Caravan Internal Leaks

fabledeb

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?

KeithP

Either Which have got it wrong or you are miss-quoting or quoting out of context.

Outside the initial 30-day period, which you are, the seller is allowed one opportunity of effecting a repair to an inherent fault. In this context a repair means restoring the goods so that they conform to contract.

If a problem then occurs due to a second inherent fault, beit the same or different cause to the earlier one, then you can exercise your final right to reject and, because you are within six months from the sale, demand a full refund.

This is explained in Note 136 of The Consumer Rights Act 2015 - Explanatory Notes.

neilmcl

fabledeb wrote: »

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?

It's pretty straightforward. The first 30 days you have access to the "short-term right to reject", outside of this if a repair is agreed then the seller is allowed a single opportunity to repair, if they fail to fix the fault and/or the item still does not conform to contract then you can exercise your "final right to reject".

dexterlivi

Retailer has been in touch earlier today. They have offered me a new van and they will transfer all equipment across IE motor mover etc. New van will be delivered in Feb. I am happy with the outcome. Will be even happier when van connected to back of car on collection day.

lincroft1710

dexterlivi wrote: »

Retailer has been in touch earlier today. They have offered me a new van and they will transfer all equipment across IE motor mover etc. New van will be delivered in Feb. I am happy with the outcome. Will be even happier when van connected to back of car on collection day.

Are you the same person as OP but with a different user name?

dexterlivi

Having read back through the comments, yes I am one of the same person although I can see that I have posted under my wife's login details on a couple of occasions rather than my own.Havnt a clue how I managed to do it and hadn't realised until you pointed out so thanks. Will need to be more careful. Genuine mistake, no intent.