Rejecting a motorhome - help!
Discussion
Some of you may have seen the below thread:
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Aside from engaging a lawyer, is there anyone who can advise of next steps to push forward and create a concrete case for rejection?
Many thanks
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Aside from engaging a lawyer, is there anyone who can advise of next steps to push forward and create a concrete case for rejection?
Many thanks
Spuffington said:
Some of you may have seen the below thread:
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Aside from engaging a lawyer, is there anyone who can advise of next steps to push forward and create a concrete case for rejection?
Many thanks
Yes, he said that above you.https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Aside from engaging a lawyer, is there anyone who can advise of next steps to push forward and create a concrete case for rejection?
Many thanks
Spuffington said:
Some of you may have seen the below thread:
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Aside from engaging a lawyer, is there anyone who can advise of next steps to push forward and create a concrete case for rejection?
Many thanks
Your next step is to write to Ross Edwards at Travel Cruiser Concessionaires Limited t/a Travelworld. Your letter / email needs to be headed Vehicle Rejection Pursuant to Consumer Rights Act (2015) and you need to keep it brief at this juncture. State that you are rejecting the motorhome as it is of unsatisfactory quality and that TCCL have had one opportunity to repair the vehicle, which they have had, and it’s still suffering from a mechanical failure. https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Aside from engaging a lawyer, is there anyone who can advise of next steps to push forward and create a concrete case for rejection?
Many thanks
Leave it as vague as that at this juncture. From litigation experience, they’ll adopt one of two stances;
1. TW will be expecting the rejection, they’ll arrange a deduction based on the mileage figure and you’ll be on your way.
2. TW will not accept the rejection and then you’re in for a bun-fight.
If point two occurs then it’s Solicitor time. I say this because of the value of the rejection. Whilst someone has suggested the Citizens Advice they’re not going to be versed in high-value automotiive rejections - where two manufacturers are in tandem - unless you are very, very lucky and happen to have a skilled Consumer Lawyer volunteering on that day - which is doubtful.
Depending on how they respond to your initial rejection will depend which route you then go down.
TW, I would imagine, are likely to bounce-back and play a card along the lines of - it’s mechanical and not habitat so it’s nothing to do with us. Your issue lies with Fiat so take it up with them. This is when the ‘follow-the-money’ route comes into play as you contracted and transacted with TW - by virtue of the fact you bought your motorhome from them and paid them the funds for it - so the liability sits with them.
In summary, send the rejection letter and let them respond - you’ll then know exactly where you’re standing and can then develop a plan on where you’re taking it. Until the rejection letter is sent then it’s a guessing game on where that discussion is going to go.
Get the letter emailed and sent. Start the rejection. Good luck.
Edited by ADJimbo on Saturday 30th August 10:13
I have recently rejected a new motorhome as well.
It developed a fault after the initial 30 days and I gave the dealer the opportunity to rectify the defect. I 'followed the money' and pushed the dealer I bought it from, despite them trying to say it was a fault with the vehicle and should go to the chassis manufacturer.
After two attempted repairs I drafted a simple letter quoting the relevant sections of the Consumer Rights Act informing them that the motorhome was rejected and I would be returning it.
I was then invited to meeting with the directors. It was a challenging meeting as they tried every trick in the book to get me to keep the vehicle etc. I stood my ground and was clear that the motorhome had been rejected, as they weren't able to provide a replacement then they had no option but to accept the vehicle back and refund.
This happened within 24 hrs.
The key was know your rights and stand your ground.
Interestingly, while looking for a replacement I found two similar vans from the same manufacturer, both a few months old for sale. One of the dealers was very open that the motorhome he had for sale had been rejected (due to the same fault). He was also open that the Consumer Rights Act left him with no option.
It developed a fault after the initial 30 days and I gave the dealer the opportunity to rectify the defect. I 'followed the money' and pushed the dealer I bought it from, despite them trying to say it was a fault with the vehicle and should go to the chassis manufacturer.
After two attempted repairs I drafted a simple letter quoting the relevant sections of the Consumer Rights Act informing them that the motorhome was rejected and I would be returning it.
I was then invited to meeting with the directors. It was a challenging meeting as they tried every trick in the book to get me to keep the vehicle etc. I stood my ground and was clear that the motorhome had been rejected, as they weren't able to provide a replacement then they had no option but to accept the vehicle back and refund.
This happened within 24 hrs.
The key was know your rights and stand your ground.
Interestingly, while looking for a replacement I found two similar vans from the same manufacturer, both a few months old for sale. One of the dealers was very open that the motorhome he had for sale had been rejected (due to the same fault). He was also open that the Consumer Rights Act left him with no option.
ADJimbo said:
Your next step is to write to Ross Edwards at Travel Cruiser Concessionaires Limited t/a Travelworld. Your letter / email needs to be headed Vehicle Rejection Pursuant to Consumer Rights Act (2015) and you need to keep it brief at this juncture. State that you are rejecting the motorhome as it is of unsatisfactory quality and that TCCL have had one opportunity to repair the vehicle, which they have had, and it’s still suffering from a mechanical failure.
Leave it as vague as that at this juncture. From litigation experience, they’ll adopt one of two stances;
1. TW will be expecting the rejection, they’ll arrange a deduction based on the mileage figure and you’ll be on your way.
2. TW will not accept the rejection and then you’re in for a bun-fight.
If point two occurs then it’s Solicitor time. I say this because of the value of the rejection. Whilst someone has suggested the Citizens Advice they’re not going to be versed in high-value automotiive rejections - where two manufacturers are in tandem - unless you are very, very lucky and happen to have a skilled Consumer Lawyer volunteering on that day - which is doubtful.
Depending on how they respond to your initial rejection will depend which route you then go down.
TW, I would imagine, are likely to bounce-back and play a card along the lines of - it’s mechanical and not habitat so it’s nothing to do with us. Your issue lies with Fiat so take it up with them. This is when the ‘follow-the-money’ route comes into play as you contracted and transacted with TW - by virtue of the fact you bought your motorhome from them and paid them the funds for it - so the liability sits with them.
In summary, send the rejection letter and let them respond - you’ll then know exactly where you’re standing and can then develop a plan on where you’re taking it. Until the rejection letter is sent then it’s a guessing game on where that discussion is going to go.
Get the letter emailed and sent. Start the rejection. Good luck.
Thank you so much for this advice. It really is much appreciated.Leave it as vague as that at this juncture. From litigation experience, they’ll adopt one of two stances;
1. TW will be expecting the rejection, they’ll arrange a deduction based on the mileage figure and you’ll be on your way.
2. TW will not accept the rejection and then you’re in for a bun-fight.
If point two occurs then it’s Solicitor time. I say this because of the value of the rejection. Whilst someone has suggested the Citizens Advice they’re not going to be versed in high-value automotiive rejections - where two manufacturers are in tandem - unless you are very, very lucky and happen to have a skilled Consumer Lawyer volunteering on that day - which is doubtful.
Depending on how they respond to your initial rejection will depend which route you then go down.
TW, I would imagine, are likely to bounce-back and play a card along the lines of - it’s mechanical and not habitat so it’s nothing to do with us. Your issue lies with Fiat so take it up with them. This is when the ‘follow-the-money’ route comes into play as you contracted and transacted with TW - by virtue of the fact you bought your motorhome from them and paid them the funds for it - so the liability sits with them.
In summary, send the rejection letter and let them respond - you’ll then know exactly where you’re standing and can then develop a plan on where you’re taking it. Until the rejection letter is sent then it’s a guessing game on where that discussion is going to go.
Get the letter emailed and sent. Start the rejection. Good luck.
Edited by ADJimbo on Saturday 30th August 10:13
So far TW behaviour has very much been to point towards Fiat Assist or the dealer network for the chassis at all times so it’s likely they’ll go down route 2 but I’ll draft the letter as advised and wait to be pleasantly surprised (or not).
Again - many thanks
Alicat said:
I have recently rejected a new motorhome as well.
It developed a fault after the initial 30 days and I gave the dealer the opportunity to rectify the defect. I 'followed the money' and pushed the dealer I bought it from, despite them trying to say it was a fault with the vehicle and should go to the chassis manufacturer.
After two attempted repairs I drafted a simple letter quoting the relevant sections of the Consumer Rights Act informing them that the motorhome was rejected and I would be returning it.
I was then invited to meeting with the directors. It was a challenging meeting as they tried every trick in the book to get me to keep the vehicle etc. I stood my ground and was clear that the motorhome had been rejected, as they weren't able to provide a replacement then they had no option but to accept the vehicle back and refund.
This happened within 24 hrs.
The key was know your rights and stand your ground.
Interestingly, while looking for a replacement I found two similar vans from the same manufacturer, both a few months old for sale. One of the dealers was very open that the motorhome he had for sale had been rejected (due to the same fault). He was also open that the Consumer Rights Act left him with no option.
Many thanks for this. I’m sorry to hear you’ve been through the same but also positive reading an experience which had a good outcome for you. That gives me some hope of a similar resolution.It developed a fault after the initial 30 days and I gave the dealer the opportunity to rectify the defect. I 'followed the money' and pushed the dealer I bought it from, despite them trying to say it was a fault with the vehicle and should go to the chassis manufacturer.
After two attempted repairs I drafted a simple letter quoting the relevant sections of the Consumer Rights Act informing them that the motorhome was rejected and I would be returning it.
I was then invited to meeting with the directors. It was a challenging meeting as they tried every trick in the book to get me to keep the vehicle etc. I stood my ground and was clear that the motorhome had been rejected, as they weren't able to provide a replacement then they had no option but to accept the vehicle back and refund.
This happened within 24 hrs.
The key was know your rights and stand your ground.
Interestingly, while looking for a replacement I found two similar vans from the same manufacturer, both a few months old for sale. One of the dealers was very open that the motorhome he had for sale had been rejected (due to the same fault). He was also open that the Consumer Rights Act left him with no option.
ADJimbo said:
TW, I would imagine, are likely to bounce-back and play a card along the lines of - it’s mechanical and not habitat so it’s nothing to do with us. Your issue lies with Fiat so take it up with them. This is when the ‘follow-the-money’ route comes into play as you contracted and transacted with TW - by virtue of the fact you bought your motorhome from them and paid them the funds for it - so the liability sits with them.
I'm not disputing your advice, but I do not agree with your "follow the money" comment. That means something different. In this case you are (rightly) pursuing the entity that you have a contractual and statutory arrangement with - the organisation on the other end of the contract - the people who sold it to you.Follow the money, as a phrase is used more often where you actually have a clear choice who to pursue, such a group of jointly and severably liable entities where you put your efforts into the ones that have a load of dosh. Not the poor ones.
Spuffington said:
So far TW behaviour has very much been to point towards Fiat Assist or the dealer network for the chassis at all times
As a current Fiat Ducato Series 8 & 9spd autobox motor caravan owner and a previous customer of TW I have taken a keen interest.I certainly hope that you obtain a satisfactory outcome but I think it is possible that TW will use interference by Fiat Assist and the Fiat dealer to obfuscate and avoid responsibility.
It is a poor arrangement that all the dealers are selling new motor homes but don't have dealer status with the base vehicle manufacturer.
I’ll keep you posted.
However given TW have Fiat Professional Workshop status and told me they have a Fiat Master Tech (who told me there was nothing wrong with the gearbox <500miles before it imploded), I would argue they are tied up in other the manufacturer.
But either way, they sold me (and took the money) for a dud, whether they knew it or not. I understand that’s what the Consumer Rights legislation is there to deal with.
However given TW have Fiat Professional Workshop status and told me they have a Fiat Master Tech (who told me there was nothing wrong with the gearbox <500miles before it imploded), I would argue they are tied up in other the manufacturer.
But either way, they sold me (and took the money) for a dud, whether they knew it or not. I understand that’s what the Consumer Rights legislation is there to deal with.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff