference point

Phil

Surfer, I just wanted to point out that you have not been reading what has been said.  It has been pointed out several times that there are two separate contracts in force here, and you constantly confuse the two.

In addition, you are acting in a very rude manner at the moment.  I'm sure this is not your natural state, but you are giving a bad impression to your readers.

Jim

Surfer, firstly, you are wrong.  As Phil points out, why would you fill in a manufacturer's guarantee when you buy something?  Because they are involved.

The dealer has responsibilities, and the manufacturer has responsibilities.  So you are perfectly correct when you say the Sale of Goods Act means your recourse is with the dealer.  However, you haven't mentioned the manufacturer's responsibilities at all.

Calling a spade a spade is quite a common synonym for rudeness.  There isn't any call for it, and it's nothing to be proud of.  Whatever the rights and wrongs of an individual case, we ought to be able to correspond on here without unpleasantness.

Please step back a moment, and think how you are coming across.

Jim

Hi Jim,

I think that the difficulty here is that my post has been read for what the reader thinks has been said, rather than what has been said.  I am sure that folks wil lsee that Surfer01 and I both actually agree that (HP aside) the contract is with the dealer.  I suspect that Surfer01 has not recognised that. I think our main differences is that I have suggested a practical way forward with my three options.  A mix of legal and common sense remedies. I have recognised that not all dealers are geared up to do major warranty work such as taking off panels and removing damp affected materials. They leave that to manufacturers who have the workspace and expertise. I also recognise that it is industry practice to rely on warranties to sort out defects. You can harrangue a dealer to do repairs under your SOGA remedies but if it does not have the facility, what is the point? So all the OP would be left with would be a replacement van. However, there are other ways to skin a cat and in this case the OP has indicated that he wants the work done asap. Why it should be so problematic to suggest a way of using the SOGA as a tool to persuade the dealer/manufacturer to get a move on, as an option, is beyond me.

It is unfortunate that the OP enquired as to where he stood and the thread has wobbled off course.

Anyway, Jim you comment about how the manner of Surfer’s posts come over. Now I am fairly relaxed but the legals are not. It is clear to me that, in law, some of the comments are defamatory.  Posters need to appreciate that Website hosts may be liable for defamatory material created by someone else but which they host.  There are, of course, defences available to hosts under the Defamation Act 1996 and the E-commerce Regulations, but none the less, posters need to appreciate the point. I would not expect Ratty to take any action, and to be fair its no doubt entertaining for fellow caravanners. So lets all have a laugh and get on. As I say, I’m relaxed about it, but there may be others who could be the subject of similar comments who may not take the same view. That just needs to be appreciated. Its no defence to defamatory statements that “I call a spade a spade.”

Incidentally, excellent post on warranty work being done by other dealers Surfer01. Just to add that most warranty agreements make it a condition that the buyer takes it back to the original dealer.

Phil