Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • ouch you really have been flying kites here and letting the claimant control things. it is worrying that the sheriff has tried several times to nail you about this (factious) payment,  but its also lucky and interesting to see he has not shut the door on your new issues . typically the situation you see yourself in, is one that we put the claimant in by our std defence (that you are reading now)    i think a bit of crawling is now in order( for want of another word) and it needs to be made 1000% clear to the sheriff ( even if by a little white lie) that it transpires there most probably never was any settlement made to HBOS by the ex   some vague explanation that he has confirmed he never did, and bring in the fact that he is a currently deployed by the UK military forces abroad we believe and communication has been to put it politely very difficult due to the nature of his deployment..it might also now be time to mention the mental issue ( with proof) , your daughter suffers from and how these obviously contributed to the situation and p'haps of being thus exploited by the EX whom if one were to be honest m'lud, is a bit of what someone would describe 'as a rouge'.   then your defence focus needs to switch to  (a) Provide a copy agreement/facility arrangement along with the Terms and conditions at inception, that this claim is based on. (b) Provide a copy of the Notice served under 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974 Demand/Recall Notice and Notice of Assignment. © Provide a breakdown of the excessive charging/fees levied to the account with justification. (d) Show how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed. (e) Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim. (f) Show how they have complied with sections III & IV of Practice Direction - Pre-action Conduct.   particularly a.b.c. explaining in concise but brief detail why each if not produced , is fatal to any enforcement of an OD debt claim   have you yet included  The court will be aware that penalty charges and the recoverability thereof have been judicially declared to be susceptible to assessments of fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 The Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National PLC and others (2009). I will contend at trial that such charges are unfair in their entirety.   in anything to the court to date.        
    • Re a possible s75 claim - is your Amex card a credit card?  I ask because it certainly used* to be the case that some American Express cards, although commonly described as credit cards, were actually charge cards (where you had to pay the whole of the outstanding balance at the end of the month) and were not credit cards - and therefore not eligible for s75 claims.   *  I suspect that these days all AmEx are credit cards, but you might want to check to be sure.  If it isn't a credit card you might want to consider what you use it for.
    • In reply to your earlier message, the payments were made regularly to the S/C and A/C that I provided.  The payment was always made to this account for the card using the PAN number, however the error payment was made without any reference to the same. Lloyds bank changed the reference number from the PAN of the card to 2686XXXX not sure who changed it to this if it was Lloyds or Lowell or when it was changed.  Then subsequently Lowell changed the A/C number again to their one that they quoted on the POC.    All I can ascertain is that the payment was made from Santander to the A/C above in error but after Lloyds had sold the Debt and Assigned it elsewhere. However, according to Santander the payment was made with no REF number sent with the payment.   I also received the order from the court yesterday which I have attached. There are several items that the court is asking to have for the hearing but haven’t had anything from the Claimant.   What is the best next course of action as the court is asking that we attempt to resolve this before the hearing?   Court Order.pdf
    • Car value apparently £2200. ( post #3 )   Car hire possibly £3000.   Wonder why the third party Insurers Admiral are refusing liability to pay !   Not sure ths is really about who is at fault for the accident, but is more to do with AX and their expensive courtesy car.   Pretty sure this claim would have been settled by Admiral, had the Sister dealt with this claim not using AX.   Think that a complaint to AX should be made, but possibly after sending them an SAR to request all information including any phone call recording where any courtesy car was discussed.    
    • Hi again, just a quick update.   The collection has been arranged for tomorrow, 6th March, the refund will apparently be processed after collection is done and should be completed within 5 working days.   Will let you know when it's completed...    
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies
  • Recommended Topics

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 820 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

Hi, a request for information and perhaps help.


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



How do I go about getting some advise please.


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

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


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


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

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


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


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

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


I am past patient and starting to get angry.

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

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




Edited by dx100uk
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds very much like a typical Marquis fob off.

Remind the dealer that your contract is with them and not with Fiat.

Is the motor home on HP?

Edited by dx100uk
Link to post
Share on other sites

PS Just received another email from Marquis.

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


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

Edited by dx100uk
Link to post
Share on other sites

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the replies.


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


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

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


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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

The fault had cleared.

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

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


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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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


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


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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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

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


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

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

I feel caught in the middle and taken advantage off.

Marquis in their last email seemed dismissive and almost rude.


Any advice would be welcome.







Edited by dx100uk
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

There is a Facebook group here https://www.facebook.com/groups/1655444494741569/ which is set up for people to share their marquis motorhome experiences – but in fact there are a lot of people complaining about the way they have been treated.


They won't give you the help and support and advice that we do here – but you may well want to go and join them in order to share your experiences.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...