Message Forums

Further to my previous post with regard to 'Bowen Awnings', I am looking for some good advice on where I stand over a faulty Awning, I have placed copies of emails below, which will help the case. I have involved Jeff Bowen & Dorema who manufacture the Awning, the only reason I contacted Dorema os because Jeff Bowen never came back to me.

Copies: as you can see below, I purchased this awning last August, but had no need to use it until this June.

Awning: 2011 Starcamp Futura 390

Before I dive in, just a general piece of advice to anyone reading...Whenever you buy anything always check it out within four weeks of purchase for your best legal protection. Up to four weeks and you can ask for your money back. Up to six months and the seller has to proove that you caused the damage otherwise, under the SOGA and Regulations the law says that the damage was there at the point of sale and that the seller has to repair or replace (Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002). There are qualifications to that  statutory obligation and which generally means that they can offer to repair if the cost of the replacement is disproportionate to the repair cost.

Anyway, we are where we are, and there is nothing gained by dwelling on what didn't happen in the past.  The complaint to the seller was forwarded some 10 months after purchase. The legal position is as follows:-

To make any claim for a breach of contract (which is what are dealing with in the case of faulty goods), under the SOGA the OP now needs to show that the awning is not of satisfactory quality, sufficiently durable or free from any defects. Then, because of the time lapse, the OP has to provide evidence that such defects or lack of durability or satisfactory quality is due to some defect in the awning that was present when he purchased it some ten months ago. The seller can sit back and do nothing until the OP proves his case. 

Thus far the OP has only set out the defects which are present today and has not linked those defects back to ten months ago. e.g he has to show that the metal used for the poles has some defect which causes it to rust in the rain when it is actually designed to be used in the rain. He needs to show that he treated the poles in accordance with any instructions e.g dried them before putting them away.

He needs to show how the materials, or manufacturer of the bag caused the zip to break rather than just him manhandling the zip in an innappropriate manner.

So, the seller is within its rights to refuse to assist the OP. Their reasons for that refusal are not quite within the strict terms of the law. They allege that the OP must have caused the damage. They do not have to make such an allegation. This is a traditional ploy aimed at deflecting a complainant from his real task. Once they claim that the buyer damaged the awning, he defends his position by saying that he did not cause the damage when what he should be doing is seeking to proove that the awning was defective on day one of his purchase. So you end up chasing a futile argument which will not stand up in law. Just because the buyer did not damage the awning it does not follow that the seller sold a defective awning.

So what has the OP got in his favour?

The awning was not out of the bag from the day it was bought until erected ten months later. Has he supporting evidence of this? A witness perhaps.

Was the awning kept in a sensible location e.g a bedroom wardrobe or in a damp dirty garage? If the latter give up. If the former and that can be proven then mention that point.

Have the poles been tested? Are they made of the same materials as all other awning poles or some lower quality material unsuited for use in the rain? 

Do similar awning poles have this same problem? If not then that assists in suggesting some frailty in the metal/alloy

I am afraid that just demanding your money back is the wrong approach. You are entitled to a repair or replacement and the OP has to proove that the seller is at fault.

The manufacturer issue is a red herring. That only assists the seller if he actually wants to help and pass the liability on to the manufacturer. So, OP forget the manufacturer, your case (if you have one) is against the seller.

As there is a reference to the Distance Selling regs I assume that you bought over the internet. Did you use a credit card? If so then the card company may have a liability under the SOGA. Of course they can also ask you to proove that the seller is at fault before they will pay up.

It is not enough to know that you have done nothing wrong, now that 10 months has past you have to proove that. The seller does not know what you may or may not have done....because you have not sought to proove your case just yet.

My own view is that it is not worth pursuing based on what we have so far. If you are to pursue your claim for replacement poles and a repair to the bag then get an independent report on the quality of the goods and stick that before the seller if it is  in your favour.

Phil

I have not seen the extent of the problem but my awning poles have become “ tainted.” I just look on that as being what happens. Walk around any campsite and I dare bet you will find the same. They still work and once in place I don’t notice them. Zips pulls break –especially if it broke when putting the awning back into the bag. If you don’t fold the awning sufficiently then the breaking could be operator error. It is such a minor issue (compared to the cost of an awning) that it is hardly worth raising. It can be mended with a bit of wire perhaps. The dye running is, potentially, the real problem.

If you want to fight your corner on this then this draft letter may be something you can work with to formalise your complaint. They should have the opportunity to test the poles so you should offer that. Don’t threaten court action if you are not willing to go to court. Don’t threaten to take legal advice to take it further unless you are willing to do so. Once you threaten it and then don’t follow through the other side just ignores you. Rather than court perhaps mention referring this complaint to Trading Standards. I am not saying that you will get any joy there. Trading Standards will still want to see your evidence that you have done nothing wrong and that the awning was defective when you first bought it. If you can’t give them the bullets to fire they won’t shoot

Dear Sir,

Starcamp Futura 390 Date of Purchase August  2011 - Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended)

Further to our exchange of emails I think that the time is right to formalise my claim against your company in relation to your breach of contract arising out of the sale of the above awning.

The defects in the awning are comprised as follows:-

1.     After just one shower of rain the 3 plated roof/front poles that fit inside the carbon roof poles have become tainted in the following manner [specify in detail just what has happened. If we are talking about oxidation then say so.] Thus the material in the poles is not fit for its purpose (outdoors in the rain); it is not of satisfactory quality and not of sufficient durability as required by the above Act, as amended

2.     The foam downward pieces that fit up against the caravan are distorted and fail to provide any reasonable level of sealing between the van and awning. They are not fit for their purpose as required by the above Act, as amended [ To be fair I wonder if this element is worth pursuing. Are there any awnings with such padding of any use? They can be defective because of how they are erected so proof for this claim may be difficult]

3.     The zip is broken on the bag. (the zip pull comes of the main zip). A zip with such a defective zip pull is clearly not fit for its purpose as required by the above Act, as amended

4.     The blue dye has discoloured the plastic windows after one shower of rain. (Photo attached) A failure to impregnate the material with an appropriate colourfast dye, knowing that it is to be used in rain, means that it is not fit for purpose nor of satisfactory quality as required by the above Act, as amended.

Whilst the awning was purchased in August 2011 it was not used, nor even taken out of its bag until the [                  ]. From the date of purchase until it was used the awning was kept [specify where it was kept – hopefully in your house and what temperature that room was normally kept at]. In the event that it is necessary to proceed to Court in respect of this claim I am quite happy to provide an affidavit to that effect. In addition the following persons are able to confirm this statement of fact [list the names and addresses of anyone who can vouch for this]. Thus I have properly looked after the awning and kept it in an appropriate location. Accordingly it follows that the poles were not to the standard required by the above Act, as amended, on the date of purchase.

The awning has been designed for use in rain. Thus, for the poles to be so adversely affected by rain they have to be made of materials that are fit for their purpose, be sufficiently durable and of satisfactory quality. Clearly they have not been. Awnings labelled “Dorema” have a market reputation that requires a standard higher than provided with this particular awning. When the poles were first removed from their packing they were in good condition, to the naked eye. I have witnesses to that effect. It was only once it rained that the defective condition of the poles became apparent. It would be sensible for you to arrange with Dorema to have one of the poles tested. I will retain the remainder should they be required for evidential reasons in court.

Due to the design of the awning being for use in rain the colour dye should not run. I have to wonder whether Dorema or their supplier failed to undertake any colourfastness tests. Under no circumstances can there be any argument that I caused the colouring to be defective. It was incorporated into the awning at the factory.

[Insert any other evidence you may have that the awning was defective when purchased.]

Our contract for the sale and purchase of the awning has incorporated into it the quality standards specified in the Sale of Goods Act 1979, as amended as indicated above.  As the awning is not to those standards, and I can show that I have not caused the defects mentioned in this letter, you are in breach of contract. The remedy that I am seeking for that breach of contract is as follows

1.     Replacement poles are supplied

2.     The awning is replaced with one that has appropriate padding and a colourfast dye

3.     The zip is repaired

All within the next fourteen working days. Should you wish to have the pole tested then items 2 and 3 should be undertaken within that timeframe but I am happy to wait for the new poles for four weeks.

I look forward to a full response to my letter within 7 days or I shall seek legal advice in order to take the matter further.

Yours faithfully,

The Secretary,

Hi Guys - Many thanks for your comments/advice and assistance over this issue, I knew that there would be someone out there with 'legal' knowledge, I've spent all week trying to phone Citizens Advice over this.

I feel I must persue this as I know I'm right with my faults and the way Bowen Awnings have 'fobbed me off' and suggested to make a claim to my insurance company for accidential damage, as far as I'm concerned, a false claim, as I've had no accident.

Phil many thanks for your assistance I will use your letter you have kindly drafted out for me, once I have completed the relevant areas. As it happens, I do have witnesses, infact it was one of them that noticed, the poles & blue dye on the window.

I'll let you know how it goes.

Always nice to get feedback on progress on a problem. Best of luck

Phil

Quote: Originally posted by Hobnobs on 07/7/2012

---

Rabb - What has happened to the poles, is that they have 'brown raindrop marks' allover the plated area only.

---

Hi Phil - Just to give you an update on this, I sent your letter to Jeff Bowen (signed for) just over a week ago and as of the present, I have not heard a word from him.

I have to assume that the guy is not interested, my next step now would be to contact the Trading Standards people to see where I should or could go. My problem is that I require this Awning for France in 3 weeks time and now feel that I'm not going to get it resolved in time.

After this, I will never use Bowen Awnings or Dorema in future,once they have sold an awning they are NOT prepared to resolve any issues.

What do you think and thanks for your help.