Jump to content

Doctor P

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    19
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Doctor P


  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. Any update on this please? Have you got evidence of the after care manager's intervention? It sounds as if this guy is really up for trouble.

     

    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. Section 9 of the Consumer Rights Act: –

     

     

     

    https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?448210-9-Goods-to-be-of-satisfactory-quality

     

     

    Alan Doherty is himself referring to "minor issues". The Act specifically refers to "minor defects" and makes it clear that to be of satisfactory quality, the item must be free even of "minor defects".

     

    At the end of the day satisfactory quality is measured according to the circumstances et cetera and also the price paid. Here you are talking about a £45,000 purchase which developed these faults within the first 24 hours or so.

     

    The Consumer Rights Act implicitly carries a presumption that if a fault manifests itself within the first 30 days that it is assumed to have been there from the beginning.

     

    I think it is time to stop discussing and for you to make your decision.

     

    I don't think there is anything more to be said. You've had the advice from us. Apparently you've had advice from a solicitor which concurs with our own. You have seen the reputation of Marquis and Alan Doherty over the Internet. It really is down to you now. I see that there have been 35 exchanges on this matter and this post will be number 36.

     

    I think you understand your position completely and it is now for you to make a decision and to decide whether or not to move ahead or to settle.

     

    I do notice that Alan Doherty's final sentence appears to invite some kind of compromise settlement. You may decide that you can get repairs done and also a cash settlement in order for you to put the matter to bed and to get on and enjoy the van. However, it seems to me that Alan Doherty has had a lot of experience in these kind of problems and so I would suggest that you don't sign anything before coming back to us.

     

    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!


  5. Section 20 of the Consumer Rights Act deals extensively with the right to reject - https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?448221-20-Right-to-reject

     

    There is nothing in this section which remotely suggests that if the dealer repairs something within the first 30 days that you then give up your rights. Citizens advice are talking complete nonsense. I can imagine that if you had something repaired by someone who was unconnected by the dealer then that might give the dealer a way out by saying that the intervention of a third party had very possibly broken the chain of causation/liability.

     

    I see also in section 20 that not only are you entitled to sue for a refund but also where a refund might be inadequate for some reason rather you would then be able to sue for an additional sum.

     

    subsection 19

     

     

    I have to say that you are simply going to confuse yourself if you start going round to different sources for advice. I'm afraid that Citizens Advice have lost their edge over the years – in exactly the same way as the Consumer Association (Which?) have also done – an entirely different animal than they were in the 60s and early 70s.

     

    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:

     

    " I have previously advised that it is not unusual for minor issues or the need for adjustments to manifest after an initial period of ownership especially concerning vehicles that are hand built. This is a situation that has been recognised by the courts with appropriate dispensation being applied. This is particularly relevant given there remains little in the way of precedent from the courts to provide guidance in respect of the October 2015 changes to the act.

     

    I am mindful of your arguments that you claim we are duty bound by statute to accept a rejection in this instance however, given our position that we believe the issues raised do not entitle you to a refund we are well within our rights to defend this matter. I would further point out that as this matter has been raised within the initial 30 day period since purchase which is not in dispute, the burden of proof is yours to provide evidence that the issues raised would render the goods not of satisfactory quality, not fit for purpose or not as described and you also have to prove the faults were present at the time of delivery. I have no knowledge of any supporting evidence provided by you to date and furthermore, should you be able to point me in the direction of the relevant legislation that stipulates that we are duty bound to accept a rejection without being given the opportunity to defend, I would be happy to review our position.

     

    We remain open to any sensible proposal to resolve this dispute however, we would like the opportunity to inspect your motorhome at Marquis Suffolk before any further consideration is given to your request to receive a refund."


  6. 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.

     

    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!


  7. 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!


  8. 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!


  9. 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.

  10. 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!


  11. 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!


  12. 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!


  13. 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.


  14. 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.


  15. 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)?

×
×
  • Create New...