My rights under Consumer Rights Act 2015

I also have had a leaking inlet on a purchased new caravan

I have recently had need to investigate my rights and have found that under the consumer  rights act

On the first failure

The first and only contact is the person or dealer you have bought from.

Secondly the Dealer has to be given the opportunity to correct the fault and repair all areas affected as a consequence of the fault.

If however the fault re-occurs then under law you have the right to redress.

Only if you believe the dealer is not capable or that it has gone out of business can you approach and expect a adequate response from the Manufacturer.

My issue is that the  fault I had Is not new to the industry and dealers , because  they the manufacturers have not taken action or put out warnings etc they compounded the problems.

Caravans  and now Motorhome are a major investment and it is about time that we the consumer should collectively voice through a central forum such as the club  in a form that graphically shows the typically faults and qty of claims by manufacturers showing who is improving or not.

More importantly new buyers would be aware of these and could put them into conditions of purchase there by adding a powerfull Contract law to their bow

"Secondly the Dealer has to be given the opportunity to correct the fault and repair all areas affected as a consequence of the fault."

See the link in my earlier post. The one (only) opportunity to repair applies after you have had the item more than 30 days. Less than 30 days, it can be summarily rejected.

You would indeed think a 'club' should be protecting the interests of its members, Roystan, rather than looking after its advertisers. I fear it will never happen.

 Thanks. Very useful 

I emailed the retailer last night raising complaint and asking how they would put right and give assurance that any future problems linked to this leak will be put right. Having read up on my rights under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, I followed this up this morning with a further up e mail informing retailer that I don't want a repair but that I was exercising my right to reject. I am aware that both e mails have been received and read (joys of read receipts). I have received an e mail back today from the after sales manager offering a sincere apology and offering a repair if I would allow them to carry out a repair. They have offered to repair, full damp test and valet inside and out and deliver van to me rather than cause any further disruption to me, the damp test intended to give peace of mind. Although I have had no formal response to my letter notifying them that I was rejecting the van, I would suggest that the request to allow them to complete a repair may reinforce that they accept that I have the opportunity to reject at this stage.However this is where I now have some options to consider. Push for the reject and deal with any counter challenge and the associated cost of claiming money back through small claims which I believe will cost me a minimum of 5% of claim amount and then argue the toss with retailer of removing the motor mover. I guess they could argue that if they refund they have met their obligation and expect me to pay for any additional work, or I go for the repair but ask for written assurance that any future problems linked to water escape are put right. I bought the van at a sale price which was 3 K less than a new replacement van. My gut feeling is that the retailer will try and refund rather than replace as it may work out a few K cheaper for them? Not sure that the retailer is making a huge effort to encourage me to go with repair. I think what they have offered is probably the minimum they can get away within the circumstances. I will await the response from retailer re notification to reject and sleep on next step for a couple of days.

I had an internal leak in a locker. No damage done and I was unconcerned despite water dripping from under the caravan. I suspect that you may be the same but do inspect furnishings carefully. So for me I would let them repair but I would want some recompense. However I would want to use my caravan mid December and I would not get a new replacement earlier probably. 

A nice paint seal would probably be appreciated along with carpet treatment. Or even a free service next year as an apology. 

Thanks for the update, Dex. I think you’ve rattled them.

My first instinct is to reject but it depends how you feel about this particular van, whether you can face the possible hassle, and whether you think another bought elsewhere would serve you better. 

We recently considered the same options (which is the reason I had that link) and, although the option is still on the table, we decided we were basically happy with the van and prepared to keep it if the faults were rectified properly and it looks as if they have been. The thought of buying another van a further 100 miles away and it very likely having the same build quality issues was a major factor in our decision, so far, to keep it.

Good luck.

There are no end of posts asking if a van can be rejected, very very few where this has been achieved. The best bet is in a simple case aim for a satisfactory repair. As previous posts the water will have been unlikely to cause any serious damage its persistent damp from a leak which is the fatal blow. The water is most likely to have drained out through a floor vent.

I have had some time to ponder on where I go next. I was batting around in my head reject or repair and there are arguments in both for me. However there is a side which says defiantly go for reject first and foremost because the CRA says I can. I also feel quite strong that until our caravan manufacturers stop churning out vans with faults and simply leaving it to the retailers and buyers to find faults, they wont attempt and get their house in order. I don't think there is any greater motivation than customers rejecting goods and then the manufacturer or retailer having to pick up the tab. Only a matter of time before they take a good look at themselves

However I am a little confused as I am now not sure if the act applies. I explain as follows:

I believe the act states that I have to allow the retailer to repair the fault, which I have done. I believe it then states that I only need to allow a one off repair and if a further fault appears I can reject . Where my confusion now arises is the following comment which I picked up from Which, which states

After the first 30 days

If you're outside the 30-day right to reject, you have to give the retailer one opportunity to repair or replace any goods or digital content which are of unsatisfactory quality, unfit for purpose or not as described.

You can choose whether you want the goods to be repaired or replaced.

But the retailer can refuse if they can show that your choice is disproportionately expensive compared with the alternative.

So I am now confused in view of the comment regarding the retailer being in a position to refuse. I would argue that in the majority of cases the cost of replacement will almost always be disproportionate to the repair. Certainly with something like a caravan or car, this is likely to be the case?

I will have to follow the advice from other of speaking to a legal expert

No first hand experience, but a close relative has recently successfully rejected a new 2017 van due to a number of faults, but initially a water leak. Some of what might be key points in his experience and possibly in that of others:

1. He made an in writing request immediately on finding the initial leak for a replacement van, even though he subsequently accepted a repair.

2. Although the leak seems to have been successfully repaired, it was successive repair failures on other issues which have also contributed.

3. He paid a small deposit on the initial purchase by credit card. Advice is that article 75 of credit card regulations means the card company are part of the contract of sale, even though only a deposit was paid. They have thus been supportive of his case.

4. Advice from the two main caravan clubs was not wholly consistent.

5. He has a full audit trail of dated email exchanges between himself and the retailer.

I’m not qualified to advise you on the nuts and bolts of the process, Dex, but I suggest you firstly contact the club’s legal service, or the CAB, for advice and take it from there.