Jump to content


Doctor P

Marquis Motorhomes - Dealer Refuses to Accept Vehicle Rejection

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 350 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Thanks very much. I should keep my expectations under control then!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think so. I think you will be better off dealing with it on your own. I can't see that some legal assistance will be able to provide anything extra – but it's your money and you make your own decisions.

 

In our experience solicitors generally end up in protracted correspondence and it's really only if you are a commercial client with big bucks and lots of future work that you can tell the solicitors to get on with it – or else. I think that dealing with some legal insurance company will become a frustrating experience.

 

As I say, if you have the energy and you are invested with sufficient anger then you can do it yourself.


Share this post


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.

 

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know a great deal about this, but hasn't S75 now been amended? I've a vague recollection of S75a which covers a higher amount. I've got £60,000 in my head, but I might be completely wrong as this really isn't my area. :|


We could use your help

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

 

 

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.

 

If I've helped you at all, please feel free to click on the little star under my posts and leave feedback :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

 

 

The relevant contractual date/time is the date that the contract is concluded and that means that it is the date which you take delivery of the item. It can hardly be correct can it that a retailer can agree to sell you an item which maybe you don't get for 30 days or 60 days and then when you get it you lose all of your consumer rights because your 30 days have expired.

 

The contract was not concluded until you received the vehicle in the condition in which you had agreed in the contract that it should be supplied to you.

 

I'm not at all aware that the statute provides anywhere that you lose your rights if you agree to repair within the 30 day period. I'm going to have another look and I will come back to you. I suggest that you ask citizens advice for the authority for this – meaning the section and subsection of the statute or else the name of case of a court of record in which that was the basis of the court's decision.

I can almost guarantee that they won't be able to tell you.

 

In terms of going to Trading Standards, there is no direct access for ordinary people to trading standards and in fact they are not in the business of dealing with individual complaints. If you want to know they have become rather inefficient/ineffective and see themselves as over secretive. They do not deal directly with the public and they seem to spend most of their time now acting only where there have been multiple complaints – and I mean, an awful lot, about a particular trader and their trading practice. Generally speaking Trading Standards tend to deal with complaints against traders where the trader is acting unfairly as a matter of practice or dealing unlawfully.

 

I'm afraid there is a lot of myth about Trading Standards and am sorry that citizens advice is providing you with this kind of information.

 

In terms of the refund, Citizens Advice are absolutely wrong and it's clear that they have not read the statute. You can either have the return of the item which you exchange – or else the full purchase price of the item for which you exchanged it if you're part exchange good is no longer available.

 

I'm very sorry but Citizens Advice are well-intentioned – but that's as far as it goes. They aren't bad on debt as long as you don't want to challenge the debt for some reason rather. They will help you organise your affairs but they won't deal with creditors assertively and help their clients recognise when debts are unenforceable or unfair.

 

Citizens are correct that if Marquis does still have your original motorhome then you would be entitled to have that return to you plus the £3000 – plus any other losses which you have incurred. For instance, you would have to have the heating unit uninstalled and put back in your original motorhome.

 

I completely agree that you should be entitled to have the value for which you contracted returned to you. In order to accomplish this, you would have to enforce your rights under the Consumer Rights Act, and then bring a separate action against Marquis to sue for additional losses.

 

It's all a very messy business – and I can imagine that this is where companies like Marquis are able to defeat the customers who complain because at the end the deals are so complicated and there is so much at stake, that the customers eventually find that it is easier to back off and to settle for something which they tend to regard is less trouble so they can get on with their lives. To a great extent I can't say I blame them


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

19 It may be open to a consumer to claim damages where there is no entitlement to receive a

refund, or because of the limits of the entitlement, or instead of a refund.

 

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.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know a great deal about this, but hasn't S75 now been amended? I've a vague recollection of S75a which covers a higher amount. I've got £60,000 in my head, but I might be completely wrong as this really isn't my area. :|

 

this would be interesting if you can give is the source of it – but I think that the figures still £30,000


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
this would be interesting if you can give is the source of it – but I think that the figures still £30,000

 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/section/75A

 

Reading that properly though, it might just be for when there's a credit agreement in place, which wouldn't suit in this case. My bad.


We could use your help

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

 

 

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.

 

If I've helped you at all, please feel free to click on the little star under my posts and leave feedback :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the item or service you are buying costs more than £30,000, the protection under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act won't apply.

 

Depending on the circumstances though, you may have protection under Section 75A. The price of the item or service must be more than £30,000 and the amount of credit the seller has arranged for you mustn't be more than £60,260.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Section 9 of the Consumer Rights Act: –

 

3 The quality of goods includes their state and condition; and the following aspects (among

others) are in appropriate cases aspects of the quality of goods—

(a) fitness for all the purposes for which goods of that kind are usually supplied;

(b) appearance and finish;

© freedom from minor defects;

(d) safety;

(e) durability.

 

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.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Incidentally, you might like to go back to the Motorhome people who have suggested that you contact Citizens Advice and tell them not to bother. If they are being faced with debt recovery agents who are trying to recover their motorhomes because they haven't been able to pay the instalments then Citizens Advice might be useful. If they are faced with an unreasonable landlord who won't carry out repairs or who is trying to evict them, then maybe Citizens Advice could be the place to go. But if you need a businesslike no-nonsense approach, then by and large – don't bother.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please start a new thread and you will get lots of help and advice.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

 

any update on this?


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I also have HUGE problems with Marquis :(

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't worry about the time and space being used up – as long as there is a sense that things are progressing. I'm not sure that's entirely clear at the moment.

 

Where are you on this now?


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by dx100uk
quote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you. This is very useful information. I understand that you made your choice after a lot of consideration and you have weighed up the pros and cons very carefully.

 

However let me say that you have been misled as to the need to involve the manufacturer. This is untrue. The manufacturer and their opinion has nothing to do with you. That is a problem which has to be resolved between Marquis and themselves. Your contract is entirely with Marquis and your decision to repair or to reject lies entirely with you and Marquis have no say in the matter.

 

I find that this kind of disinformation of a customer is quite unacceptable.

 

Also I have to say that the information you have been given that you would have to accept the return of the vehicle which you previously owned and which you part exchanged, is also not true. You would be entitled to receive the value of the new vehicle.

 

I'm very sorry to say that Marquis either deliberately or simply out of ignorance are not informing you as to the true legal situation.

 

I do hope that the news that I have given you here hasn't made you regret the decision you have made. It's a shame that you didn't come here for confirmation before you make your decision. It's also a shame that you didn't (I imagine) that you didn't get all this in writing from Marquis before you make your decision.

 

Anyway, it is probably water under the bridge now. The vehicle is going to be repaired. I would certainly send Marquis a letter making it clear that the vehicle has to be repaired to a proper standard and that you will have it inspected by an independent expert once the vehicle is returned to you and that if there is any doubt as to the quality of the work they have carried out, that they will find that there is still an ongoing dispute.

 

I'm afraid we have lots of experience here of garages agreeing to carry out work in order to resolve disputes – but later on it is discovered that the work is of poor quality. I'm not saying that Marquis could do this. Maybe they have great pride in what they do – but I think that you need to be fully aware and you need to be prudent. If you are asked to sign anything when the vehicle is returned to you, I would refuse. They can't possibly prevent you taking the vehicle away if you do refuse to sign any acceptance. Do not commit yourself to anything on paper. Take the vehicle away and have it thoroughly examined – especially the work which has been carried out.

 

Keep us informed


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also I have to say that the information you have been given that you would have to accept the return of the vehicle which you previously owned and which you part exchanged, is also not true. You would be entitled to receive the value of the new vehicle.

 

I'm very sorry to say that Marquis either deliberately or simply out of ignorance are not informing you as to the true legal situation.

 

With respect, you are incorrect. If the retailer still has the PX then it is their choice whether to reverse the deal and hand back the PX, if the retailer has sold the PX then they simply refund the PX value.

 

A consumer cannot refuse to accept the return of their vehicle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...