Jump to content


BankFodder BankFodder

Doctor P

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Doctor P

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Thanks very much for the detailed response. It was actually someone in the Consumer Action Group who indicated there could be a problem with the part exchange vehicle, if not already sold by the dealer. This was also a point made by our legal advisers, and it appeared that Marquis would try this approach before/instead of offering any refund or a replacement vehicle. On the positive side, it was also the case that our independent inspector indicated that there was not a major problem, and what was wrong with our vehicle could be put right in one/maximum two days, which persuaded us that (hopefully) we do not have a 'Friday afternoon' motorhome! We have told Marquis that we expect the vehicle to be repaired to a proper standard, but still need to put this in writing. More generally, I think a key point for anyone else who gets in this situation, is that it is very unlikely to be resolved quickly if going down the 'reject' route. The dealer knows this and will use it to try to persuade unhappy customers to have a repair done under warranty, rather than 'reject'. Of course, the dealer also benefits in another way, as there is a fee they will receive for carrying out the warranty work! A final thought, based on what has happened to us is that something does need to be done about motorhome dealers and the 2015 Consumer Act. As a starting point, it would be very interesting to know what % of customers actually have managed to get a refund or replacement since the Act has come in, and how long this process took.
  2. This could be the final update... We went to Marquis Ipswich on Friday morning. Marquis staff (Sales Manager and a technician) checked our motorhome in our presence and confirmed the faults that we had previously informed them about. They apologised - the first such gesture. They indicated that although most problems were 'minor', the hot water issue and bathroom door (previously reported) were 'more serious'. The Sales Manager phoned the After Care Manager immediately after the inspection and the response of the After Care Manager was to offer two possible solutions: 1) we have the vehicle repaired by Marquis under warranty, at no cost to us, 2) we reject the vehicle. However we were told that if we wanted to reject, this would involve Elddis. As the manufacturer, they would also have to agree to accept the rejection we were told. This could take several weeks we were informed. After discussion with Marquis staff we decided to have the vehicle repaired. This decision was not made without reluctance, but was influenced by: a) the presence of the technician who conducted the inspection informing us he would carry out the repairs (he indicated none were 'major') and he also said he would check to see if there were any other problems. b)the discovery that Marquis still have our part exchange vehicle for sale. As indicated previously, we have been informed that a dealer can return the part exchange vehicle plus a proportion of the cash we paid (some reduction would be made for usage of vehicle), if we reject. We did not want this as an outcome c) the fact that we were informed (as we suspected) there is no identical vehicle available from Marquis at present, so we could not get a replacement for several weeks, or longer. The combination of factors above led to the decision 'to repair'. Marquis asked us to leave the vehicle with them, which we agreed to and they then drove us 70 miles home in their company vehicle - a gesture we appreciated. Marquis indicated that the repairs should be completed in a week - we certainly hope they are is and that they are done well!
  3. Brief update.... We had an inspection of the vehicle carried out by an independent, but manufacturer-approved, engineer, at our expense. His interim report (a full one not yet completed) is that he found all but one of the faults we had reported (the dashboard tyre pressure warning light issue appears to have resolved itself), plus one we had not - a leaking waste water tank. This means water leaks out under the vehicle. This is not visible while driving the vehicle. The main interim conclusion is that the dealer failed to carry out an adequate Pre- Delivery Inspection (PDI) before handing it over to us. The independent inspector suggested that one fault showed up, at the PDI before hand over, this was the failure of the water heating system. The attempt to rectify the fault by the dealer, which we were informed about, after purchase, but before hand over, failed after hand over. We reported the interim findings to the Marquis After Care Manager. He responded that if he could receive a copy of the report, he would 'review the case'. We asked possible outcomes of his review, but he refused to give us an answer. However we are taking the vehicle back to the dealer tomorrow to enable them to carry out an inspection and we will be present during this. We will ask the dealer to report findings to the After Care Manager. This action does not mean that we will be asking them to repair the vehicle. We still reserve the right to reject the vehicle and proceed with legal action. We also contacted the manufacturer and they actually gave us the details of the independent inspector referred to above. However the Marquis After Care Manager then intervened, asking the manufacturer not to talk to us.
  4. Bad news! My problem is not yet sorted, but I have apparently used up lots of time and space on this thread so, as suggested, probably best start another one. Good luck!
  5. Thanks very much for this. Yes, I know I am using lots of time and space! We have made our decision - we want a refund or a replacement but Marquis won't agree. It looks like we will have to proceed with legal action (unless Marquis changes its mind, which seems unlikely but we live in hope!) Thanks very much also for getting the message out on Google!
  6. Many thanks for this information. I contacted Citizens Advice as this was suggested by a number of people on motorhome forums, and I was hoping that they would confirm what you and others have said. However this was clearly not the case! Since posting the original message above, I have been in contact with my legal advisers and their comments are largely in line with yous, I am pleased to report! I think Citizens Advice staff are confused over what happens in the ' less than thirty days' case, with an attempt to reject goods after 30 days (?) In the meantime, the After Care Manager at Marquis has responded. A long message this time (an indication that this is being take more seriously, perhaps?) although not particularly helpful. I will include the text below. Any comments would be very welcome! From A Doherty After Care Manager:
  7. In relation to trying to take this forward myself, I was advised on one motorhome forum to contact Citizens Advice and have spoken to them earlier this morning. They have given more detail on the process of the Act in operation re my motorhome referring to Trading Standards when doing so. Apparently the 'short term rejection' applies only if I have not asked the dealer in Ipswich to repair the vehicle. In effect, this appears to have happened as there was a fault before we received the vehicle, it delayed us by 4 hours on March 13 when we were meant to pick it up. However, this repair (to the water heater) has subsequently failed! In relation to some of the other problems (the habitation door and the bathroom door) I asked Marquis in Preston, while we were on our one and only trip, to attempt to sort out, as I was naturally worried about the security issue with the habitation door. They tried and these failed within the day! The dealer is only allowed one chance to repair, this seems to happened, and they have failed. Apparently this means that I am now at the 'final rejection' stage. This should make things easier I thought, but I am not sure. Complicating matters also is that as we traded in a motorhome (plus used a credit card to pay £3000).We cannot expect a full refund Citizens Advice say. (I now know that the credit card company will not refund the £3000 as the purchase price of the motorhome was above £30,000, so Section 75 does not apply) Citizens Advice say we could end up with our original trade-in motorhome plus £3000 (if the dealer has not sold the van). This not what we want. If I understand correctly, alternatively we could be offered an identical van to our new one, and this would be OK, or e.g. a £46,995 motorhome plus a £3000 in cash refund! (Not what we want). However there will have to be negotiations with the dealer on any desired outcome, they say. I am now more confused than before!
  8. 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!
  9. 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!
  10. 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: 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: We responded to the letter by email on March 28th, at 12:27 with the following message: Mr Doherty responded by email at 2:25 pm (full text below): Later on March 28th (at 4:30 pm) having spoken to our legal advisers again we sent the following email to Mr Doherty’s: Mr Doherty’s response (at 4:45) to our email is below. We then sent the following email at 5:43 Mr Doherty is away until April 3rd his automatic response indicated.
  11. 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!
  12. Just put it in and pressed 'Reply' but it took quite a while to enter info. so I guess I was automatically logged out(?)
  13. 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. 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!
  14. 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!
  • Create New...