# Argos 747 Creases in Side Panels



## 120994

Has anyone else noticed creases appearing round the rear garage doors on both sides and also round rear top windows. We first noticed this when motorhome 3 months old and reported it to dealers RDH. They offered to put filler in but when we declined and said it wanted investigating as to the cause they washed their hands of it. The creases have gradually got worse and they have accused us of having an accident although we know we haven't.


----------



## Jean-Luc

I shudder at the thought, but could it be the back end drooping as a result of too much weight in the garage or perhaps the bolts connecting the main chassis to the chassis extension, if there is one, have become loose and the reduced support has caused the back end to droop.


----------



## carol

I suppose you need to find out if any others of the same model have had the same problem, I have a horrible feeling I have read somewhere that someone else had a similar problem, but can't recall what model it was on, perhaps you could add a poll to the post and see...

Just a thought

Carol


----------



## 96299

Hi

Not had this problem with our's and not heard of anyone else with it either. Please post back here if and when you know more about this "creasing" problem to make others aware.

Have you got any photo's you could show us ? and do you overload the garage area at all. ?

steve


----------



## 120994

Thank you for your interest. We have not overloaded it, we even have a letter from RDH saying it was not caused by overloading but by an accident- possibly speedbumps!! We are the older generation who look after our motorhome and travel within speed limits so if it has been caused by speedbumps (which are unavoidable in this country) shouldn,t we have been warned? Our previous vehicle was a Burstner 747 2005 model and we didn't have any problems at all. I will try and put a poll on but not sure how to do it yet.


----------



## goldfinch

*argos 747 creases in side panels*

Hello,i have got a late 2007 argos and i have notice on both sides at the back top just above the lights ;a line crease is that where your marks are?


----------



## EJB

I assume that if the body structure is the same on all lengths of MH the longer (8m 8O ) ones must flex rather a lot?

I have never seen any comments on this subject before!


----------



## 96299

EJB said:


> I assume that if the body structure is the same on all lengths of MH the longer (8m 8O ) ones must flex rather a lot?
> 
> I have never seen any comments on this subject before!


No niether have I. Some photo's would be usefull so's to stop all the guessing.

steve


----------



## 120994

The only way I can explain it is that the creases start at the top corners of the garage door and the top corners of the window at the side (back end) of the camper. They are identical on both sides of camper and are shaped like an apostrophe. There is also excessive rubbing (wear) on insides of wheel arches. I am getting some photos to put on.
The wheel arches are not under warrenty and RDH Motorhomes have sent us a solicitors letter saying they refute any liability as the vehicle was of satisfactory quality when sold to us. It was brand new and there were no signs until we had been using it fir three months.


----------



## maddie

Whoa whoa and thrice whoa :lol: I can see a trip to citizen advice coming  
terry


----------



## Wizzo

MOTHERBROWN said:


> There is also excessive rubbing (wear) on insides of wheel arches. I am getting some photos to put on.
> The wheel arches are not under warrenty and RDH Motorhomes have sent us a solicitors letter saying they refute any liability as the vehicle was of satisfactory quality when sold to us. It was brand new and there were no signs until we had been using it fir three months.


I agree with Terry, I think you may need some initial advice. RDH have obligations under the Sale of Goods Act which they cannot wriggle out of and if the wheel arches were part of the motorhome as supplied then they will also be under warranty.

RDH's solicitor's letter seems to be a bit of a scare tactic hoping that you will back down. I'm frankly rather surprised that the solictor would do this knowing that RDH's liability stretches to at least 5 years.

It does sound as though the whole back end is flexing or moving from what you describe and the quicker you get some expert advice and reports the better.

JohnW


----------



## Mashy

*Argos 747 Creases in side panels*

If your van is under warranty there is no way your dealer can suggest that they are not liable to repair the fault.
It may be worth weighing your van. Gross, front axle and rear axles together to ensure you are not inadvertently overloading it.
If it is not overloaded then the wheel arches should not be rubbing against anything (I assume you mean your tyres) The vehicle is built and designed to carry specifice weights on all axles and if it cannot achieve this then it is not fit for purpose. If the wheel arches are rubbing at the top inside then there could well be a fault with the suspension. Again if so it is a fault and has to rectified. Keep an eye on your tyres because if they are fouling the wheel arches whilst the vehicle is loaded they can over heat and blow at worst or certainly have a very short life span.
Regards
Mashy


----------



## 120994

These are some of photos


----------



## time-traveller

I have to say, MOTHERBROWN, that those photos don't look too good for a comparatively new van. If it was mine I'd get an independent engineers report on it without further procrastination. You DO need to know whether it's your fault or not by means of an independent and therefore unbiased inspection before you can take the matter forward. It's alright for members to beat the drum and advise you of your rights, but you DO need professional advice FIRST. Those creases aren't exactly cosmetic faults and subject to differing levels of personal acceptance - something serious and expensive has happened. The dealer maintains that you have 'bumped' it - you 'know' you haven't, but is there a possibility that a third party has perhaps backed into it whilst you left it unattended in a car park, for instance? Easily done and you wouldn't have known. An independent inspection would clear the decks (or not) in this respect and then you'll know which route to take. It may even develop into an insurance claim rather than a warranty issue.



MOTHERBROWN said:


> These are some of photos


----------



## JohnsCrossMotorHomes

I seem to remember there was a recall on some MH conversions regarding increasing the clearance of the rear wheels from the rear wheel arches.

Perhaps some one can remember where it was.

Vague feeling it was Burstner but I could be entirely wrong

Peter


----------



## time-traveller

*Re: Argos 747 Creases in side panels*

Sorry Mashy - but aren't you contradicting yourself when you write ....

_If your van is under warranty there is no way your dealer can suggest that they are not liable to repair the fault. 
It may be worth weighing your van. Gross, front axle and rear axles together to ensure you are not inadvertently overloading it. _

It seems to me that if they ARE overloading it, albeit 'inadvertently', then the dealer CAN suggest that they are not liable to repair the 'fault' (for 'fault' read 'damage' in this case)



Mashy said:


> If your van is under warranty there is no way your dealer can suggest that they are not liable to repair the fault.
> It may be worth weighing your van. Gross, front axle and rear axles together to ensure you are not inadvertently overloading it.
> If it is not overloaded then the wheel arches should not be rubbing against anything (I assume you mean your tyres) The vehicle is built and designed to carry specifice weights on all axles and if it cannot achieve this then it is not fit for purpose. If the wheel arches are rubbing at the top inside then there could well be a fault with the suspension. Again if so it is a fault and has to rectified. Keep an eye on your tyres because if they are fouling the wheel arches whilst the vehicle is loaded they can over heat and blow at worst or certainly have a very short life span.
> Regards
> Mashy


----------



## time-traveller

I don't understand what you mean when you write

'_The wheel arches are not under warrenty _'

How can the van be under warranty and the wheel arches not?
Am I missing something?



MOTHERBROWN said:


> The only way I can explain it is that the creases start at the top corners of the garage door and the top corners of the window at the side (back end) of the camper. They are identical on both sides of camper and are shaped like an apostrophe. There is also excessive rubbing (wear) on insides of wheel arches. I am getting some photos to put on.
> The wheel arches are not under warrenty and RDH Motorhomes have sent us a solicitors letter saying they refute any liability as the vehicle was of satisfactory quality when sold to us. It was brand new and there were no signs until we had been using it fir three months.


----------



## Bubblehead

Hi

Im quite shocked by the photos of your van, this should not happen to a van of this age. There is a Burstner recall for a modification to the rear suspension, our Aviano is at Southdowns at the moment having the work done - I dont know if it is required on the 747 though. I would check under the rear bumper to see if there is any damage that may indicate accident damage. I must say though that for accident damage to cause this creasing your rear bumper would be hanging off!

I agree with the statments above re the warranty issues, RDH cannot exclude this. Do you have another Burstner dealer near you who may be able to give you advice? You also need independant advice and a letter to RDH rejecting their letter and requesting that they resolve the issue or prove via an independant source that it was caused by an accident

Andy


----------



## 120994

Thanks for comments so far, we have had the vehicle inspected and sent the report to RDH, we were advised to ask for our money back but received a solicitors letter in reply. When we originally took the camper back after 3 months the after sales manager said it could be filled but we wanted to know the cause, we have also had it weighed and it is not overweight. We are interested in the recall mentioned - was it because the suspension was low?


----------



## time-traveller

You say you've had the van inspected? By an independant engineer?
Did they come to a conclusion then? What do THEY say the cause is?



MOTHERBROWN said:


> Thanks for comments so far, we have had the vehicle inspected and sent the report to RDH, we were advised to ask for our money back but received a solicitors letter in reply. When we originally took the camper back after 3 months the after sales manager said it could be filled but we wanted to know the cause, we have also had it weighed and it is not overweight. We are interested in the recall mentioned - was it because the suspension was low?


----------



## an99uk

*Argos 747*

He won't be able to reply to you time-traveller unless he subscribes.

He has used up all his free posts


----------



## time-traveller

*Re: Argos 747*

Oh! What a pity - it's like reading a serial and missing the last one!

Thanks an99uk (I always wonder how one arrives at a monika like that)
:idea:



an99uk said:


> He won't be able to reply to you time-traveller unless he subscribes.
> 
> He has used up all his free posts


----------



## an99uk

*Re: Argos 747*



time-traveller said:


> Oh! What a pity - it's like reading a serial and missing the last one!
> 
> Thanks an99uk (I always wonder how one arrives at a monika like that)
> :idea:
> 
> 
> 
> an99uk said:
> 
> 
> 
> He won't be able to reply to you time-traveller unless he subscribes.
> 
> He has used up all his free posts
Click to expand...

I agree, the next chapter has been torn out of the book.
Hopefully he will read this and open his wallet. :lol:

As to my monika, actually its Angie not Monica :lol:

Seriously, no mystery really, its my initials plus a memorable number plus where I come from. :roll:


----------



## 121326

*RDH MOTORHOME CENTRE - BURSTNER 747*

As a Director of RDH I have followed this thread with interest, but now feel I have to put the record straight on this one. We take ALL customer issues very seriously at RDH, so of course we were very concerned when our customer reported creasing to the bodywork of his Burstner. We asked the customer to bring the vehicle in for inspection. What our technicians found was that an impact has caused the creases. Inspection of the underside of the towbar revealed deep scoring from an impact, such as reversing up a steep driveway or bottoming out on some form of obstacle. We also took the time to speak to the manufacturer and other Burstner dealers. There have been no instances of a "Fault" causing creases to the bodywork of this nature.

We expressed our strongly held opinion to the customer that this was not a manufacturer fault and therefore, was not covered by the warranty on the vehicle and that we would of course be happy to get the vehicle repaired on normal commercial terms. The customer responded by writing to say that he wanted to reject the vehicle and that he would be speaking to a lawyer. At this stage we were duty bound to respond via our lawyers, setting out our view of the situation with a request that we be allowed to arrange inspection by an independent expert. We have had no further direct contact from the customer.

We are here to help and support our customers and will always fight their corner in a dispute. However, in this instance there was no grey area. The damage was clearly caused by an impact and whilst it pains us to be in dispute with a valued customer we cannot pursue warranty claims which we know to be false.


----------



## 96299

Hi 

It's good to hear both sides of the story. From what you say, it has thrown a completely different light on it.

steve


----------



## nukeadmin

Welcome aboard RDH
good to see another dealer raising their heads above the parapet to face customer queries here.

I re-iterate what Chigman says in that sometimes Dealers / Traders are portrayed in a way that the member wishes to show their side of the story is correct. I am obviously not privy to who is correct but it is good to hear both sides of the story


----------



## maddie

:lol: 2 sides to every story  
Thanks RDH for your input & welcome,do not be strangers :lol: 
terry
MOTHERBROWN,I would consider on how to make a claim on your insurance. Be careful on what ,how and when the damage was done so as to leave them no wriggle room !!!! 8O


----------



## RichardnGill

I saw an A class Tag at a dealers that had rolled of a ramp backwards and it had very similar damage to the sides as this van looks to have. 

I am pleased it looks as though it is an impact as we have just taken delivery of a tag on an alko. 


Richard...


----------



## time-traveller

Absolutely ! It seems to me that MOTHERBROWN suffers from a selective memory. There is no doubt in my mind who is telling the _'truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth'_. Good for you standing up for yourself RDS.

It makes me wonder how many more of those vicious and vindictive anti-dealer rants I keep reading are actually 100% truthful. I can think of one or two others that I would've like to have got to the bottom of !



Chigman said:


> Hi
> 
> It's good to hear both sides of the story. From what you say, it has thrown a completely different light on it.
> 
> steve


----------



## time-traveller

Now I find this a very interesting piece of advice, Maddie, when you've just read that MOTHERBROWN hasn't been exactly totally free with the truth to begin with. In fact - to be blunt - MOTHERBROWN would appear to me to have tried to make a fraudulent claim on RDH and Burstner for damage for which THEY have categorically denied doing. They even went to the extent of threatening legal action causing RDH expense in having to defend themselves. And now you advise them to make an insurance claim and to _Be careful on what ,how and when the damage was done so as to leave them no wriggle room !!!! '_ It strikes me that MOTORBROWN doesn't need ANY lessons from you or anyone else on 'how to wriggle' ! Lack of Integrity springs to mind.


----------



## MrsW

time-traveller said:


> Now I find this a very interesting piece of advice, Maddie, when you've just read that MOTHERBROWN hasn't been exactly totally free with the truth to begin with. In fact - to be blunt - MOTHERBROWN would appear to me to have tried to make a fraudulent claim on RDH and Burstner for damage for which THEY have categorically denied doing. They even went to the extent of threatening legal action causing RDH expense in having to defend themselves. And now you advise them to make an insurance claim and to _Be careful on what ,how and when the damage was done so as to leave them no wriggle room !!!! '_ It strikes me that MOTORBROWN doesn't need ANY lessons from you or anyone else on 'how to wriggle' ! Lack of Integrity springs to mind.


In view of the categoric statement that this vehicle has only been driven appropriately and has not been accidentally damaged I am not sure on what grounds MOTHERBROWN would have any appropriate reason to claim from the insurance company. I hope no-one would suggest a change of story now as this would imply that somewhere along the line there had been, shall we say some inaccuracies?

Although I would not dream of suggesting it to be the case here, I believe it is important to remember that fraudulent insurance claims are causing significant increases in the premiums we are all paying.


----------



## maddie

time-traveller said:


> Now I find this a very interesting piece of advice, Maddie, when you've just read that MOTHERBROWN hasn't been exactly totally free with the truth to begin with. In fact - to be blunt - MOTHERBROWN would appear to me to have tried to make a fraudulent claim on RDH and Burstner for damage for which THEY have categorically denied doing. They even went to the extent of threatening legal action causing RDH expense in having to defend themselves. And now you advise them to make an insurance claim and to _Be careful on what ,how and when the damage was done so as to leave them no wriggle room !!!! '_ It strikes me that MOTORBROWN doesn't need ANY lessons from you or anyone else on 'how to wriggle' ! Lack of Integrity springs to mind.


All I am saying is he needs to think of when and how it happened ! it is no use saying I do not know when or where it happened :lol: just needs to be able to recall where he bottomed out or reversed into something.
terry


----------



## Bubblehead

Hi

Its good to get the other side of the story from RDH, however before every one condems Motherbrown its important to remain focused on the problem. I dont think that Motherbrown would persue something that could so easily be discredited. 

Could this damage have happended prior to he getting the MH? It seems odd that in the 3 months hes owned it, he didnt notice the rear grounding out, which caused this damage. Could this have been done during delivery - off loading from the transport truck etc

Also of note is the fact that the damage is getting worse, could this be a sign of structual failure?

Also what about the damage to the wheel arch liners, it suggests that the Burstner recall work is required, could this be the root cause. Why isnt a wheel liner covered under warranty when Burstner are doing recall work?

Im not saying that Motherbrown or RDH have got their fact wrong or indeed right but this sounds like a case of failure to communicate. Did RDH show Motherbrown the damage to the underside of the rear. He implied that RDH had told him it was rear damage (ie from being rear ended by another vehicle) and not underside damage / impact.

Would you all be so quick to condem him if you were in the position of buying a brand new MH and knowing that you havnt damaged it find it to be failing apart within 3 months? (easy with the Fiat comments)

If it wasnt done by Motherbrown, and wasnt done by RDH then I suspect the damage may have been caused during delivery and neither RDH or Motherbrown are at fault - they are just left with the result.

I susspect that you will never find a satisfactory solution to this one  

Andy


----------



## time-traveller

Yes, I appreciate what you're saying, Terry, but what I'M saying that if MOTHERBROWN can now _'suddenly recollect' _the circumstances that caused the problem, what does THAT say about his claim against RDH?
It isn't have if he'd posted the problem WITHOUT mentioning the dealer concerned - it is quite evident that at least one of his priorities was to blacken the name of RDH and by implication Burstner as well. There are too many posts that try to do this with no justification - but not many are seen to come unstuck like this. It's as well that RDH were monitoring MHF - although as I note the date of their joining I suspect it was a loyal customer who initially brought it to their attention.



maddie said:


> time-traveller said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now I find this a very interesting piece of advice, Maddie, when you've just read that MOTHERBROWN hasn't been exactly totally free with the truth to begin with. In fact - to be blunt - MOTHERBROWN would appear to me to have tried to make a fraudulent claim on RDH and Burstner for damage for which THEY have categorically denied doing. They even went to the extent of threatening legal action causing RDH expense in having to defend themselves. And now you advise them to make an insurance claim and to _Be careful on what ,how and when the damage was done so as to leave them no wriggle room !!!! '_ It strikes me that MOTORBROWN doesn't need ANY lessons from you or anyone else on 'how to wriggle' ! Lack of Integrity springs to mind.
> 
> 
> 
> All I am saying is he needs to think of when and how it happened ! it is no use saying I do not know when or where it happened :lol: just needs to be able to recall where he bottomed out or reversed into something.
> terry
Click to expand...


----------



## time-traveller

So .... the van was damaged BEFORE delivery, was it?

And it took MOTHERBROWN over three months to 'notice' those very evident creases, did it?

Words fail me !!

I give up

And the holocaust didn't happen, either !



Bubblehead said:


> Hi
> 
> Its good to get the other side of the story from RDH, however before every one condems Motherbrown its important to remain focused on the problem. I dont think that Motherbrown would persue something that could so easily be discredited.
> 
> Could this damage have happended prior to he getting the MH? It seems odd that in the 3 months hes owned it, he didnt notice the rear grounding out, which caused this damage. Could this have been done during delivery - off loading from the transport truck etc
> 
> Also of note is the fact that the damage is getting worse, could this be a sign of structual failure?
> 
> Also what about the damage to the wheel arch liners, it suggests that the Burstner recall work is required, could this be the root cause. Why isnt a wheel liner covered under warranty when Burstner are doing recall work?
> 
> Im not saying that Motherbrown or RDH have got their fact wrong or indeed right but this sounds like a case of failure to communicate. Did RDH show Motherbrown the damage to the underside of the rear. He implied that RDH had told him it was rear damage (ie from being rear ended by another vehicle) and not underside damage / impact.
> 
> Would you all be so quick to condem him if you were in the position of buying a brand new MH and knowing that you havnt damaged it find it to be failing apart within 3 months? (easy with the Fiat comments)
> 
> If it wasnt done by Motherbrown, and wasnt done by RDH then I suspect the damage may have been caused during delivery and neither RDH or Motherbrown are at fault - they are just left with the result.
> 
> I susspect that you will never find a satisfactory solution to this one
> 
> Andy


----------



## 120994

I am horrified to read that people think I have not been truthful - I can assure you I am. I started this thread to find out if anyone else has had this problem, not to discredit anyone. I wonder if the Director has all the facts. We took the vehicle back after three months for some warrenty work and pointed out the creases which were just starting. RDH said they thought it had been caused by an accident but they could repair it with filler. As we knew we hadn't had an accident we wanted to establish the cause. When we returned for the vehicle RDH said they had taken photos to send to Burstner and would let us know the outcome. We did not hear from them. Creases got worse, we had an independent assessor's report which we sent them We went to trading standards who advised us to write and then received letter from Director stating that it had been in an impact and offering to repair on a commercial basis. We then took further advice and wrote again, then received a solicitors letter. We are now awaiting a further report from our insurers - we cannot prove to the insurer that we HAVE had an accident - and can't prove to RDH that we HAVE NOt had an accident so we have to rely on expert reports.


----------



## JockandRita

MOTHERBROWN said:


> I am horrified to read that people think I have not been truthful - I can assure you I am. I started this thread to find out if anyone else has had this problem, not to discredit anyone. I wonder if the Director has all the facts. We took the vehicle back after three months for some warrenty work and pointed out the creases which were just starting. RDH said they thought it had been caused by an accident but they could repair it with filler. As we knew we hadn't had an accident we wanted to establish the cause. When we returned for the vehicle RDH said they had taken photos to send to Burstner and would let us know the outcome. We did not hear from them. Creases got worse, we had an independent assessor's report which we sent them We went to trading standards who advised us to write and then received letter from Director stating that it had been in an impact and offering to repair on a commercial basis. We then took further advice and wrote again, then received a solicitors letter. We are now awaiting a further report from our insurers - we cannot prove to the insurer that we HAVE had an accident - and can't prove to RDH that we HAVE NOt had an accident so we have to rely on expert reports.


Hi Motherbrown,

I was going to stay out of this thread, however, it pleases me that you have paid your subs, and come back to defend yourself. Good on you, as I feel that if you were dishonest, we wouldn't have seen you again, after RDH's reply.

If "hand on heart" you are genuine about the damage not being your fault, then stick to you guns. 
I wish you luck, in finding an acceptable solution, as I feel that you are going to need it.

Jock.


----------



## 96299

Motherbrown. Have you any photo's of the wheelarch problem, this part of it I just dont get. it's all a bit sketchy and needs clearing up,

steve


----------



## maddie

Hi Motherbrown,it sounds like you have already informed your insurers so make it clear to them what is happening,and that you intend to persue a claim if you get no satisfaction from RDH / Burnister. Was it goldcrest who is having probs also ??
tery


----------



## Bubblehead

time-traveller said:


> So .... the van was damaged BEFORE delivery, was it?
> 
> And it took MOTHERBROWN over three months to 'notice' those very evident creases, did it?
> 
> Words fail me !!
> 
> I give up
> 
> And the holocaust didn't happen, either !
> 
> Time traveller


Thank you for your well measured response to my post, balanced and added so much to the thread - NOT

None of us know how much Motherbrown has used his MH, in what light conditions, is it kept at home in view every day or in storage etc etc. It was stated that it was gradual and is progresive.

One day may we all be as observant as you and notice the smallest detail immediatly, however let us hope we all dont have to compare the holocaust to a bit of damage on a MH

Andy

PS: As you have given up and words have failed you I dont expect a response


----------



## Penquin

Like JockandRita I am very pleased to see you back on here - the whole situation seems very difficult to explain and will probably be similarly difficult to resolve, either via RDH or via your insurance company for the reasons you have stated.

I wish I could offer words of advice but I cannot think of any easy way to sort this out, there are obviously two sides to every situation and in this case the views of both seem to be fully justified.

I do hope that a way through this can be found and that you will be able to resume use of your vehicle a.s.a.p., do keep us informed as to what is happening, similarly I hope that RDH will also be able, and willing, to keep us informed. Sadly, from what has been described, it sounds expensive!


----------



## Bubblehead

Chigman

The letter from Burstner re the rear wheel arches is as follows:

Kehl, 15 October 2008

*Security measure in order to refit the Burstner motor homes Model 2007 and 2008 on FIAT Ducato Maxi Chassis*

Identity number of the vehicle *******
Bodywork number *******

Dear Sir or Madam

On November 2007 we have informed you by Mail of the above mentioned security measure.

On behalf of our permanent quality inspections, we found out that under certain circumastances a contact between the rear wheels and the wheel house of your motorhome can occur. Since permanent and intensive contact causes demolition or damage of the rear wheels, your vehicle has to be refitted by installation of an additional spring assembly. By using this measure the riding qualities of your motor home arnt affected.

Unfortunately we havnt received yet confirmation that your vehicle has been checked by your Burstner dealer.

In order to maintain the level of security for you as vehicle owner and for road traffic, the necessary workings have to be conducted without delay

If you are owner of a concerned vehicle, please make an appointment with your authorised Burstner dealer neaarby in order to refit your vehicle.

The refitting is free of charge. Nevertheless a refitting can only be deducted after former telephonic arrangment with your Burstner contractual partner. Further informations on this security measure as well as an entire list of our dealers can be found in the internet: www.buerstner.com.

Please direct further questions to our hotline +49 7851 85 154 or send email to [email protected]

In case of sale or definite abandoning, please complete the response form below and send this to us by post, fax or email at the contact data given.

I hope this is of help

Andy


----------



## 120994

Thank you for the information - it sounds as if we have that problem as well. We have checked the MH ourselves and cannot see that any additional spring assembly things have been fitted. If that was our original problem could it have caused the creasing? It might explain why the problem is getting worse.


----------



## 96299

The above from Bubblehead only applies to Maxi chassis. Argos 747 is on Alko.

steve


----------



## 96299

Hi

Just thought I'd bring this thread to the fore as nothing's been posted for a while and I do have the same motorhome, so very keen to know whats happening.  So Motherbrown, is there any more news on your creasing problem?

steve


----------



## 120994

To bring you up to date Chigman - since last post, we received a letter from Director in response to my email to the RDH solicitors. They asked us to take MH into another dealers for full inspection which they would pay for. However the other dealer say they can send a report without the inspection as we took the MH there for habitation check. We are now waiting for copies of the reports (one from RDH last July) and one from other dealer.


----------



## 120994

Also forgot to mention - the recall doesn't apply to this MH although it does appear to be a very similar problem. Could anybody tell us the measurement of the wheel arch from middle of rear wheelarch to ground as the back end appears to have dropped


----------



## karlb

time-traveller said:


> So .... the van was damaged BEFORE delivery, was it?
> 
> And it took MOTHERBROWN over three months to 'notice' those very evident creases, did it?
> 
> Words fail me !!
> 
> I give up
> 
> And the holocaust didn't happen, either !
> 
> 
> 
> Bubblehead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi
> 
> Its good to get the other side of the story from RDH, however before every one condems Motherbrown its important to remain focused on the problem. I dont think that Motherbrown would persue something that could so easily be discredited.
> 
> Could this damage have happended prior to he getting the MH? It seems odd that in the 3 months hes owned it, he didnt notice the rear grounding out, which caused this damage. Could this have been done during delivery - off loading from the transport truck etc
> 
> Also of note is the fact that the damage is getting worse, could this be a sign of structual failure?
> 
> Also what about the damage to the wheel arch liners, it suggests that the Burstner recall work is required, could this be the root cause. Why isnt a wheel liner covered under warranty when Burstner are doing recall work?
> 
> Im not saying that Motherbrown or RDH have got their fact wrong or indeed right but this sounds like a case of failure to communicate. Did RDH show Motherbrown the damage to the underside of the rear. He implied that RDH had told him it was rear damage (ie from being rear ended by another vehicle) and not underside damage / impact.
> 
> Would you all be so quick to condem him if you were in the position of buying a brand new MH and knowing that you havnt damaged it find it to be failing apart within 3 months? (easy with the Fiat comments)
> 
> If it wasnt done by Motherbrown, and wasnt done by RDH then I suspect the damage may have been caused during delivery and neither RDH or Motherbrown are at fault - they are just left with the result.
> 
> I susspect that you will never find a satisfactory solution to this one
> 
> Andy
Click to expand...

i do hope you can time travel and then perhaps go back and have a big fat slice of humble pie (its very bitter or so ive been told)


----------



## JockandRita

MOTHERBROWN said:


> However the other dealer say they can send a report without the inspection as we took the MH there for habitation check. We are now waiting for copies of the reports (one from RDH last July) and one from other dealer.


Hi there Motherbrown,

Thanks for updating us all.

Didn't you say previously that the problem was getting worse. If it were me, I would welcome an up to date inspection, hoping that the findings would highlight the extent of deterioration, thereby supporting your claim further, ie, two reports from the same dealer.

I wish you all the best in your pursuance of this problem.

Regards,

Jock.


----------



## maddie

MOTHERBROWN said:


> Also forgot to mention - the recall doesn't apply to this MH although it does appear to be a very similar problem. Could anybody tell us the measurement of the wheel arch from middle of rear wheelarch to ground as the back end appears to have dropped


Hi MB it may be better to get the measurement from the rear of the van to the floor as well.On my van (different ) I can alter the suspension settings and a 5/6 mm (1/4 inch ) movement of the body above the wheels makes 75 mm (3 inch) plus difference to the rear height.
I would still let the paid for inspection take place at another dealers. What about the free one ( habitation guys) and a further one elsewhere paid for by the dealer ??? the more info gleamed the better the chance of you getting a fix ? Reading between the lines the dealer is sounding more helpful, but the measuring bit sounds like they may be saying Bottoming 8O 
terry 
Perhaps both parties will keep us posted :lol:


----------



## 96299

Thanks for the update Motherbrown. Please do let us know of any further progress to this problem.

steve


----------



## 101746

Folks, 

just a quick update to put your mind at rest if you have a motorhome based on a similar chassis. We have now had the independent survey report in from a well known and highly respected motorhome specialist technical centre. 

Their conclusion is consistent with our own and that of the Burstner factory. They feel VERY strongly that the damage has been caused by quote:

1. "Grounding of the rear tow bar."
2. "Overloading of the rear axle."
3. "Both of the above."

The report goes on to say "Clear witness marks can be seen on the bottom of the rear tow bar showing where the bar has been scraped along the floor."

There is no mention of any other possible cause for the damage and certainly no mention of a possible manufacturer or chassis fault. 

I hope this information is useful (reassuring). 

Bill Pegram
Director 
RDH Motorhome Centre.


----------



## 38Rover

I have a Burstner solano 700 with a large overhang and have grounded a couple of times but without damage as described.
The rear chassis member open channel had become twisted and I have now replaced it with a closed rectangular tube 125x30 this is less likely to snag than the open channel.
I have also fitted two industrial acatel wheels to the chassis they hang down about 25mm from the chassis.I hope these mods will help alivate the problem.
It is often not obvious from the driving seat that you are going to ground although avoidance is the best answer its not always possible.Fitting air ride suspension has been suggested as an answer but you would have to be aware of impending problem to raise the back in time.
I do think the good old honest salesman should bring this potential problem to your notice when purchasing.
I guess now you have the report an insurance claim is in order good luck.


----------



## time-traveller

RDH wrote

_Their conclusion is consistent with our own and that of the Burstner factory. They feel VERY strongly that the damage has been caused by quote:

1. "Grounding of the rear tow bar." 
2. "Overloading of the rear axle." 
3. "Both of the above."

The report goes on to say "Clear witness marks can be seen on the bottom of the rear tow bar showing where the bar has been scraped along the floor."

There is no mention of any other possible cause for the damage and certainly no mention of a possible manufacturer or chassis fault. _

Yes, Karlb? You were saying ..... ?



karlb said:


> time-traveller said:
> 
> 
> 
> So .... the van was damaged BEFORE delivery, was it?
> 
> And it took MOTHERBROWN over three months to 'notice' those very evident creases, did it?
> 
> Words fail me !!
> 
> I give up
> 
> And the holocaust didn't happen, either !
> 
> 
> 
> Bubblehead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi
> 
> Its good to get the other side of the story from RDH, however before every one condems Motherbrown its important to remain focused on the problem. I dont think that Motherbrown would persue something that could so easily be discredited.
> 
> Could this damage have happended prior to he getting the MH? It seems odd that in the 3 months hes owned it, he didnt notice the rear grounding out, which caused this damage. Could this have been done during delivery - off loading from the transport truck etc
> 
> Also of note is the fact that the damage is getting worse, could this be a sign of structual failure?
> 
> Also what about the damage to the wheel arch liners, it suggests that the Burstner recall work is required, could this be the root cause. Why isnt a wheel liner covered under warranty when Burstner are doing recall work?
> 
> Im not saying that Motherbrown or RDH have got their fact wrong or indeed right but this sounds like a case of failure to communicate. Did RDH show Motherbrown the damage to the underside of the rear. He implied that RDH had told him it was rear damage (ie from being rear ended by another vehicle) and not underside damage / impact.
> 
> Would you all be so quick to condem him if you were in the position of buying a brand new MH and knowing that you havnt damaged it find it to be failing apart within 3 months? (easy with the Fiat comments)
> 
> If it wasnt done by Motherbrown, and wasnt done by RDH then I suspect the damage may have been caused during delivery and neither RDH or Motherbrown are at fault - they are just left with the result.
> 
> I susspect that you will never find a satisfactory solution to this one
> 
> Andy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i do hope you can time travel and then perhaps go back and have a big fat slice of humble pie (its very bitter or so ive been told)
Click to expand...


----------



## 96299

billpegram said:


> Folks,
> 
> just a quick update to put your mind at rest if you have a motorhome based on a similar chassis. We have now had the independent survey report in from a well known and highly respected motorhome specialist technical centre.
> 
> Their conclusion is consistent with our own and that of the Burstner factory. They feel VERY strongly that the damage has been caused by quote:
> 
> 1. "Grounding of the rear tow bar."
> 2. "Overloading of the rear axle."
> 3. "Both of the above."
> 
> The report goes on to say "Clear witness marks can be seen on the bottom of the rear tow bar showing where the bar has been scraped along the floor."
> 
> There is no mention of any other possible cause for the damage and certainly no mention of a possible manufacturer or chassis fault.
> 
> I hope this information is useful (reassuring).
> 
> Bill Pegram
> Director
> RDH Motorhome Centre.


Cheers for that Bill. Very reassuring I can tell you. 8)

steve


----------



## karlb

time-traveller said:


> RDH wrote
> 
> _Their conclusion is consistent with our own and that of the Burstner factory. They feel VERY strongly that the damage has been caused by quote:
> 
> 1. "Grounding of the rear tow bar."
> 2. "Overloading of the rear axle."
> 3. "Both of the above."
> 
> The report goes on to say "Clear witness marks can be seen on the bottom of the rear tow bar showing where the bar has been scraped along the floor."
> 
> There is no mention of any other possible cause for the damage and certainly no mention of a possible manufacturer or chassis fault. _
> 
> Yes, Karlb? You were saying ..... ?
> 
> 
> 
> karlb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> time-traveller said:
> 
> 
> 
> So .... the van was damaged BEFORE delivery, was it?
> 
> And it took MOTHERBROWN over three months to 'notice' those very evident creases, did it?
> 
> Words fail me !!
> 
> I give up
> 
> And the holocaust didn't happen, either !
> 
> 
> 
> Bubblehead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi
> 
> Its good to get the other side of the story from RDH, however before every one condems Motherbrown its important to remain focused on the problem. I dont think that Motherbrown would persue something that could so easily be discredited.
> 
> Could this damage have happended prior to he getting the MH? It seems odd that in the 3 months hes owned it, he didnt notice the rear grounding out, which caused this damage. Could this have been done during delivery - off loading from the transport truck etc
> 
> Also of note is the fact that the damage is getting worse, could this be a sign of structual failure?
> 
> Also what about the damage to the wheel arch liners, it suggests that the Burstner recall work is required, could this be the root cause. Why isnt a wheel liner covered under warranty when Burstner are doing recall work?
> 
> Im not saying that Motherbrown or RDH have got their fact wrong or indeed right but this sounds like a case of failure to communicate. Did RDH show Motherbrown the damage to the underside of the rear. He implied that RDH had told him it was rear damage (ie from being rear ended by another vehicle) and not underside damage / impact.
> 
> Would you all be so quick to condem him if you were in the position of buying a brand new MH and knowing that you havnt damaged it find it to be failing apart within 3 months? (easy with the Fiat comments)
> 
> If it wasnt done by Motherbrown, and wasnt done by RDH then I suspect the damage may have been caused during delivery and neither RDH or Motherbrown are at fault - they are just left with the result.
> 
> I susspect that you will never find a satisfactory solution to this one
> 
> Andy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i do hope you can time travel and then perhaps go back and have a big fat slice of humble pie (its very bitter or so ive been told)
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

as i said earlier humble pie is very bitter 

in my defence i thought chigman was having the same problems


----------



## 120994

Have now received report via RDH from another dealer (the one which appeared on here two days before we received it)
Unfortunately we are left even further confused - the quote above says the MH has been overloaded - (not to our knowledge) and has bottomed out. However in a letter sent to us from RDH on 20.10.08 it says (and I quote) 'the rear end has not sagged downwards from being overloaded' 'it has been involved in an impact at the rear end and this has caused creasing in the body' I emailed RDH as we have not had a report yet from them or any estimates. A reply came back saying that although the report said it was beyond economical repair, now it is possibly economic to repair as prices have gone up! (Was this yesterday) A report was attached however I have been unable open it on my computer.
As far as I am concerned - I stand bywhat I said - we are not aware of any type of accident and have been open and honest with everyone including our insurance company who have now arranged another inspection with another expert.


----------



## androidGB

MOTHERBROWN said:


> A reply came back saying that although the report said it was beyond economical repair, now it is possibly economic to repair as prices have gone up! (Was this yesterday)


So we've gone from a bit of filler to rectify the problem to a write off :?

Andrew


----------



## 120994

You can see why we're confused! Why didn't they tell us when the mh was three months old that it was beyond economical repair and also 'quote' - 'beyond the capabilities of our workshop and needs to be done by a specialist'


----------



## androidGB

MOTHERBROWN said:


> You can see why we're confused!


I certainly can, I would have thought for a relatively new van to be written off, there would have to see some pretty significant damage (including damage to the chassis) which should have been apparent from the start.

Andrew


----------



## 120994

Update: Still no report from RDH, it seems we only get a reply if we put it on here. The MH has now been inspected by an insurance company approved Caravan and MH repairer (not a dealer). It appears that wooden support frames on both sides are fractured causing creases.
Will let you all know outcomes and full report when we get it.


----------



## maddie

Hi MB thanks for the update - look forward for the complete report.
terry


----------



## 120994

See you're based in S yorks - you're very welcome to come and look for yourself if you like - anybody is - for that matter - you'll see that it beggars belief how we have been treated by the dealer


----------



## 96299

Yes, thanks for the update MB. 

You say some wooden support frames have fractured, what has caused the fractures is what I would like to know being that I own the same motorhome. I hope you get to the bottom of this one way or another, and do keep updating us as you go.

steve


----------



## tekkiesteve

Hi Motherbrown,
I've been watching this thread with interest as i own a Burstner i821 tag axle on the same Alko maxi chassis also fitted with a towbar.
For what its worth i believe you have'nt had an accident yourself because if you had to cause the damage you have to your motorhome you would definitely remember it.
RDH are stating the creases were caused by some sort of impact/grounding out of the towbar.If this is the case surely it should be blatently obvious when viewed from underneath as the towbar is mounted ridgidly to the very substantial alko maxi chassis.
So in my view the towbar would have to be severly "bent/deformed" to such an extent that it had hit the underside of the motorhome or the chassis rails are "bent/deformed.
Both these scenarios i find difficult to believe, personally i think there is more likely to be a link with the rear wheels hitting the underside of the motorhome or the habitation area was damaged when manufactured.
Is there any chance of some pics of the underside of the motorhome?

Best Regards

Steve


----------



## 120994

There is no damage anywhere on the motorhome - the towbar is the one that we had on our previous 747 so it is a bit scratched but the actual vehicle is totally damage free except for the creases and now of course the wheel arches which are rubbing through. The insurance company have written it off but I will give a very detailed report on here when we have received our money. In the meantime I would advise anybody with this motorhome to examine it carefully because as I keep saying - we did not have an accident! Also keep away from RDH who were unable to identify the fault (well they never tried to) and who have totally washed their hands of it at three months old.


----------



## Wytonknaus

Have you contacted Alko to ask what damage the tag axle would need to sustain to have been bent upwards enough to have caused creased sides as they would be interested because their tag axle chassis is not up to the job if that is the case.
The chasis would not have bent back without being straightened by someone so the chasis should show signs of deformation.

Sorry if I have missed this info earlier.

Tim


----------



## JockandRita

MOTHERBROWN said:


> There is no damage anywhere on the motorhome - the towbar is the one that we had on our previous 747 so it is a bit scratched but the actual vehicle is totally damage free except for the creases and now of course the wheel arches which are rubbing through. The insurance company have written it off but I will give a very detailed report on here when we have received our money. In the meantime I would advise anybody with this motorhome to examine it carefully because as I keep saying - we did not have an accident! Also keep away from RDH who were unable to identify the fault (well they never tried to) and who have totally washed their hands of it at three months old.


Hi Motherbrown,

Thanks for keeping us updated, and here's hoping that the final decision and settlement goes in your favour.

Incidentally, You didn't leave it in the hands of Broonfools at any time at all?
I only ask, as they have been know to let a MH roll of the raised ramp, causing major structural damage, and failed to inform the customer when they came to sign for it, allowing them drive off in it. Had he (an MHF member), not been unhappy with the state of the interior, and stayed the night on their premises to get it sorted in the morning, he wouldn't have known that there was anything wrong until it would have been too late. 8O 8O 8O

:evil: :evil:

Jock.


----------



## RichardnGill

> I saw an A class Tag at a dealers that had rolled of a ramp backwards and it had very similar damage to the sides as this van looks to have.
> 
> I am pleased it looks as though it is an impact as we have just taken delivery of a tag on an alko.
> 
> Richard...


Jock I posted the comment above earlier in this thread as we were overnighting next to the van in question that rolled of the ramp and after I looked at the pictures of this van the damage it looked very similar.

That van was a Tag Burstner but an A Class.

Richard...


----------



## JockandRita

RichardnGill said:


> I saw an A class Tag at a dealers that had rolled of a ramp backwards and it had very similar damage to the sides as this van looks to have.
> 
> I am pleased it looks as though it is an impact as we have just taken delivery of a tag on an alko.
> 
> Richard...
> 
> 
> 
> Jock I posted the comment above earlier in this thread as we were overnighting next to the van in question that rolled of the ramp and after I looked at the pictures of this van the damage it looked very similar.
> 
> That van was a Tag Burstner but an A Class.
> 
> Richard...
Click to expand...

Sorry Richard, I didn't read your comments above re the poor guy at Broonfools. I just remembered the the post from way back.

BTW, was he successful in his plight to get the damage sorted.

Regards,

Jock.


----------



## time-traveller

MOTHERBROWN said:


> There is no damage anywhere on the motorhome - the towbar is the one that we had on our previous 747 so it is a bit scratched but the actual vehicle is totally damage free except for the creases and now of course the wheel arches which are rubbing through. *The insurance company have written it off *but I will give a very detailed report on here when we have received our money. In the meantime I would advise anybody with this motorhome to examine it carefully because as I keep saying - we did not have an accident! Also keep away from RDH who were unable to identify the fault (well they never tried to) and who have totally washed their hands of it at three months old.


Correct me if I'm wrong but .....
Insurance companies don't 'do' warranty claims - they only 'do' accidental damage claims.


----------



## 120994

The damage is accidental - I have said WE did not have an accident but there is accidental damage to the vehicle according to RDH and Camper Uk and another expert. As I said before I do not tell lies.

Also I have read your other replies and wonder what your angle is - when I came onto this forum I simply asked if others had noticed the same problem - in my innocence I thought the mh could not have been in an accident without us knowing and thought it may be a common fault.
My problem was that the dealer RDH would not help us to find out the cause. would you want filler putting in without knowing what caused it. 
As the wooden frame is apparently broken the filler would have just fallen out again as soon as it was used, Funnily enough we have never received the report they say they did in July 08.


----------



## tekkiesteve

Time traveller,
Why are you being so negative and pedantic?


----------



## 106559

tekkiesteve said:


> Time traveller,
> Why are you being so negative and pedantic?


Did I miss something?

O.K. Found it. Sorry.


----------



## 96299

Hi Motherbrown-could you tell us the latest please ? has it all been sorted out yet ?

steve


----------



## bonnieboo

Hi
it would be great to find out the ending, as stated before, after reading 8 pages it is like reading a book and someone has ripped the last few pages out

Jakki


----------



## 120994

Hi all
We have just had the fifth report from an expert so no final result as yet I will let you know outcome as I said as soon as it is finalised.
There is a rumour that RDH is going pop - I wish I had a pin!


----------



## asprn

MOTHERBROWN said:


> We are the older generation who look after our motorhome and travel within speed limits so if it has been caused by speedbumps (which are unavoidable in this country) shouldn,t we have been warned?


It seems from what you're saying that you know about having driven over a speed bump at some stage (that it was unavoidable). Not clear what you mean regarding "shouldn't we have been warned"? Do you mean you should have been warned by a road sign before you drove over the speed bump, or warned by the dealer about the damage it might cause, were you to drive over one?

If you know about having driven over a speed bump, it presumably has stuck in your memory for a reason. Might that be because it scraped the underside of the van?

Dougie.


----------



## 120994

It was suggested to us that driving over a speedbump could have caused the accident. As there are hundreds of them in Yorkshire alone, I was asking if people should be warned that this particular motorhome could not be driven over one without causing enough damage to write it off. And there are no marks of any kind under the mh despite someone saying on here that there were. As I have said all will become clear when the matter is settled.


----------



## JockandRita

MOTHERBROWN said:


> As I have said all will become clear when the matter is settled.


Good oh Motherbrown.
I am anxiously awaiting the outcome, wishing and hoping that everything is piled up in your favour. And I am not even an Argos owner.

I shudder to think of all the worry, stress, and agonising, that you and yours have had over this problem.

Best regards,

Jock.


----------



## 120994

Thank you Jock and Rita - yes the stress has been horrendous, it's a good job that I retired in January as I don't think I would have had the energy to fight this or the time. I think when people know the result they will be very surprised - I am unable to say more at present but it's almost over.


----------



## Zepp

Good luck motherbrown Im glad its coming to a end for you I hope you get the right result .


Paul


----------



## 96299

MOTHERBROWN said:


> Thank you Jock and Rita - yes the stress has been horrendous, it's a good job that I retired in January as I don't think I would have had the energy to fight this or the time. I think when people know the result they will be very surprised - I am unable to say more at present but it's almost over.


Yes good luck MB. I hope you get the result you want. I am now intrigued (worried) as I have the same van. :roll:

steve


----------



## carolgavin

Hoping there is an end in sight for you and also intrigued as to the outcome. Best wishes!


----------



## Rochdalemasher

RDH. If the damage was caused by a rear impact as you described How has damage occurred to the wheel arches?? (rear tyres rubbing)


----------



## Jezport

I am considering buying one of these vans, is it a one off or an issue with them.


----------



## 120994

At last it's over! The motorhome is leaving us this morning to go to it's new home in the salvage yard. It is Cat D which means it can be repaired and resold. However, our insurance company have not been able to find anyone to repair it as the estimated damage was - £47,000!
So it has gone from a few creases to a total loss in the 12 months it has taken to sort it out.
I am so glad that our insurance covered us for 'accidental damage' no matter how it was caused, and they have paid us the full cost of the mh.
We are now going to get a caravan as after fourteen years of motorhoming we cannot face having anything like this happening again.
I tried to put this on last night but think the post was too long and it did not go through so if anybody is interested in more details I will have to do it in short bursts.


----------



## Zepp

Im happy you got it sorted motherbrown it must of been a nightmare for you 




Paul


----------



## karlb

a good result........now find out the salvage value and grab yourself a bargain!! :twisted:


----------



## JockandRita

MOTHERBROWN said:


> At last it's over!


Hi there,

I am pleased for you, but a bit sad that you'll not be continuing with the MH theme. :wink: No doubt you and yours will be able to sleep peacefully at night, now that all the worry and stress of it all is over for you.
I wish you the very best for your future as a "tugger." :wink:



karlb said:


> a good result........now find out the salvage value and grab yourself a bargain!! :twisted:


It won't be a bargain Karl, if he can't afford to, nor find someone to repair it. 8O 8O 8O

Jock.


----------



## Rapide561

*Burstner*



karlb said:


> a good result........now find out the salvage value and grab yourself a bargain!! :twisted:


Agreed.

Russell


----------



## 120994

Do you really think a motorhome that looks okay but has £47,000 of damage could ever be a bargain? I'd call it a con. I wouldn't wish this motorhome on anybody - in fact anyone thinking of purchasing one after reading this thread would deserve all they'd get in my opinion.

Perhaps I ought to add that the mh was examined by the Burstner owners club technical officer at a rally and he showed us one with identical marks parked in the same site also from RDH. Several members saw this as well so we haven't imagined it - also several owners have contacted us regarding creases on their mh - one took it back to his dealer and was told it was the weather!


----------



## Rapide561

*Van*

Hi

It could be a bargain for some one. Lets says it goes to the scrap yard and sells for £5000.00. Irrespective of how it looks, even if it last a full timer for one year only, it would be a bargain. If it was £5000, I would buy it.

None the less, I am pleased all this is over for you, irrespective of the cause.

What did the insurance assesor say had caused the issues?

Russell


----------



## carolgavin

What kind of accidental damage causes £47k worth of repairs???????????
Especially as the poor OP didn't have an accident. Was it ever out of the owners hands for any work done at a garage? Could they have dropped it or something. Something weird going on thats for sure, especially now that other owners have the same thing.
Motherbrown I am glad your van is going you must be delighted your nightmare is over, but could anyone with which you spoke shed any light on what caused the damage.


----------



## karlb

*Re: Van*



Rapide561 said:


> Hi
> 
> It could be a bargain for some one. Lets says it goes to the scrap yard and sells for £5000.00. Irrespective of how it looks, even if it last a full timer for one year only, it would be a bargain. If it was £5000, I would buy it.
> 
> None the less, I am pleased all this is over for you, irrespective of the cause.
> 
> What did the insurance assesor say had caused the issues?
> 
> Russell


off topic, but if i could get my hands on it i would pay 10-15k and use it, the crease in the panels are obviously bad if youve paid full reatail but not so bad if you get it at a silly price.

anyway again motherbrown glad you got a good result.


----------



## Jean-Luc

Even is the chassis is knackered it would make a very good investment as a donor vehicle for a person doing a self conversion on a large panel van or something like an ex-library van or such.


----------



## 120994

Six reports have been carried out on the mh. One independent assessor whose report we sent to RDH diagnosed a manufacturing fault. One insurance assessor found it inconclusive as there is no apparent damage anywhere on the vehicle except creases and worn out wheel arches.
Two dealers, RDH and Camper UK (who were paid by RDH for a report) both thought it had an impact from underneath caused by us. Two repair specialists appointed by insurers diagnosed that the damage was to the body frame and caused by the mh being dropped from a height such as a transporter before we took possession.
In our opinion and based on how we have been treated by both RDH and Burstner there is a lot more to it - think what it would cost to do a recall, these mh are now selling at £75,000 new and £58,945 secondhand 

I think whoever sells it on will put a bit of filler in and not bother to mention it to the buyer. It is immaculate inside as we have hardly been able to use it, so nobody would know.


----------



## gnscloz

cat d m/h will fetch 20 k plus paid over 20k for unrecorded 30 k m/h once with 2 k damage you,d be surprised


----------



## Tucano

MOTHERBROWN,
I am happy to hear your good news, good luck with the tugging, best wished for the future.
Norman


----------



## LeoK

MOTHERBROWN, 

This has been a sad and sorry tale to which there seemed to be no end. I am sure that you will have lost sleep, and likely weight, whilst waiting to know what was to happen about the MH which you neither damaged nor were able to use. 

It is good to hear that there is a resolution at last, although there is still no one willing to hold up a hand and admit their mistake. 

Also sad that you are leaving the MH community, but given your experience quite understandable. 

Don't give up on us all though. 

May your future camping be happy, however you choose to do it ... LeoK

Note to Nuke, as MOTHERBROWN is a paid up member are they still eligible for MHF rallys - even whilst tugging ?


----------



## 96299

MOTHERBROWN said:


> Six reports have been carried out on the mh. One independent assessor whose report we sent to RDH diagnosed a manufacturing fault. One insurance assessor found it inconclusive as there is no apparent damage anywhere on the vehicle except creases and worn out wheel arches.
> Two dealers, RDH and Camper UK (who were paid by RDH for a report) both thought it had an impact from underneath caused by us. Two repair specialists appointed by insurers diagnosed that the damage was to the body frame and caused by the mh being dropped from a height such as a transporter before we took possession.
> In our opinion and based on how we have been treated by both RDH and Burstner there is a lot more to it - think what it would cost to do a recall, these mh are now selling at £75,000 new and £58,945 secondhand
> 
> I think whoever sells it on will put a bit of filler in and not bother to mention it to the buyer. It is immaculate inside as we have hardly been able to use it, so nobody would know.


A Great result Motherbrown and so glad it is all over for you. 

I agree with you about burstner, I found them really hard work to deal with and as such wont be buying another, but thats another story.

mmm seems like there is no definitive answer as to what caused the problems you had with the creasing ect. Every time I go to mine I'm looking for the flipping things. :roll: Exactly how many owners do you now know of with this creasing problem? I am very concerned as you will appreciate, is it a production fault or is it not is what I would like to know.

Edited (spelling)

steve


----------



## 120994

Thank you Chigman, Unfortunately the problem is impossible to prove unless you could afford a solicitor. Check your insurance to see how it is worded as we were forced down that route due to being totally blanked by Burstner and RDH - if you pm your address I could send you a copy of the independent assessor report.
If we had employed a solicitor we would now be in deep doo as RDH have gone bust. I know they're supposed to have turned into auctioneers but I think that is not what it seems as I signed up for the auction dates and have never had any info back.


----------



## nukeadmin

> We are now going to get a caravan as after fourteen years of motorhoming we cannot face having anything like this happening again.


then join our sister site http://www.caravanfacts.com 

you are of course welcome at a rally if you so wish


----------



## 120994

Hi, Just popped in to say we have been told of another 747 Argos with creases appearing in same place as ours, someone was trying to sell it. This was a 2007 model though. Also one for sale cheap on Hales website.
You have been warned!

By the way we are now enjoying the caravanning life and no dealer stress!


----------



## ICDSUN

MOTHERBROWN said:


> Hi, Just popped in to say we have been told of another 747 Argos with creases appearing in same place as ours, someone was trying to sell it. This was a 2007 model though. Also one for sale cheap on Hales website.
> You have been warned!
> 
> By the way we are now enjoying the caravanning life and no dealer stress!


Hi MB

Glad you finally got sorted, how about posting your registration number and chassis number so some poor sod does'nt get caught out

Chris


----------



## Deeby

MOTHERBROWN said:


> Has anyone else noticed creases appearing round the rear garage doors on both sides and also round rear top windows. We first noticed this when motorhome 3 months old and reported it to dealers RDH. They offered to put filler in but when we declined and said it wanted investigating as to the cause they washed their hands of it. The creases have gradually got worse and they have accused us of having an accident although we know we haven't.


Hi Motherbrown,

Did you get this resolved in the end?

Regards,

Deeby.


----------



## Dill

Hi MOTHERBROWN I am delighted this is all been resolved for you and wish you all the best for the future.

May I just say according to the independent inspections that were carried out to your vehicle, It seems to me that none of the reports actually identified the fault. I am sure that if there were any evidence of an impact this would've been picked up fairly quickly.

When I read that RDH had blamed you of grounding the towbar, and looking at creases it didn't stand up for me.

It looks to me as if the garage had been massively overloaded and driven on an uneven road surface or possibly driven at speed over speed bumps. I cannot get my head round as to why there were no evidence of rear chassis distortion. Something is not quite right here?????????? 

I am delighted for you that your insurance covered you for accidental damage, it would have in my opinion been a different matter possibly a rejected claim.

Best regards

Dill


----------



## Snunkie

Uh oh, checking our 747 for creases now. Ours is very low to the ground, as low as 8" in places and we have bottomed out a few times on speed bumps going less than 5 mile per hour. We have also scrapped tow bar trying to back onto a driveway with what looked like a non steep slope but couldn't get up it. Seems easily done in these.


----------



## 96299

Snunkie said:


> Uh oh, checking our 747 for creases now. Ours is very low to the ground, as low as 8" in places and we have bottomed out a few times on speed bumps going less than 5 mile per hour. We have also scrapped tow bar trying to back onto a driveway with what looked like a non steep slope but couldn't get up it. Seems easily done in these.


Do you have mud flaps fitted? It could be those that are catching the speed bump as you slowly go over them, well it is the problem on ours. At first I thought we were grounding, but no it was the flaps thankfully.

Steve


----------

