You purchased the Van in August 2011,
and defects were found in March, which they agreed to repair, and even arranged
for Swift to provide the parts. When defects are found within the warranty
period a dealer will contact the manufacturer and explain the problem and the
manufacturer agrees to pay for the work under warranty. They even supply the
parts. That is how warranties work. From what has been posted, it seems to me
that, if the dealer followed the normal warranty course (and why wouldn’t it?),
Swift had accepted liability under the warranty by March 2012, long before the
first service was required. Thus there was a contract between the OP and Swift
for Swift to meet the costs of the work. We do not know what conditions were
attached to that contract.
The Swift warranty does not say that
they will pay for defects which are reported to them within three or six years
(depending upon which part of the warranty you are claiming under) It says that
for that three or six years they will pay for defects to be put right. There is
a subtle difference between the last two phrases. The warranty is about
payment and that is subject to a condition as to having the van serviced. When
they agree to pay for such work did Swift make that new contract subject to the
same terms and conditions? If so, then the OP cannot claim under the warranty
as he/she did not have the annual service. A lesson for all.
Let us assume that there was no such
condition in that contract to pay for the repairs. The warranty requires the
caravan owner to make that van available for the work within six weeks. The OP
says that the Van went in for the work in October. We do not know if the delay
was down to the OP, the dealer or Swift. If it was down to the OP then the OP
has broken that six week condition. If the agreement to pay for the work is
also subject to the annual service condition then I am afraid that the OP has
created this difficulty. Clarification would be helpful OP.
If none of the above conditions applied
to Swifts agreement to pay for the work has Swift failed to have that work
undertaken within their own six week timeframe? If so they are in breach and
the OP can demand that they get on and pay for the work
Without any further information from
the OP I would hang my hat on the new contract Swift entered into to undertake
the work at its expense back in March. The OP should check to see if Swift laid
out any conditions when they agreed to pay for the work. If not then demand
that they pay.
Has the dealer or the Manufacturer breached the Consumer
Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. These prohibits traders from
engaging in unfair trading practices by perhaps (a) not spelling out any
conditions for Swift paying for the work, or (b) delaying that work past the annual
service date or (c) where a failure to service annually is totally irrelevant to the defect complained of (which it must be in this case) by hanging their hat on that failure (after agreeing to do the repair) suggests an unfair trading practice. Not saying that this is the case, but it may be an issue to
entertain the minds of Trading Standards.
Let's forget that warranty argument for
a moment and consider the Sale of Goods Act remedy. From the contents of the
OPs post, the dealer had accepted that the van was defective and that it needed
to be repaired. It seems from what has been posted that neither the dealer, nor
the OP anticipated that the OP would be paying for the repair as that was never
mentioned (at least the OP has not indicated that he/she was told that the OP
would be paying). Thus it had been accepted that either the dealer or Swift would
be paying. Did the OP/dealer actually mention warranty or SOGA during their
discussions? It would be interesting to know just what was said by the dealer.
Anyway, from what the OP has posted, it appears that the agreement back in
March was for that repair to be undertaken at the cost of someone other than
the OP and some five months before any service was required.
As the OP has agreed that the problem
can be solved through the repair route then he/she is stuck with that option at
this stage. So what does the SOGA say about the process of repair?
By virtue of
section 48B of the SOGA (as amended) the dealer has to comply with two
statutory obligations in undertaking the repairs:-
1.to
undertake the repairs within a reasonable period of time, and
2. without causing
significant inconvenience to the OP
It would seem that
the dealer is not now compliant with this obligation (unless the OP has been
the cause of the delay) and thus under section 48C of SOGA the OP can, as a
last resort rescind the contract and the Dealer has to give you your money
back. Just a cautionary note, 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 OP was the cause of the delay then if he/she
asks the dealer to undertake the work under SOGA, the dealer could have a
defence if the OP has been the author of the delays
I would start with
the dealer by running the warranty argument and that agreement had been reached
that the work would be done under warranty back in March. If Swift is
intransigent, then its down to the SOGA argument against the dealer.
The above advice
assumes that the OP paid for the van without HP credit or credit card. It is
also based on what the OP has posted. From my post you will see that there are
outstanding issues that impact upon the legal rights the OP may have. If there
are any other facts that the OP remembers, after reading my advice, then please
post as that may affect the advice .
It is also apparent from the omission of very relevant information that the dealer may just be acting wholly within its rights.
Phil
Topic: Glossop caravans aftersales
