Caravan Blackhorse - Caravan HP problems.refund issues..**WON VIA FOS**

[perplexity]

"Never argue with a fool. Onlookers might not be able to tell the difference"

 

-- (Mark Twain)

 

I shall therefore continue to suggest to read the legislation, to allow the law to argue for itself.

 

8)

[Kraken1]

which is the problem. You don't understand it, folk asking for advice don't understand it, and the vast majority of the legislation you post is irrelevant. Your advice is almost always wrong, confusing and perplexing to nearly everyone. On top of that, the legislation will almost certainly only be half the answer.

 

Don't just cut and post trash. Give advice. Any monkey can copy and paste stuff.

[Crapstone]

No perplexity I didn't read the link. I don't click on all links and read them in great detail for reasons that should be obvious. The OP stated their case and that's what has been advised on. If their facts are incorrect or they have made a mistake then it's down to them to decide and not for us to comment on.

[perplexity]

The legislation explains what it relates to. If in any doubt about it, the recitals to the European Directives are especially helpful.

 

If you rather think that the law is trash or is difficult to understand I suggest to complain to your member of Parliament or the European Commission.

 

I post the hyperlinks to save the time of those who were not yet aware that the resource exists or where to find it. If you rather they were not so aware, I shall not apologise for that, a shame though it is, but would rather they see for themselves what the truth of it is.

 

8)

[Crazy Diamond]

Still , Perpex?

 

Give it up, no-one is interested in what you have to say, least of all the author of the thread!

[perplexity]

Still , Perpex?

 

Give it up, no-one is interested in what you have to say, least of all the author of the thread!

 

 

That is a lie.

 

Did as suggested and got a result. Trading bargains have agreed to refund 100% of cost. Thanks to all who provided valuable comments and assisted with this outcome (especially Perplexity- u rock!!).

 

[Kraken1]

blah blah blah, EU, blah blah, Enterprise Act, waffle waffle cough cough.

 

and the only thanks you can drag up is from nearly a year ago? Nigh on 800 posts and one little green blob? The Creme-de-la-creme, obviously. Fundamentally misunderstood perhaps. Actually, having tried to decipher your posts I not surprised.

 

That said, in that thread you did actually give advice, true you posted links, but they were better than your norm. You also translated them - said what they meant. You also largely got it right, even though some of your references were off.

[Crazy Diamond]

 

That is a lie.

 

 

 

 

WOW, one whole sentence of thanks! I stand corrected!

[Crapstone]

Perplexity, you posted a link to an advertising site. That is what I was referring to and not any other links. Law isn't difficult to understand, once you grasp the basics., but I think one gripe here is that you aren't helping and would rather argue. This is something easily dealt with and I can't see CD or CAB taking your stance and quoting or saying what you have. It's a forum to HELP people and if you can't do that then walk away. It's complicated enough without someone talking in rhymes and riddles as an ego boost.

[Surfer01]

Update on the situation:- Trading Standards have decided that they are going to prosecute as the seller is clearly posing as a private individual in order to avoid his responsibilities as a trader. On one of his adverts on a specific website he clearly states that he is a private individual. When I questioned him about his status he again stated to me that he was a private individual and that they were selling the caravan as his family were all grown up and did not want to caravan any more. Apparently he was reported to the same TS previously but due to lack of evidence they were unable to pursue him.

Also there is a slight twist in the tale. As we had seen the ad at home and contacted him by telephone from our home and then made the purchase the Distance Selling Regulations kicked in, in addition to the sale of Goods Act. After purchasing the caravan and making the final payment we then discovered the descrepancies and contacted him initially by phone and this was within 24 hours. Further to that I sent a recorded letter to the seller asking him to either refund in full or pay us a difference of £200 as the goods were not as described. he ignored all requests. In essence he has now contravened the DSR if it is proved in court he is a trader. However either way as the goods were misdescribed or misrepresentated and whether or not a private seller or a trader in essence a full refund can be requested. On the latter this does not include faults so it looks as if TS are going to nail him on a few counts.

I am relaying this second hand from what TS told me and the notes I jotted down so I think I have got it right, but no doubt preplexing will disagree with what TS has to say on the matter.

[buzby]

DSR does NOT apply! It cannot. If you purchased the caravan FROM the phone call (and similarly arranged payment) never seeing the item until it was delivered to you, then perhaps. From memory, you phoned then went out to view, then purchase.

 

If TS told you this is a DSR matter, they're totally wrong. Also, I do not believe they'll prosecute with only a single verifiable complaint. But it really depends on how much money they have to spend.

[perplexity]

In essence he has now contravened the DSR if it is proved in court he is a trader.

 

 

Nobody should have to prove that anybody is a "trader" for the Distance Selling Regulations to apply.

 

The EU Directive 99/7/EC implement the Regulations, recital (22) of which is clear enough about it:

 

(22) Whereas in the use of new technologies the consumer is not in control of the means of communication used; whereas it is therefore necessary to provide that the burden of proof may be on the supplier;

---

Part 8 of the Enterprise Act also applies, whereby it must be construed that a business includes "any undertaking in the course of which goods or services are supplied otherwise than free of charge."

 

The mistaken notion that the law would not apply to a "private" individual in the UK is largely the doing of eBay, conspiring with the OFT to deprive the consumers of the full extent of their rights, so much the better for eBay's protection racket to succeed, as if to offer a so called "protection" that the law would not, which would not be a problem apart from the ignorance.

 

L'Oreal had the right idea, to do eBay for that. Instead of fishing for the small fry, fry the big fry. The rub is then that LOreal (as with the usual variety of the victims of this deception) are that much more concerned with their own balance of payments than they are with the public good.

 

8)

 

Whether or not the Distance Selling Regulations apply should rather be a matter of where and when the contract was concluded.

 

It is far from clear though that this would apply to the condition of goods if the arrangement was to pay after the goods were inspected. For as long as the commitment to buy and sell is not complete, a contract of sale is not concluded.

 

It is also inconsistent to apply the Distance Regulations and complain that the goods were not correctly described, because of section 10(2):

 

(2) Except as otherwise provided by these Regulations, the effect of a notice of cancellation is that the contract shall be treated as if it had not been made.

---

Mind you, that would not preclude an offence of misleading consumers which could be prosecuted under the CPUTRs albeit that nothing was actually sold.

 

On the other hand, recital (10) of the EU Directive may also apply:

 

(10) ....whereas, to that end, there is therefore reason to consider that there must at least be compliance with the provisions of this Directive at the time of the first of a series of successive operations or the first of a series of separate operations over a period of time which may be considered as forming a whole, whether that operation or series of operations are the subject of a single contract or successive, separate contracts;

That exists because it is not so unusual that a contract subsequent to a previous agreement depends upon the previous agreement. To sort it out the need would be to examine the terms and condition of the original website, in detail.

 

8)

 

P.S.

 

Nothing would surprise me from Trading Standards, either way. I have seen enormously different accounts of the way the local officers deal with issues over the years. That is why Consumer Direct came about, as an attempt to unify the practice.

 

-------

Edited December 16, 2010 by perplexity
P.S.

[Surfer01]

Perspex you really love posting a load of irrelevant rubbish and drivel.

[Surfer01]

DSR does NOT apply! It cannot. If you purchased the caravan FROM the phone call (and similarly arranged payment) never seeing the item until it was delivered to you, then perhaps. From memory, you phoned then went out to view, then purchase.

 

If TS told you this is a DSR matter, they're totally wrong. Also, I do not believe they'll prosecute with only a single verifiable complaint. But it really depends on how much money they have to spend.

I tend you agree with you as the contract was only started when we agreed the purchase and handed over the deposit. They look at it from the point where it was initiated but either way it seems there has been mis-representation. From what he was saying it seems like they have had another complaint or other complaints. Whether they do anything or not we are not too bothered as hopefully we will be able to enjoy the summer in some remote corner of the country. We have learnt by our mistake and have to live with it and enjoy it. 8-)

[perplexity]

The EU Directive 99/7/EC implement the Regulations, recital (22) of which is clear enough about it:

 

That was of course the wrong way round. The UK Regulations implement the Directive, word for word for the most part.

 

 

P.S.

 

... They look at it from the point where it was initiated ....

 

 

Thinking this through, they're probably right.

 

A typical transaction is a series of agreements rather than one single contract. If all you did was agree to meet a seller in order to negotiate, that of itself is a contract; if a seller fails to turn up you could sue him for that because of the waste of time.

 

A consumer should therefore be informed of the right to cancel from the start, as soon as a binding agreement of any sort is made. A contract need not be a contract of sale, for the Distance Selling Regulations to apply, so long as it's a contract "concerning goods or services".

 

8)

Edited December 16, 2010 by perplexity
P.S.

[Kraken1]

 

blah blah, complete tosh, further rubbish, nothwithstanding the foregoing codswallop, EU regs, Enterprise Act, blah blah.

 

There you go, fixed. Don't mention it.

[Crapstone]

I think TS have in mind the Doorstep Selling Regulations and NOT Direct Selling Regulations

 

All traders who enter into a contract with the consumer (whether written or verbal) in the consumer’s home; place of work; the home of another individual; or an excursion organised by the trader away from the trader’s business premises are likely to be affected.

[perplexity]

I think TS have in mind the Doorstep Selling Regulations and NOT Direct Selling Regulations

 

Seems to be clear enough and unambiguous to me:

 

As we had seen the ad at home and contacted him by telephone from our home and then made the purchase the Distance Selling Regulations kicked in, in addition to the sale of Goods Act.

[Crapstone]

Seems to be clear enough and unambiguous to me:

 

Direct Selling upon seeing the article for sale isn't to be relied on. SOGA also applies to the Doorstep Selling so perhaps there has been confusion in the term DSR as similar applies and if the trader didn't display the goods at his business address it would be a stonger case.

[Crapstone]

Nothing would surprise me from Trading Standards, either way. I have seen enormously different accounts of the way the local officers deal with issues over the years. That is why Consumer Direct came about, as an attempt to unify the practice.

 

 

Can you justify that statement? Just a minor question.

Edited December 17, 2010 by Crapstone
It needed a smiley to break the boredom

[perplexity]

Enormously different accounts of advice from Trading Standards are to be found online, if you find the time to peruse the various forums by way of google, though some of the most interesting stories will have vanished. Threads eventually disappear from eBay's Community Forum, for instance.

 

I am not intending to vouch for the truth of it, mind you. Perceptions vary, as do expectations.

 

There was but one occasion, many years ago, that I complained to Trading Standards. The officer was commendably friendly and helpful but all in all it was awfully time consuming and to no apparent effect because they deal with issues by passing information on to the office local to the trader, and the office local to the trader never saw fit to get back to me to keep me informed. All an all this was so completely discouraging that I never tried again.

 

To the extent that there is a common factor I guess that this is it. On the one hand there is never so much of a shortage of complaints to be made. They turn up here every day of the week but what on the other hand becomes of this as an end result?

 

The vast majority fizzle out. The anger of the consumer eventually burns itself out while the system trundles on, that much more determined to protect itself than it ever was to protect the consumer.

 

Here, by the way is a useful update and review, helpfully provided by the BBC:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11540624

[Crapstone]

Thanks for taking the time to explain. Consumer Direct was another smart idea that came out of TSI but none of the Officers I've known ever backed it up, it was the opposite. TS doesn't always keep the consumer involved. It can give advice but to protect what they do, it can't in every case say what is or isn't being done. They are not a dispute resolution service or an alternative to a solicitor or court action. I have no time at all for the TSI, but local area offices do a hell of a lot of work and are highly trained....it's the funding that's a problem. If the CAB replace Consumer Direct then they'd better get their act together and start getting their information right to help and not hinder the consumer.

[Surfer01]

On 10th May we ordered a front towing cover from Specialised Covers for a 2011 Lunar Delta TI caravan.

It cost £99 and we paid using a pre pay Mastercard. Cover was delivered on 7th June.

 

We then try to fit it onto the front of our caravan, but found that the rail across the front of the caravan protruded outwards for about two centimetres on either side.

When the cover was fitted, you could see that the material was stretched on the points of this rail on both sides.

We felt that after use, the rail would eventually wear through the cover.

They told us to put something over the end pieces to prevent premature wear.

I asked them why they had supplied the something and was told it was my problem.

 

We also notice that the cover covered up the front lights on the caravan.

Although they are visible through the cover in the dark, they are not very visible during the daylight in heavy rain.

 

We contacted the supplier who persuaded us it was okay and that we should try it out.

A day later we went on holiday and on towing we noticed the bottom front corners worked loose and started flapping in the wind thus accelerating wear.

 

On our return two weeks later the same thing happened despite us following the instructions to the letter.

 

Last weekend when we were away, we met up with another person who had the same caravan and the same cover.

He had exactly the same problem as us.

Bottom of cover comes loose within first 10 miles!

 

We then emailed the company about the cover giving them the opportunity to either modify, repair or refund, but they never responded.

 

If you look at their website you are unable to get a 2011 Delta TI off the drop down list.

In their returns policy they state no return due to it being a special order yet their website in numerous places states "Universal front towing cover".

Where do we stand with a return fo the cover?

 

Can we utilise the Distance Selling Regulations as we notified them of the issue verbally within two days of receipt of the cover, but at that point they persuaded us to keep it. Secondly can I do a chargeback and if so how long do you have to wait before you can do this?

Edited July 3, 2012 by Conniff

[raydetinu]

DSR regs give you 7 days to reject or return goods from receipt, so dont think you can use this now.

have emaied/writeen them with your problem and got any response ( dont phone ).

Was it specifically for your make of caravan and does not fit, then it is not fit for purpose and you can take them to court for a refund under SOGA.

Wthe regards to charge back you can make a claim, but you must have tried to resolve with trader first and send correspondance to them to support claim, also it normally only applies to goods costing in excess of £100, however I have been succesful for smaller amounts on an ex gatia basis.

[Conniff]

The DSR are exactly that i'm afraid, in the distance. You only have 7 working days starting the day after you receive it to reject and send back for a full refund.

 

I can't see a 2011 model that you own?