Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • This is the other sign  parking sign 1a.pdf
    • 4 means that they need to name and then tell the people who will be affected that there has been an application made, what the application relates to (specificially "whether it relates to the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction in relation to P’s property and affairs, or P’s personal welfare, or to both) and what this application contains (i.e what order they want made as a result of it) 5 just means that teh court think it is important that the relevant people are notified 7 means that the court need more information to make the application, hence they have then made the order of paragraph 1 which requires the applicant to do more - this means the court can't make a decision with the current information, and need more, hence paragraph one of the order is for the applicant to do more. paragraph 3 of the order gives you the ability to have it set aside, although if it was made in january you are very late. Were you notiifed of the application or not?    
    • These are the photos of the signs. At the entrance there is a 7h free sign. On some bays there is a permit sign.  Also their official website is misleading as it implies all parking is free.  I can't be certain of the exact parking bay I was in that day, and there was no PCN ticket on my car and no other evidence was provided.  parking sign 2.pdf
    • Hi, In my last post I mentioned I had received an email from SS who were asking me to hand over the keys to my mother’s flat so they could pass them to the Law firm who have been appointed court of protection to access, secure and insure my mother’s property.  Feeling this, all quickly getting out of my hands I emailed ss requesting proof of this. I HAVEN’T HEARD BACK FROM SS.  Yesterday, I received an email (with attached court of protection order) from the Law Firm confirming this was correct (please see below a copy of this).  After reading the court of protection order I do have some concerns about it:   (a)   I only found out yesterday, the Law firm had been appointed by the court back in January.  Up until now, I have not received any notification regarding this.  (b)   Section 2   - States I am estranged from my mother.  This is NOT CORRECT    The only reason I stepped back from my mother was to protect myself from the guy (groomer) who had befriended her & was very aggressive towards me & because of my mother’s dementia she had become aggressive also.  I constantly tried to warned SS about this guy's manipulative behaviour towards my mother and his increasing aggressiveness towards me (as mentioned in previous posts).  Each time I was ignored.  Instead, SS encouraged his involvement with my mother – including him in her care plans and mental health assessments.   I was literally pushed out because I feared him and my mother’s increasing aggression towards me. Up until I stepped back, I had always looked after my mother and since her admission to the care home, I visit regularly.   .(c)    Sections -  4, 5 and 7  I am struggling to understand these as I don’t have a legal background.  I was wondering if there is anyone who might be able to explain what they mean.  It’s been a horrendous situation where I had to walk away from my mother at her most vulnerable because of; ss (not helping), scammer and groomer. I have no legal background, nor experience in highly manipulative people or an understanding of how the SS system operates, finding myself isolated, scared and powerless to the point I haven’t collected my personal belongings and items for my mother’s room in the care home.  Sadly, the court has only had heard one version of this story SS’s, and based their decision on that. My mother’s situation and the experience I have gone through could happen to anyone who has a vulnerable parent.    If anyone any thoughts on this much appreciated.  Thank you. ______________________________________________________  (Below is the Court of Protection Order)  COURT OF PROTECTION                                                                                                                                                                                   No xxx  MENTAL CAPACITY ACT 2005 In the matter of Name xxx ORDER Made by  Depty District Judge At xxx Made on xxx Issued on 18 January 2024  WHEREAS  1.     xxx Solicitors, Address xxx  ("Applicant”) has applied for an order under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.  2.     The Court notes (my mother) is said to be estranged from all her three children and only one, (me) has been notified.  3.     (Me) was previously appointed as Atorney for Property and Affairs for (my mother).  The Exhibity NAJ at (date) refers to (me) and all replacement Attorneys are now officially standing down.  4.     Pursuant to Rule 9.10 of the Court of Protection Rules 2017 and Practice Direction 9B the Applicant 2must seek to identify at least three persons who are likely to have an interest in being notified that an application has been issues.”  The children of (my mother), and any other appointed attorneys are likely to have an interest in the application, because of the nature of relationship to (my mother).  5.     The Court considers that the notification requirements are an important safeguard for the person in respect of whom an order is sought.  6.     The Court notes that it is said that the local authority no longer has access to (my mother’s) Property.  7.     Further information is required for the Court to determine the application.  IT IS ORDERED THAT  Within 28 days of the issue date this order, the Applicant shall file a form COP24 witness statement confirming that the other children of (my mother) and any replacement attorneys have been notified of the application and shall confirm their name, address, and date upon which those persons were notified.  If the Applicant wishes the Court to dispense with any further notification, they should file a COP9 and COP24 explaining, what steps (if any) have been taken to attempt notification and why notification should be dispensed with.   Pending the determination of the application to appoint a deputy for (my mother), the Applicant is authorised to take such steps as are proportionate and necessary to access, secure and insure the house and property of (my mother).   This order was made without a hearing and without notice.  Any person affected by this order may apply within 21 days of the date on which the order was served to have the order set aside or varied pursuant to Rule 13.4 of the Court of Protection Rules 2017 (“the Rules”).  Such application must be made on Form COP9 and in accordance with Part 10 Rules.              
    • Unless I've got an incorrect copy of the relevant regulation: The PCN is only deemed to have arrived two days after dispatch "unless the contrary is proved" in which case date of delivery does matter (not just date of posting) and I would like clarification of the required standard of proof. It seems perhaps this hasn't been tested. Since post is now barcoded for the Post Office's own tracking purposes perhaps there is some way I can get that evidence from the Post Office...
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Marquis Motorhomes - Dealer Refuses to Accept Vehicle Rejection


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1962 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

My wife and I bought a new Marquis Majestic 185 a month ago via the NEC show for £49,995 trading in another van.

We were told to pick the new 185 at the Ipswich branch

 

Before we could get it from there, a problem with a Printed Circuit Board (PCB) controlling heating and water occurred we were told

We live 70 miles from Ipswich and had to delay picking it up by 4 hours, we were informed the PCB had been fixed when we took possession of the van.

We drove it home with no issues.

 

The next day we began our first trip to Lytham in Lancashire, but there were a large number of problems.

Within 20 miles the habitation door would not close (a temporary repair was done at a garage on route),

the PCB problem reappeared, so we had no hot water,

 

the bathroom door would not shut, the toilet locker door would not shut securely,

the tyre pressure warning lights came on the dashboard several times despite inflating the tyres and remained on.

 

The alarm went off several times randomly, whether we were in or outside the vehicle, a hose hanging under the rear of the vehicle was touching the ground and some white tape under the rear of the vehicle was dragging along the ground.

As we were near, Marquis Preston agreed to try to fix the bathroom door (failed after ten minutes driving) and the alarm - failed within the day.

 

Under the 2015 Consumer Rights Act we have indicated to Marquis in writing that we want to reject the vehicle (can be done within 30 days of purchase) and either have a refund or a replacement vehicle. Marquis After Care Manager is saying 'No' to either of these.

 

The Legal Helpline at one motorhome club indicates we are completely within our rights to reject under the 2015 Act.

 

As Marquis are 'playing hardball' (to quote the legal helpline), we are planning Legal Action.

Any thoughts on this plan of action or alternatives would be very welcome and greatly appreciated.

 

Anyone else experienced this type of problem with Marquis (or other dealers)?

Edited by honeybee13
Paras
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Please will you space and punctuate your questions properly. It's extremely difficult to read solid blocks of text online and it discourages people from helping you.

 

I'm going to sort this one out for you that I be grateful if you would do it yourself in future. Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, you are quite right. You have the short-term right to reject the item if it develops a fault/defect within the first 30 days of the contract date. As you appear to have done already, you should inform them in writing that you are rejecting the vehicle and they are obliged to refund you the purchase price and any losses that you have suffered.

 

I think it is extremely important that you get rid of it in order to reduce the complications. This means that you should return it to the dealer and leave it on their forecourt. Take a witness with you and make sure you photograph it after you have locked it up so that there are no issues about damage or any other mysterious things that they might say happen to it.

 

How did you pay for it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are these the dealers you bought it from https://www.marquisleisure.co.uk/ ?

 

@MarquisLeisure

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please will you space and punctuate your questions properly. It's extremely difficult to read solid blocks of text online and it discourages people from helping you.

 

I'm going to sort this one out for you that I be grateful if you would do it yourself in future. Thanks

 

Thanks very much for this. I only entered in this way, as there appeared to be a space/word limit when typing info, particularly as there was reference to Twitter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

no no limits at all.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, you are quite right. You have the short-term right to reject the item if it develops a fault/defect within the first 30 days of the contract date. As you appear to have done already, you should inform them in writing that you are rejecting the vehicle and they are obliged to refund you the purchase price and any losses that you have suffered.

 

I think it is extremely important that you get rid of it in order to reduce the complications. This means that you should return it to the dealer and leave it on their forecourt. Take a witness with you and make sure you photograph it after you have locked it up so that there are no issues about damage or any other mysterious things that they might say happen to it.

 

How did you pay for it?

 

I have done what you have indicated in the first paragraph - letters and emails. Marquis (After Care Manager) has written back they are 'under no obligation to accept my rejection'.

 

Re returning it, this is exactly the point where I have reached with the legal helpline staff - they are getting back to me on Tuesday having had a team discussion about the return (this was the last thing they told me in as phone call on Thursday evening). The slight problem is that I have a Gaslow system fitted, so will have to have this removed before returning it, and finding someone quickly over Easter may be difficult.

 

'Paid' via the part exchange and a small amount, the balance £3000, on a credit card. I have already been in contact with their Disputes team and awaiting reply.

 

Thanks very much for your rapid response.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Under no obligation to accept your rejection? :|

 

 

Oh boy, have they got a motorhome sized surprise heading their way :lol:

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Marquis Leisure: https://www.marquisleisure.co.uk/

 

Marquis Leisure is a Trading Name of Auto-Sleepers Group Limited: http://www.auto-sleepers.com/

 

Auto-Sleepers Group Limited

Orchard Works

Willersey

Broadway

Worcestershire

WR12 7QF

 

Company Number: 03978237

 

Company Type: Private Limited Company

 

FCA Register: https://register.fca.org.uk/ShPo_FirmDetailsPage?id=001b000000MfWdGAAV

 

Companies House link: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/03978237

 

Endole link: https://suite.endole.co.uk/insight/company/03978237-auto-sleepers-group-limited

 

BizDb link: http://www.bizdb.co.uk/company/auto-sleepers-group-limited-03978237/

How to Upload Documents/Images on CAG - **INSTRUCTIONS CLICK HERE**

FORUM RULES - Please ensure to read these before posting **FORUM RULES CLICK HERE**

I cannot give any advice by PM - If you provide a link to your Thread then I will be happy to offer advice there.

I advise to the best of my ability, but I am not a qualified professional, benefits lawyer nor Welfare Rights Adviser.

Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course it is extremely disappointing for this company to think that they are entitled to have discussions about whether or not to honour their statutory obligations. I would suggest that you make sure that all the motorhome forums know about this and until Marquis Leisure make a very clear statement on their website that they will uphold proper standards and treat their customers fairly, people should steer clear and buy their vehicles elsewhere.

 

I hope they are not going to come back to you and suggest that in some way it is your fitting of extra equipment which has caused the problem. I suggest that you read our customer services guide and implement the advice there so that you record all calls. Also after any conversation you have make a detailed log and confirm the conversation in writing. It is important to have a paper trail.

 

A tweet of this thread has been sent out and @Marquisleisure will have received a copy so if they bother to read their tweets they will know that this is being discussed on this forum and they will be aware of the advice we are giving you. This will help to concentrate their minds and realise that by not properly honouring customer contracts – which include statutory consumer obligations – then they will cause more damage to the reputation than they might otherwise save by attempting to dodge their responsibilities.

 

I would start putting together a list of all the losses that you will have incurred by the time they accept your rejection – which will happen either voluntarily or as a result of court order. Tell us what those losses are here.

 

This would include the installation and then the removal of the unit you have had fitted. Any expenses incurred in getting the vehicle to the fitter. Any other time wasted, for instance collecting the vehicle from Marquis Leisure or returning it – although it would be their responsibility to arrange the collectionThere is also the huge problem of the part exchange.

 

If they have disposed of the vehicle then we have a very knotty problem to deal with and I suppose the only solution would be that they refund you the advertised sale price – but if you feel that this puts you at a disadvantage then your to explain it to us here. Bear in mind that Marquis leisure may read this thread now – and that is no bad thing.

 

When this matter is resolved, then if you feel that we have helped you, you might like to let other motorhome owners on the specialist forums know about us and the help we give for free.

 

It would also be very helpful if you could post up some of the emails which you have received from Marquis Leisure in which they decline to honour your consumer rights

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks very much for your supportive message.

Marquis in Ipswich actually fitted the Gaslow bottle, as it was in my part exchange vehicle and they just installed it in the new 185. However the blown air heating works in the 185, as do the oven and three gas burners on the hob. It is the gas part of the water heater/boiler that does not work and was where the problem lay that delayed us picking up the vehicle - clearly they have not repaired it properly.

 

We have correspondence in written form - emails and letters. The After Care Manager at Marquis cannot be contacted by phone!! Perhaps this should tell us something!

 

I am not quite certain what you mean by the 'huge problem of the part exchange'.(?) Please explain.

 

We will be happy if Marquis refund us the price we paid (in effect £49,995) or very near to this if they want to reduce the amount slightly as we have done about 750 miles (do we have to accept this reduced amount?). Our main expenses are related to having to cancel part of a planned trip due to the problems, having paid a site fee in advance and returning the vehicle to Ipswich which is 70 miles away and having to use our car to get home if and when they agree to the rejection. However, should they send someone to pick up the vehicle?

 

I will certainly make sure that motorhome forums are aware of the help and advice you are giving.

 

Thanks very much!

Edited by dx100uk
quote
Link to post
Share on other sites

Under no obligation to accept your rejection? :|

 

 

Oh boy, have they got a motorhome sized surprise heading their way :lol:

 

 

I certainly hope you are right! I am getting lots of support from the Action Group so I hope I am successful!

 

Thanks very much for this info. I knew they were linked to Elddis, but not that they were part of Auto-Sleeeper.

 

It would also be very helpful if you could post up some of the emails which you have received from Marquis Leisure in which they decline to honour your consumer rights

 

I have just tried to put all the communication with Marquis up here, but it has disappeared! I will try again in the next couple of days!

Link to post
Share on other sites

how did you try to do it?

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

yep

use notepad first then copy n paste

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good buffer is that you paid £3000 by credit card, so worst case scenario you can always do a section 75 claim.

That would probably be my preferred solution considering that you have written evidence that they've refused your statutory rejection.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good buffer is that you paid £3000 by credit card, so worst case scenario you can always do a section 75 claim.

That would probably be my preferred solution considering that you have written evidence that they've refused your statutory rejection.

 

Thanks very much. I have already contacted the credit card company and they are in the process of setting in motion the Section 75 claim. This is also to show Marquis we are serious about this!

Link to post
Share on other sites

yep

use notepad first then copy n paste

 

Communication with Marquis

Initially (March 20th) we sent an email with a letter attached to the salesman at Marquis in Ipswich. An automatic message indicated he was away. We then phoned Marquis, Ipswich and asked who we should send our letter to. Marquis Ipswich Sales Manager initially refused to give us a name!! However, my wife managed to get the name of Alan Doherty (After Care Manager). On March 22nd we forwarded by email our original letter which detailed the list of faults (as indicated in our first post on this, above) to Mr Doherty and asked for a refund. We also attached another letter addressed to Mr Doherty himself, making it clear we wanted a refund. The main text of this is below:

 

Dear Mr Doherty,

……..This letter to you is to confirm what was indicated in that message:

‘As we are within the thirty-day period after purchase we would like to exercise our rights within the Consumer Rights Act 2015 to reject the motorhome and demand a full refund’

We would like a full refund on the vehicle (purchase price £49,995) minus an amount proportionate to our usage in the nine days since obtaining the vehicle on March 13TH.

We would like this matter to be resolved and our refund provided within 14 days (by April 5t , 2018). Please confirm when and where you would like the vehicle returned.

Mr Doherty responded by letter on March 23rd , but this letter only reached us by post on March 28th as it was sent by second class post. (NB it is not possible to contact Mr Doherty by phone we were informed by Marquis staff). The main points in this letter, using Mr Doherty’s words, are below:

 

….I note that you refer to the Consumer Rights Act of 2015 and have based your request on your belief that you are entitled to a refund in this instance. Whilst I acknowledge that you have experienced some initial issues I do not accept that these matters constitute fundamental defects that would entitle you to reject the goods……….. The list of issues presented are considered in minor (sic) and easily resolved. The repairs that need to be completed will be done as a contractual arrangement under the terms of the manufacturer’s warranty and not a statutory repair under the provisions of The Consumers Rights Act 2015.

We responded to the letter by email on March 28th, at 12:27 with the following message:

 

Dear Mr Doherty,

Thank you for your letter of March 23rd which we received this morning.

 

We are however, disappointed with your reply. Legal advice we have received previously and obtained again earlier this morning confirms that the vehicle is 'not of satisfactory quality' due to the large number of faults and that under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, we have a right to reject it and demand our money back.

 

However, we want to have a motorhome, and in a spirit of compromise, we are willing to consider a replacement vehicle as an alternative to a full refund. This will be on the basis that it does not incur any further payment/costs for us. If you are not willing to accept this, we will have no alternative, but to take legal action to obtain the full refund.

Mr Doherty responded by email at 2:25 pm (full text below):

 

Dear

 

I acknowledge receipt of your email below dated 28th March. It is clear from your comments that we remain in disagreement in respect of Consumer Rights however, our position remains unaltered. For the avoidance of doubt your request to receive a replacement vehicle is rejected.

The offer to repair your motorhome remains open for acceptance.

Later on March 28th (at 4:30 pm) having spoken to our legal advisers again we sent the following email to Mr Doherty’s:

 

Dear Mr Doherty,

Following on from our earlier message, we have taken further legal advice. Please see the following, which relate to points in your messages:

 

With reference to your comment about 'minor' issues, please see the Consumers Rights Act (2015), Section 9 'Goods to be of satisfactory quality' in particular point 9.3.c. 'freedom from minor defects’. In addition, see Section.9 3a and 9.3d.

 

Please note that we are not required under the Consumer Rights Act to have the vehicle repaired within the first 30 days but can indeed reject it.

 

Please also note in relation to your point about carrying out repairs 'under warranty', this is a choice. If we do not want to use this, we are not required to do so under the Consumer Rights Act. To confirm we do not want repairs carried out under warranty.

 

To confirm that we want a full refund and if you do not give a full refund within 14 days, we will have no hesitation in taking legal proceedings against the company.

 

However, we hope it is not necessary to take this action, so, we ask once again when and where we can return the vehicle and receive the refund?

Mr Doherty’s response (at 4:45) to our email is below.

 

I acknowledge receipt of your email below the contents of which are duly noted.

We are fully conversant with the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and discuss case details on a regular basis with our legal advisers. Whilst I acknowledge that you wish to reject the goods, we are under no obligation to accept your request and that remains our position.

This dispute clearly concerns the disagreement over what constitutes satisfactory quality and whilst I note your advisors claim the issues are not minor, we wholly disagree with this viewpoint.

We then sent the following email at 5:43

Dear Mr Doherty,

Thank you for your response. Please note our message which refers to points 9.3c of the Consumer Rights Act (2015) which indicates that we can reject the vehicle on the grounds of 'minor defects' (even though we regard them when added together as far more serious than this) as 'it is not of satisfactory quality'.

 

As we have been advised by our legal team, under the Consumer Act (2015) you are indeed under obligation to accept our request to reject the vehicle.

Mr Doherty is away until April 3rd his automatic response indicated.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know who these lawyers are that he says he discusses this with regularly, but I hope he doesn't pay them very much.

 

Also, if this is his attitude then it scarcely surprising that he has to discuss this kind of thing regularly. Have you looked around the Internet to see what people generally think of this company? I would suggest that you start writing the story up on some of the review sites as well as the motorhome forums. I know that you are all a pretty active and quite tightly bound community. Amazing really that some people are prepared to sacrifice their company's reputation.

 

The £45,000 motorhome, starts to exhibit defects after less than a day or so's use.. I think most reasonable people who have just parted with £45,000 can draw their own conclusions

 

I'm a bit shocked

 

https://www.benimarownersclub.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=533

 

http://www.magbaztravels.com/content/view/1551/357/

 

http://www.autosleeper-ownersforum.com/t17270-let-down-by-marquis-again

 

http://www.motorhomefacts.com/forum-printtopic-1-41342-60-0-asc-viewresult-1.html

 

http://www.groblers.co.uk/page3/

 

http://www.magbaztravels.com/content/view/1866/357/

 

https://twitter.com/search?l=&q=%22marquis%20motorhomes%22&src=typd&lang=en

 

https://www.motorhomefun.co.uk/forum/threads/bessacarr-e765-poor-repairs.11813/

 

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1655444494741569/search/?query=marquis

 

Maybe you could join their Facebook group

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well this company does get interesting as it seems that Marquis Leisure/Auto-Sleeper was acquired by the 'Trigano Group' approx Jan 2017 who are a french company.

 

https://www.practicalcaravan.com/news/42608-british-giant-marquis-leisure-bought-by-trigano

 

Trigano Group: https://motorhome[problem]pervans.net/trigano-group/

 

Trigano Group: http://www.trigano-finance.com/en/news/news.asp

 

Companies House: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06874019/officers

 

Endole: https://suite.endole.co.uk/insight/company/06874019-auto-sleepers-investments-limited

 

Bizdb: http://www.bizdb.co.uk/company/auto-sleepers-investments-limited-06874019/

Edited by stu007

How to Upload Documents/Images on CAG - **INSTRUCTIONS CLICK HERE**

FORUM RULES - Please ensure to read these before posting **FORUM RULES CLICK HERE**

I cannot give any advice by PM - If you provide a link to your Thread then I will be happy to offer advice there.

I advise to the best of my ability, but I am not a qualified professional, benefits lawyer nor Welfare Rights Adviser.

Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, thanks, I have just found out that Trigano are the owners now!

 

To update CAG members I have put messages on the AutoSleeper Forum and also the Marquis Facebook page (thanks whoever sent me the link!)

 

The FB page has produced over 50 responses since mid-afternoon yesterday and 90% are extremely critical of Marquis (e.g. 'I would not buy a tent peg from Marquis'). One or two people report a good experience, but several people have said I should park my motorhome outside the Ipswich branch with warnings about Marquis plastered all over it, others suggested an occupation of their offices, yet others, activities which are almost definitely illegal!! However, this indicates the real annoyance with Marquis by many people, some of whom have been through a similar experience to ours recently, and Marquis are described as the 'worst motorhome dealer' by a number of people.

 

However, this social media activity may be having some benefits for my wife and I.

 

Around 9pm yesterday, I received a FB message from someone who knew that I had been in contact last week with the After Care Manager at Marquis. This person is i/c the Social Media Account at Marquis and has reported the Marquis FB comments to the After Care Manager. I have been told that he will contact me tomorrow. I hope, but am not convinced that this will lead to a satisfactory resolution of our issue!

 

I will let CAG members know what happens.

 

Thanks very much for your help!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds promising – but I'm sorry to say that the name of the After Care Manager seems to come up quite a lot as being the person who may be a little difficult to deal with. Of course there are probably lots of people who haven't had any problems at all.

 

As far as I can see, complaints about Marquis Motorhomes mostly seen to date from about 2014. Before that there doesn't seem to be a lot of discontent. Maybe you would like to doublecheck that timeframe if it's right it might be worth asking what happened from about 2014. It is that the date of their acquisition by the French?

 

I suppose it's entirely possible that the French imported their Parisian culture onto this company.

 

However, it can't be all bad because they seem to be a huge company and so there must be lots of very satisfied customers. It seems to me that for the most part customers may be happy. It's doesn't seem to be a question that Marquis Motorhomes generally does a bad job. If you are a big company and all sorts of bad things can happen. It seems to be more a situation that once they do get it wrong, they seem to dig their heels in and they are very bad putting things right.

 

Currys and PC World are especially guilty of this kind of thing. They are fine to deal with until the going gets rough – then for some reason rather jobsworths within the company seem to take things personally and seem to think that they are doing the company a favour by dominating their customers and saving the company a few bob – regardless of the cost to their reputation. Npower is a utility company which acts exactly in this way. Vodafone is the mobile phone company equivalent.

 

Maybe every industry has its jobsworth company – and maybe in the case of motorhomes it is Marquis?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks very much for this. Yes, I will wait to see what Mr Doherty has to say - if he does indeed contact me as indicated by his staff member!

 

Marquis may well be the 'jobsworth' company. We have previously bought privately or nearly always through smaller local companies. They do seem more concerned about customer care - reputation in the local area is seen as important, I guess!

 

However, my wife and I realised last night, that we have dealt with Marquis before - we bought a new motorhome from them in 2013, but this was via their Devon branch and there were no problems - they even delivered the MH, to Ipswich, which is our nearest branch. This was a cheaper, more standard, 'entry' vehicle, made by Elddis - not so many bits to go wrong!! Our Majestic is also made by Elddis, but the Majestic is a special vehicle made just for Marquis.

 

I am not certain how long Trigano have been in charge, but on Autosleeper forums, there seem to be lots of problems with Marquis going back quite awhile.

 

One good piece of news for us is that we have discovered that we have legal insurance, not via the MH, but our car, and the insurers seem quite keen to get their teeth into this! Assuming it gets that far, which we hope in many ways that it does not, as it will probably drag on for weeks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I'm sorry to rain on your parade, but the experience we have on this forum is that the legal assistance provided by legal insurance schemes is generally speaking half-hearted and unambitious. I'm not too sure how they make their money but I'm sure it includes a percentage of the settlement which would explain why they are keen. Don't imagine that it simply your insurance premium that pays them.

 

We find that they are picky and that they prefer to fight surefire winners, that they prefer to get involved in some kind of settlement rather than going all the way to win – and this tends to be because they are anxious to close the file and to claim their fee.

 

I could be wrong – but get ready to start a new discussion about this a new thread if it starts to go pear-shaped.

 

If you have the energy for it then the best person to take any claim forward is yourself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...