Thank you for this update. In terms of the information which you received about the return of your part exchange vehicle. It was I who gave you this information – but maybe I didn't make myself clear. According to the Consumer Rights Act you have an entitlement to have your part exchange good return to you. However, there is no indication in the CRA that you are obliged to. So if Marquis have told you that if you insist on rejecting the MH that you will be forced to accept the return of your vehicle, they are misleading you. You are entitled to have the value of the contract returned to you. In fact we could extend this. If you made a particular good bargain so that the item you expected to receive had a value greater than its purchase value, then you would be entitled to have that greater value. In effect this could mean that you could make a profit out of the contract. The aim of contractual remedies is to put you into the position that you would have been if the contract had been executed successfully. In other words contract law proposes to put you into your post-contract position in terms of value.

Of course there should be no need to put it in writing that you want the MH repaired to a proper standards – but it doesn't harm anything to put them on notice. Especially important though is to make sure that you don't sign off any work. If they want to know why then I think that you could quite easily tell them that they have damaged your confidence in them and you are only prepared to accept the repairs after a period of having tried the van out. In other words, if they don't hear back from you again then they can assume that it's okay.

You say that these problems are unlikely to be resolved quickly if they go down the reject route. If you are dealing with a decent business that cares about its reputation and cares about its customers, then they would be no difficulty at all. The problems only come when you deal with companies which prefer to hang onto their money rather than to their reputation. A complicating factor, of course, is that you are dealing with items substantially more expensive than the small claims limit of £10,000.

I can tell you that if the MH had been worth less than £10,000, we would have advised you to issue the court papers without any of this protracted to-ing and fro-ing that you have been involved in. Once Marquis had received the court papers, you would have found that their attitude to you would have been transformed. Unfortunately when you are dealing with high value items, being court action under the fast track rules means that you are at risk of paying the winner's costs if you should lose the claim. In that event, it calls for a rather different approach – although I'm sure that if you had sued Marquis that your chances of success would have been much better than 95%.

I also would be interested to know how many customers actually managed to get a refund or replacement since the CRA – but this is not something we will ever be able to discover.

The anything we can all do is to try and encourage better behaviour from these companies by using Internet forums such as this 1 to make other potential customers aware of what they are dealing with.

You seem to be confident that you have a solution. Please do keep us updated. Please do take the time to let other unhappy campers know that then come here if they have their own problems with Marquis or any other company or in respect of any other issue

If the buyer wants to reverse a deal within 30 days and the dealer accepts, they have absolutely no right to insist their PX must be purchased by the dealer instead of it being returned. You are giving extremely bad advice and preaching it as a FACT when you are completely wrong.

We had an issue with rejecting a caravan last year in 2017 and were successful.

As per Bankfodders post above we ended up in a situation where the finance company insisted we take back the traded in caravan which had been traded in a year previously.

Initially it was a game of letter tennis however as a member of the Caravan Club I made an appointment for a CC approved MCEA technician to check the traded in caravan which had been on the dealer's forecourt for a year. At that point the finance company and dealer backed down and we were given a ful refund and also compensation for the hassle as they knew that there may be issues with the caravan after a year.

Unfortunately throughout the rejection process the Financial Ombudsman sided with the finance company although it was clearly obvious that the finance company was not following the rejection process as per the Consumer Rights Act 2015 even though I did a "copy and paste" of the CRA legislation in each bit of correspondence that I sent them..

It was only when I requested the complaint to the FOS be escalated that the next advisor agreed with everything we had said and the evidence supplied.

I had joined an online Legal Service and got the correct advcie from them which helped win our case.

The cost to join was less than £100 per annum for as much legal advcie as required.

I am aware of another customer who also bought from Maquis and battled for nearly 18 months to get a refund.

I have found my way here and am currently a way into trying to reject a brand new campervan that has caused us so much grief. It’s been so helpful to read this. Thank you.

Welcome to the forum and please will you post your story on a new thread. This helps people find you more easily when they want to give you help and advice and also allows us to understand far more easily the scale of the problem which is being caused by Marquis Motorhomes

We have been blocked from their Twitter feed!!!

@MarquisLeisure

There is a Facebook group here https://www.facebook.com/groups/1655444494741569/ which is set up for people to share their marquis motorhome experiences – but in fact there are a lot of people complaining about the way they have been treated.

They won't give you the help and support and advice that we do here – but you may well want to go and join them in order to share your experiences.