Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • This is a ridiculous situation.  The lender has made so many stupid errors of judgement.  I refuse to bow down and willingly 'pay' for their mistakes.  I really want to put this behind me and move on.  I can't yet. 
    • Peter McCormack says he has secured a 15-year lease on the club's Bedford ground.View the full article
    • ae - i have no funds to appoint lawyers.   My point about most caggers getting lost is simply due to so many layers of legal issues that is bound to confuse.  
    • Lenders have a legal obligation to sell the property for the best price they can get. If they feel the offer is low they won't sell it, because it's likely the borrower will say the same.   Yes.  But every interested buyer was offering within a range - based on local market sales evidence.  Shelter site says a lender is not allowed to wait for the market to improve. Why serve a dilapidations notice? If it's in the terms of the lease to maintain the property to a good standard, then serve an S146 notice instead as it's a clear breach of the lease.   The dilapidations notice was a legal first step.  Freeholders have to give time to leaseholders to remedy.  Lender lawyers advised the property was going to be sold and the new buyer would undertake the work.  Their missive came shortly before contracts were given to buyer.  The buyer lawyer and freehold lawyers were then in contact.  The issue of dilapidations remedy was discussed..  But then lender reneged.  There was a few months where neither I nor freeholders were sure what was going on.  Then suddenly demolition works started.   Before one issues a s146 one has to issue a LBA.  That is eventually what happened. ...legal battle took 3y to resolve. Again, order them to revert it as they didn't have permission to do the works, or else serve an S146 notice for breach of the lease   A s146 was served.  It took 3y but the parties came to a settlement.   (They couldn't revert as they had ripped out irreplaceable historical features). The lease has already been extended once so they have no right to another extension. It seems pretty easy to just get the lawyer to say no and stick by those terms as the law is on your side there.  That's not the case   One can ask for another extension.  In this instance the freeholders eventually agreed with a proviso for the receiver not to serve another. You wouldn't vary a lease through a lease extension.  Correct.  But receiver lawyer was an idiot.   He made so many errors.  No idea why the receiver instructed him?  He used to work for lender lawyers. I belatedly discovered he was sacked for dishonesty and fined a huge sum by the sra  (though kept his licence).  He eventually joined another firm and the receiver bizarrely chose him to handle the extension.  Again he messed up - which is why the matter still hasn't been properly concluded.   In reality, its quite clear the lender/ receiver were just trying to overwhelm me (as trustee and leaseholder) with work (and costs) due to so many legal  issues.  Also they tried to twist things (as lawyers sometimes do).  They tried to create a situation where the freeholders would get a wasted costs order - the intent was to bankrupt the freeholders so they could grab the fh that way.   That didn't happen.  They are still trying though.  They owe the freeholders legal costs (s60) and are refusing to pay.  They are trying to get the freeholders to refer the matter to the tribunal - simply to incur more costs (the freeholders don't want and cant's afford to incur)  Enfranchisement isn't something that can be "voided", it's in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 that leaseholders have the right to.... The property does not qualify under 67 Act.  Their notice was invalid and voided. B petition was struck out. So this is dealt with then.  That action was dealt with yes.   But they then issued a new claim out of a different random court - which I'm still dealing with alone.  This is where I have issues with my old lawyer. He failed to read important legal docs  (which I kept emailing and asking if he was dealing with) and  also didn't deal with something crucial I pointed out.  This lawyer had the lender in a corner and he did not act. Evidence shows lender and receiver strategy had been ....  Redact and scan said evidence up for others to look at?   I could.  But the evidence is clear cut.  Receiver email to lender and lender lawyer: "our strategy for many months  has been for ceo to get the property".  A lender is not allowed to influence the receivership.   They clearly were.  And the law firm were complicit.  The same firm representing the lender and the ceo in his personal capacity - conflict of interest?   I  also have evidence of the lender trying to pay a buyer to walk.  I was never supposed to know about this.  But I was given copies of messages from the receiver "I need to see you face to face, these things are best not put in writing".  No need to divulge all here.  But in hindsight it's clear the lender/ receiver tried - via 2 meetings - to get rid of this buyer (pay large £s) to clear the path for the ceo.   One thing I need to clarify - if a receiver tells a lender to do - or not to do - something should the lender comply? 
    • Why ask for advice if you think it's too complex for the forum members to understand? You'd be better engaging a lawyer. Make sure he has understood all the implications. Stick with his advice. If it doesn't conform to your preconceived opinion then pause and consider whether maybe he's right.
  • 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 Motor Homes problems


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1968 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

Hi, a request for information and perhaps help.

 

I have just found this forum and this particular thread as I searched for help relating to a very similar issue I am having with Marquis

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?486134-Marquis-Motorhomes-Dealer-Refuses-to-Accept-Vehicle-Rejection&p=5157435#post5157435

 

How do I go about getting some advise please.

 

My problem relates to issues with my FIAT engine and the fact that my new Motorhome has spent weeks in the garage waiting to be repaired.

At present it is at week 8 of it's most recent visit to the garage with no sight of a repair anytime soon as parts are, and I quote "Not available".

 

I bought the Motorhome from Marquis in April 2017 and the faults started in April this year when the vehicle repeated went into limp mode with engine warning lights comming on. I contacted Marquis as the seller but they insisted I deal with FIAT.

 

However FIAT have been little better than usless and are baffled by the fault.

The vehicle has spent hours in the worshop as parts were changed and I was told it was fixed only for the same fault to retun days later.

 

I have been back to Marquis several times to ask as the seller that they get involved as I am getting no use from a £47,000 brand new Swift Motorhome with only 4700 miles on the clock. Each time I have got the same answer, " be patient, we are dealing with it at the highest level in FIAT" but still time moves on, my warranty is slowly expiring and I am paying tax and insurance on a vehicle that is spending more time off the road than on it.

 

This morning I got a call from Fiat to advise they still have no timescale for delivery of the required parts.

Then I received an email from Marquis in responce to an email I sent them, again telling me to be patient and refusing to give me the number and name of their head office.

 

I am past patient and starting to get angry.

It seems Marquis does not care and just prevaricate hoping I will go away.

Any advise on what I can or should do next would be very appreciated.

 

Thanks

Michael.

Edited by dx100uk
format
Link to post
Share on other sites

PS Just received another email from Marquis.

I have cut out and pasted here one sentence that sums up their attitude,

 

" whilst I sympathise with your situation we are under no obligation whatsoever".

Edited by dx100uk
quote
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no doubt that Marquis as the supplier of the van is completely responsible for it and the reference to Fiat could either be simply a sensible practical step or else it could be a fob-off. Either way, the liability remains with Marquis.

 

I'm sure that you have read the other thread to which you have already referred and you will see that for some reason rather Marquis don't seem to show a great deal of respect for consumer rights. This is pretty extraordinary given the value of the items that they are dealing with. Of course I suppose that they are encouraged by the fact that if somebody wants to sue then the action will be for more than £10,000 and so it will come off the small claims track and onto the fast track where the costs liability for somebody who loses become a fairly serious consideration.

 

However, on the basis of what you say, I have no doubt you are in the right and that if you are prepared to assert your rights then you will eventually win.

 

One thing I would certainly start doing is going round the Internet to the various review sites and start posting up your story and make sure everybody knows what is going on with Marquis. If you want you can point people to this website and to this thread – but that's up to you.

 

You could also cast around the Internet and if you find other Marquis stories then you could post links on this thread so we can gather all the stories of dissatisfied customers together in one place here. We would be happy to carry them.

 

Do you happen to know what is wrong with the motorhome? Is there anybody else in the country who might be able to repair it within a reasonable time?

 

And of course, I have to ask, is there any possibility that there really is a shortage of the necessary parts to repair it so that the amount of time which has been taken so far is justified?

 

I'm not suggesting that you need to tolerate this excessive time. Far from it. If it really is a question of the necessary parts simply not being available then given the excessive time that you have not had the use of your motorhome, I would say that this would give you grounds to treat the contract as terminated and to ask for a refund – or at least a very substantial part of your money back. You would have to make a deduction the use of the motorhome for one season. This might only be something like 5% of the purchase price. We would have to discuss it.

 

If the motorhome could be repaired more rapidly elsewhere then you would need to warn Marquis that you are taking the van away and that you will be holding them responsible for the cost of repairs and also any associated costs of moving it et cetera. You would also have to warn Marquis that as you were having the van repaired elsewhere because of their own inability the job done with they have to reimburse you your costs but also they would not be able to deny any warranty or any statutory rights in the future.

 

I think that you will have seen from the other thread how stubborn and how difficult Marquis are to deal with. I'm afraid that you're going to have to settle in for a long game and you will only achieve success if you are prepared to play very hard

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the replies.

 

A little background that may help answer some of the issues and questions raised.

 

I Bought the Motorhome new from Marquis Durham in April 2017 as a retirment present for my wife and I

I paid some cash and financed the rest through Clydesdale Bank Asset Finance.

 

Around April this year I received a recall notice from FIAT saying that my vehicle was subject to a recall due to an issue with a fitting on the Turbo that could cause the vehicle to go into limp mode unexpectedly particularly when under stress climbing hills etc. I called Marquis but was told that they could not help as the recall was from FIAT and that anyway they did not have the facilities to undertake mechanical work on FIAT vehicles.

 

They suggested I find a local FIAT commercial dealership who would undertake the work.

I was lucky in that Border Motorhomes in Ayr, close to were I live had just been a awarded a FIAT repair dealership to match their Motorhome Dealership and they were happy to do the work. They exlained however they would have to order the neccesary parts before I could bring the vehicle to them but the recall was non urgent so I was ok to continue to use the vehicle.

 

My wife and I then went on a short holiday in the van to the Scottish borders.

Whilst we were there the first hint of future problems arose.

Climbing a steep narrow hill the vehicle suddenly lost power, the engine warning light came on and then engine went into limp mode .

Unable to stop, I kept going to the top of the hill and then pulled into the verge and turned the engine of.

 

Remembering the recall notice, I gave it a few min and turned the ignition back on.

The warning lights were out so I tried restarting and the engine seemed to run properly.

I drove back to the campsite and called the AA who attended.

 

They however could find nothing wrong, there was a fault code but nothing serious and I was told it had reset itself and the vehicle was safe to drive.

I called Border Motorhomes who confirmed that if there was no engine warning light, the vehicle should be safe to drive but I should bring it into the workshop as soon as I was home for checking.

 

Two days later I took it into the workshop were it remained for a day but they could only confirm what the AA had told me.

The fault had cleared.

They explained that under the terms of FIAT warranty they could only carry out detailed investigation and work when there were fault codes present.

They did however carry out the recall work FOC and suggested that I keep an eye on things.

 

To keep this note short, over the course of the next few weeks the vehicle repeatedly went into limp mode, often in extremly dangerous situations for example twice on the M76 Motorway and once climbing a busy steep narrow road with walls on either side and nowere to stop. It bacame dangerous to drive and I just could not trust it.

 

Each time it went back to the FIAT worshop and each time the fault had reset and they could find nothing.

Finally, after a particularly dangerous situation I simply drove the van back to Ayr in limp mode and the engine warning on, drove into Borders FIAT workshop and kept the engine running whilst the mechanics were there.

 

They plugged in the diagnostic equipment and read the codes which they logged.

I left the vehicle with them but the next day the fault had disapeared again.

I refused to take the vehicle back until FIAT had given me answers.

 

The next few weeks were a farce as FIAT after much cajoling and angry telephone calls sent a mobile engineer to examine the engine.

He finally proclaimed himself satisfied there was a genuine intermittant problem and wrote up a report for Borders allowing them to start warranty work and replace the Turbocharger Unit.

 

FIAT Italy however still made life very difficult, first insisting that Border Motorhomes send them photos of all parts needing replacement, as Borders explained to me, this would mean them removing several major engine parts without any assurance that FIAT would pay for the work. It also added several days delay to a process that had already taken over a week.

 

Photos sent, I then got a call from FIAT telling me that the required parts were not available but as soon as a reconditioned unit was available it would be dispatched. If you are like me, you might want to look at that last sentence again. They intended, under warranty, on a vehicle that had done just over 4000 mile, to fit A RECONDITIONED PART.

 

Two weeks and a cancelled holiday, later , I got my Motorhome back with an assurance that all would now be well.

 

A week later I was stopped on the side of a busy dual carriage in Cumbria, trying to get in touch with FIAT’s breakdown service (RAC).

After waiting over two hours, we got the vehicle moved to a safe place at a local village whilst the RAC tried to make sense of the fault codes.

Needless to say, the vehicle started perfectly allthough the codes were still showing, but as the RAC said the vehicle seems fine to drive and he could find nothing wrong.

 

He followed us for 20 miles until it broke down again.

Same thing, into limp mode, warning lights on, down to 20 mph on a very busy dual carriageway.

Again nothing to be found and the vehicle started again fine.

 

We eventualy limped home but I had already organised to take the vehicle back to the workshop.

 

After several days and much head scratching , FIAT announced that they were picking up my van from Borders in Ayr (with all our belonging in it) and taking it to a specialised commercial dealership in Glasow, over 60 miles away as they had the specialist diagnostic equipment needed.

 

They have since claimed to have found the problem and have a solution but explained there are no parts available and as of Tuesday (6th Nov) this week have no date when the vechicle will be repaired. It remains in Glasgow to this day, almost 8 weeks.

 

During this whole sorry saga, I have spoken and written several stimes to Swift as the Motorhome Manufacture and to Marquis as the dealer who sold me the vehicle. I have asked both but particularly Marquis to apply all pressure they could on FIAT to repair my vehicle in a timely fashion. I also pointed out to Marquis that I was disapointed they refused to consider my request for a replacement loan vehicle whilst mine was being repaired.

 

I have from early in the conversations indicated my strong belief that this fault was present from new and that since it was advised to Marquis when it first became apparent, I still had the right to reject the vehicle as unfit for purpose i.e. Safe use as a MotorHome.

 

Whilst Swift have been helpful and agreed to apply pressure on FIAT, they have always pointed to Marquis as the company responsible for warranty.

Marquis have however taken the view that the problem was with FIAT and depite my Motor Home being unavailabe to use for a significat number of months and effectively unavailable to use safely for almost the whole year, I should just be paitent and wait for it to be repaired. When I asked what happens to my warranty and the fact that It will have run out in 6 months they tell me I should wait and they will consider things when my vehicle is back on the road.

 

On Monday this week, I got fed up with the prevarication and not getting any timescale for repair (and I don’t have faith it will not happen again) I wrote to Marquis, pointed out that I had, as they suggested, been very patient but there was a limit and that I thought the limit had been reached. I requested they give me a clear indication when I would get my vehicle back and what steps they would take to make good my losses for the last several months or failing this I would start the process of rejecting the vehicle via the Finance company.

 

As a final comment, I have kept the Finance company in the loop and they have been generally supportive. They too have tried reasoning with Marquis but as others have suggested Marquis seem to feel that once a Motorehome is sold they have no futher responsibiliy.

 

Sorry for the length of this post, I have left a lot out.

But in summary my Motor Home has been off the road and in the workshop for a substantial part of this year.

 

FIAT have addmitted that they can give no idea when the vehicle might be repaired and also said it could be weeks.

Marquis see it as a FIAT problem and FIAT don’t seem to have any sense of urgency and their customer service is frankly appalling.

I feel caught in the middle and taken advantage off.

Marquis in their last email seemed dismissive and almost rude.

 

Any advice would be welcome.

 

Thanks

 

 

 

Michael

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

Typical Marquis who think they are above the law. An acquaintance had the same issues with them and I think possibly at the same branch. Marquis held out to the very last moment, i.e. court steps and then offered the full refund etc.

As it was bought under the Consumer Rights Act, you will need to remind Marquis in writing by snail mail that they are totally responsible for ALL repairs to the vehicle. Secondly write to Clydesdale and inform them of the issues and that Marquis are ignoring the CRA 2015 as Clydesdale are the legal owners of the motorhome. From this point forward, keep everything in writing. May be an idea also to contact Trading Standards to get it on record.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...