# Rotten Swift - don't trust damp checks



## cotswoldman

I purchased a new 2006 model Bessacarr E725 from Marquis. Every year I have complied with the conditions by having a habitation service and damp checks carried out. The damp check results have always been OK and there have never been any smells or other indications of a problem.

In December 2011 I had the annual check carried out and some damp was found around the rear offside window. The floor directly below it produced a very high reading too. 

I took the van in to Marquis for repair having had a quote for £400.

The following day I was requested to visit them and they showed me what they had found. The area of floor that produced the high damp reading was far wetter than could be attributed to the leaking window. They dismantled the vehicle and found that the whole offside of the vehicle in front of the rear wheel below the floor was absolutely rotten. This was the are behind the bathroom and the boiler/wardrobe.

The wood fell to bits when touched - just like a rotten fence post.

The technician investigated and found that a seal fitted when the vehicle was manufactured had NOT been fitted correctly and water had been leaking past it for many years - probably before I purchased it.

Marquis took photographs and contacted Swift on my behalf - they Swiftly replied that the vehicle was out of warranty ...... they just didn't want to know.

I was stuck with a rotten vehicle partly dismantled and was facing a bill far higher than the original quote. It had to be repaired so I was forced to authorise the repair. It eventually cost me just under £3000 to complete the work.

Marquis had done an excellent job with the repair, but I was very annoyed ( I can't print what I really felt) that I had to fork out my savings to put right a manufacturing defect caused by Swift's employees.

I wrote a long letter to Swift explaining the problem and asking for some assistance with the expenses I had incurred through no fault of my own. I enclosed copies of the photographs taken by Marquis and a copy of the invoice which I had paid. 

I had forgotten to include a copy of the Service Record but forwarded that at the request of Swift.

The outcome of my contact with Swift was a complete refusal to make any financial recompense towards my outlay. 

So, my warning to all motorhome owners, especially those of you running anything from the Swift factory is:

1. Don't trust your damp checks. There are areas where the damp meters will NOT reach.
2. The Swift warranty and good name does not cover anything that they have done wrong..... if it is not found within the warranty period.
3. Before your warranty runs out pull your nice vehicles apart to check any areas that are not able to be checked with a damp meter just to make sure that your vehicle is sound.

If you have a manufacturing defect like mine - Swift will not want to know.


----------



## bigbazza

That's outrageous cotswoldman, 
Marquis sold you this vehicle and it obviously wasn't fit for purpose.

In their own words "The technician investigated and found that a seal fitted when the vehicle was manufactured had *NOT* been fitted correctly and water had been leaking past it for many years - probably before I purchased it."

I would take legal advice or go through the small claims route.
I think you have a good case for recompense plus your expances.


----------



## Mike48

You should have posted this on the swift-talk website as several complainants on this site have been dealt with satisfactorily by Swift.

http://www.swift-talk.co.uk/forum


----------



## erneboy

They are not the only manufacturer who wouldn't want to know.

It's a shame but that's how it is.

I understand there is a Swift forum, perhaps you should post there, Alan.

Edit: Ah, beaten to it.


----------



## Zebedee

Sorry to hear of your problems, but could you please clarify this point, which seems rather contradictory.

If you bought the van new as you say, I don't understand how _"water had been leaking past it for many years - *probably before I purchased it*."_



cotswoldman said:


> I purchased a new 2006 model Bessacarr E725 from Marquis. *Every year* I have complied with the conditions by having a habitation service and damp checks carried out. . . . . . . water had been leaking past it for many years - *probably before I purchased it.*


Excuse my skepticism, but we regularly get disgruntled persons who use their first ever post on MHF to attack dealers and manufacturers, sometimes with rather suspect accounts, so we need to seek your assurance that this is not simply a vindictive post to discredit Messrs Swift.

Dave


----------



## camallison

I am no lawyer, but I seem to remember that as a consumer, under EU law, you have 6 years cover for latent defects, regardless of the warranty offered by the manufacturer. Maybe a lawyer will be along soon to confirm or refute this.

Colin


----------



## Zebedee

Ah . . . . now there's interesting.

The exact same post has appeared on Fun as well. 8O 

Dave


----------



## tyreman1

This was posted on Swiftalk last week so had an airing on there as well,yes there is fault with Swift but who has been doing the habitation checks,surely there should be some blame laid at their door as well.


----------



## cabby

I would have blamed the servicing dealer, they should have discovered this way before it got that bad.I am surprised at swift though
I would be inclined to chat with trading standards. Also may I point out again that on certain finance agreements the vehicle belong to them, if this is the case get onto them and put them on your side.

cabby

oh yes, i believe that the EU law quoted has no juristriction in the UK.


----------



## Wizzo

I am inclined to say that I think the OP has chosen to castigate the wrong party. To my mind the fault lies in the hab check not picking up this problem before it became a major disintegration. If Marquis were the party doing the hab check for the last 6 years then I would have laid most of the blame at their feet.

Warranty or not, Swift are not the party who has to answer under English law to the OP, that would be the supplying dealer - Marquis.

The 6 years quoted is now part of English Law (5 years in Scotland I believe) but I don't think it would give you complete redress. 

JohnW


----------



## jedi

Total sympathy, Cotswoldsman, whether you've done 1 post or 2000. My swift similarly rotted despite paying £1000 at one point to have the leak sorted. 

Maybe I'm wrong but UK built vans seem to be particularly prone to leaks. My Autotrail has now been in twice to cure a leak without success costing £450 last time. I was able to get it under cover recently and removed the window and seal. The wood at the top and side of the frame crumbled away. I replaced the frame and re-sealed the window with a little help from Mr Google and helpful people on this site (not such a difficult DIY job).

But being a pig ignorant numpty who people can't understand :wink: I didn't have regular damp checks. I have now purchased a damp meter following a link from another really helpful MHF member. Reasonably priced and it seems to work well. 

Hope you get re-compense from whoever's fault it was as you seem to have followed the correct procedure.

Jed


----------



## jhelm

This brings to mind some questions, how much wood is typically used in the construction of MHs? I believe very little if any other than the interior was used in my 2000 Hymer, but I don't really know. It would seem t make sense to avoid buying older or even new ones that are made using a wood frame. Don't take this wrong, I am not saying anything against the op just wondering what people think and what the reality is.


----------



## Daedalas

Good Morning All

Zeb has I think hit the nail on the head - Non-Mem - rather inconsistent - no profile - why?

Would it not be a good idea to make all non-members who wish to make use of the 5 free posts, to submit their posts first to Zeb's sort of scrutiny ... or would that be too much of a burden to the mods?

And is there not a risk allowing Non-Members such unfettered access might seriously diminish the reputation of MHF?

"'Answers on one side of foolscap please'" <vbg> <d&rvfi>


----------



## SpeedyDux

A couple of bits of useful information regarding claims for inherent (latent) damp penetration defects in your motorhome:

1. The statutory limitation period within which you have to issue Court proceedings is 6 years from date of contract (i.e. date of purchase from the dealer). After that, you have no legal remedy. 

2. The claims limit in the Small Claims Track of the County Court is currently £5,000. (The Justice Secretary Kennth Clarke recently announced that this will be going up to £10,000.) 

The significance is that if you issue a claim for damages for up to £5,000 in the County Court against the supplying dealer, in the Small Claims track the general rule is that legal costs (apart from Court fees and some expenses) are not awarded against the losing party. Therefore, if the dealer uses a solicitor to defend the claim, as a private Claimant who represents himself you are not going to run the risk of paying the dealer's legal costs unless the way you conducted your claim is regarded by the judge as highly unreasonable; such awards of costs against private claimants are in practice very uncommon. 

The whole point is to encourage ordinary people to obtain legal redress and enforce their statutory "Sale of Goods Act" rights without the need to use a lawyer. It may seem daunting at first, but it isn't all that difficult to do and there is plenty of helpful information on the internet. If you need to take it as far as a Hearing the procedure is quite informal, and the Judges are generally understanding and helpful to private litigants who reach that stage.

The other side of the coin is that the supplying dealer has everything to lose, and nothing to gain financially, by defending a claim for damages representing the cost of fixing a latent defect in a motorhome. If the dealer has any sense he will try to reach an amicable settlement out of court because when facing a latent defect claim that has merit the dealer is on a hiding to nothing. 

SD


----------



## jhelm

Zebedee said:


> Sorry to hear of your problems, but could you please clarify this point, which seems rather contradictory.
> 
> If you bought the van new as you say, I don't understand how _"water had been leaking past it for many years - *probably before I purchased it*."_
> 
> 
> 
> cotswoldman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I purchased a new 2006 model Bessacarr E725 from Marquis. *Every year* I have complied with the conditions by having a habitation service and damp checks carried out. . . . . . . water had been leaking past it for many years - *probably before I purchased it.*
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse my skepticism, but we regularly get disgruntled persons who use their first ever post on MHF to attack dealers and manufacturers, sometimes with rather suspect accounts, so we need to seek your assurance that this is not simply a vindictive post to discredit Messrs Swift.
> 
> Dave
Click to expand...

It seems premature to criticize the guy, he did not say when he bought it and it may have been sitting around sometime outside before it was sold as new.


----------



## Zebedee

jhelm said:


> It seems premature to criticize the guy, he did not say when he bought it and it *may have been sitting around sometime outside before it was sold as new*.


"_For many years_" - to quote the OP??

Where is the criticism?

I did no more than ask for clarification.

The same post has appeared on at least three forums, each one as a first and non-subscriber post.

Past experience suggests there *may *be a certain disingenuity at work, but no criticisms or condemnations have been levelled.

"Innocent until proven guilty", but we have heard only one side of a vitriolic attack from a completely unknown person. It seems to me that a request for further clarification is only reasonable and to be expected, particularly when key aspects of the account are self-contraditory! To accept the veracity of such a post without question seems naive in the extreme. :roll:

For all we know it could be a disgruntled ex-Swift employee! That has certainly happened before. :roll:

I await the requested clarification with an open mind!

Dave


----------



## spatz1

Zebedee said:


> For all we know it could be a disgruntled ex-Swift employee! That has certainly happened before. :roll:


or a rival manufacturer :lol:

I know i d fill the boards if i thought i could make more sales coming up to the sales season :!:


----------



## jedi

Zebedee said:


> The same post has appeared on at least three forums, each one as a first and non-subscriber post.Dave


You may have a point there, Dave. However, nearly everybody on here is a 'completely unknown person' to me - including you :lol:

I don't visit other motorhome sites as I find MHF an excellent place for finding and sharing info and perhaps having the odd debate :wink:

I better add 'naive' to the list of things I've been called recently :lol:

Perhaps I just sympaphise with all who've been hit by the dreaded damp.

Jed


----------



## DJMotorhomer

Hi

like previously stated.

Get a statement that the seal was fitted incorrectly and then see them in court..

DJ


----------



## mrbricolage

Zebedee said:


> Sorry to hear of your problems, but could you please clarify this point, which seems rather contradictory.
> 
> If you bought the van new as you say, I don't understand how _"water had been leaking past it for many years - *probably before I purchased it*."_
> 
> 
> 
> cotswoldman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I purchased a new 2006 model Bessacarr E725 from Marquis. *Every year* I have complied with the conditions by having a habitation service and damp checks carried out. . . . . . . water had been leaking past it for many years - *probably before I purchased it.*
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse my skepticism, but we regularly get disgruntled persons who use their first ever post on MHF to attack dealers and manufacturers, sometimes with rather suspect accounts, so we need to seek your assurance that this is not simply a vindictive post to discredit Messrs Swift.
> 
> Dave
Click to expand...

I really dont see what the issue is here. Cotswoldman has relayed a problem that he has had with a swift group motorhome. The problem seems to be verified Marquis as manufacturing defect. Swift do not want to know. He has provided an account of this warning of his experiences. Are you saying this has not happened or are you implying that MHF is not impartial and is someway related to Swift? Are people because they are non subscribers not allowed to openly criticise a company without being called into doubt as to their motivation. It appears that way to me.

What is the significance of the poster posting on other forums as a non subscriber. It seems to me that the person is getting a wide audience in order that person can get some help or are you implying the person has a sinister motive like trying to discredit a motorhome manufacturer for bad customer service :roll:


----------



## Zebedee

jedi said:


> Perhaps I just sympaphise with all who've been hit by the dreaded damp. Jed


Who doesn't Jed - but part of my job in looking after the forum is to be aware of possible "problem" posts. :roll:

There's little option but to issue a polite and civil, but straightforward request for further clarification when a situation like this occurs.

If the OP returns and proves to be "khosher", I shall be as sympathetic as anyone else! 

Incidentally, the dreaded damp is the main reason why I (_and many others I expect_) spend the money on habitation checks that we could probably do ourselves.

Then if the effects of serious and *long term* damp is ever detected we have a very strong case against the dealer who did the annual Hab check.

Dave


----------



## pete4x4

To say that Swift said not warranty is unusual for them, there have been many cases of vehicles being sorted out of warranty by Swift, a lot of them recorded on this forum.
What I do know is that Swift always want to do the work themselves because it is clearly cheaper for them that way so I do wonder if we are getting the full story.


----------



## Mrplodd

In my experience (as a copper for 30 years) there are usually THREE sides to a story.

1. The aggrieved persons perception (In this case the buyer)
2. The non aggrieved persons perception (In this case the manufacturer/supplier)
3. The actual facts of the matter. Which will lie somewhere between the two extremes mentioned above !!

Its sometimes very difficult to work out exactly where the third option sits 8O

I think clarification of Zebs questions is a reasonable request.


----------



## airstream

*Marquis?*

My take on this is :-

Swift have for several years knowingly produced motorhomes with a floor system that if not manufactured to exacting standards alows water ingress to the under floor and it rots

All dealers including Marquis know all about this problem as do most of us who view MHF etc or have had the problem themselves

First call should have been for Marquis to make a warranty claim to Swift NOT to carry out the repair then claim

All instances I am aware of that have been reported to Swift prior to repair have been fixed by Swift at the factory, even when like mine out of warranty

Regards Ray


----------



## SamAhab

I don't think the mods should act as arbiter-of-truth in such cases. Let the People decide.

This platform (MHF) is offered up for the public to speak and state their manifold views and opinions.

IMO MHF is a modern-day version to 'Speakers Corner' in Hyde Park...and there were no 'truth police' censoring the soap box soldiers there!

Over moderation on a forum is never a good thing.


----------



## tony50

I feel sorry for anyone with a damp problems , but changing the post a bit , where can I buy a good Damp Meter and how much are they


----------



## cotswoldman

Oh dear! My message seems to have been taken the wrong way in many cases.

I will try to clarify some points raised.

1. This may be my first post to this forum - so what!. This is the first time I have had something to contribute.

2. I have posted about this matter on the SwiftTalk forum prior to informing this forum of my warnings. No where else - yet!

3. My post was essentially a warning about damp checks and advising that they are not to be relied upon. 

4. The problems I have encountered with Swift was meant as background information outlining my reasons for the warning.

5. As stated in my original post - Marquis contacted Swift on my behalf but they refused to act as the warranty had expired. Swift offered to repair the vehicle when I contacted them but that was after the vehicle had been repaired.

6. The prospect of taking legal action isn't viable against Marquis - the damage was below floor level initially so there was no where to stick the damp meter probe.

7. Statements have been made about my honesty and reasons for making the post. I can assure you that I am totally honest - another ex-copper having served 30 years dedicated to public service.  

I appreciate the concern offered and the comments made.

Wish I had kept quiet now - I'm reverting to 'lurking mode' again.


----------



## Spacerunner

Well done the heavy hand of suspicion :roll:


----------



## SpeedyDux

cotswoldman said:


> 6. The prospect of taking legal action isn't viable against Marquis - the damage was below floor level initially so there was no where to stick the damp meter probe.


Cotswoldman, that doesn't seem right to me. A claim, and if necessary, legal action against Marquis is (on the basis of the information in this thread) a viable option, still.

1. You bought the 2006 model Bessacar from Marquis - you don't say on what date, but if we assume that was not before 2006, the 6 year limitation period for issuing a Claim could expire sometime in 2012; best watch that time limit and hurry up to claim your rights!

2. As supplying dealer, your contract is with Marquis, not Swift. Marquis are directly liable to you for breach of contract due to the latent manufacturing defect you described as "_a seal fitted when the vehicle was manufactured had NOT been fitted correctly and water had been leaking past it for many years_" and for the subsequent damage to your motorhome.

Whether Marquis knew or ought to have known about the incorrectly fitted seal when they sold the motorhome to you, or failed to discover the latent defect during annual damp checks, or whether they could have, isn't the issue. Absence of knowledge of the defect on their part is irrelevant. Whether Marquis were negligent and ought to have found the defect earlier is also irrelevant as regards breach of the original contract of sale. Your claim isn't based on any negligence and doesn't need to be. Just breach of contract.

You say you paid Marquis to carry out the repairs. Legally, you should expect Marquis to carry out the repairs at no cost to you. They owe you for your loss. Whether Marquis in turn are in a position to claim that cost back from Swift isn't your concern.

If necessary, consult a solicitor to verify what I have said. As for making a claim without using a solicitor, see my earlier post.

I am taking the trouble to reply again about the legal position because I hate to see anyone falsely assuming that the best course still open to them is to request the manufacturer to repair a defect, and then complain about the manufacturer's rejection apparently because the motorhome is long out of warranty.

SD


----------



## jedi

tony50 said:


> I feel sorry for anyone with a damp problems , but changing the post a bit , where can I buy a good Damp Meter and how much are they


I've just bought this one:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B0001P0JZU/ref=oh_o00_s00_i00_details

following recommendation from other MHF users.

Simple to use, and picked up some remaining moisture in area I have just repaired but non elsewhere thankfully. Obviously not as good as a very expensive, professional model but will certainly indicate whether you have a problem requiring investigation or immediate action.

Jed


----------



## cotswoldman

SpeedyDux: 

The van was a 2006 model. It was actually purchased in 2005 so time is up.

Jedi: 

I bought one of those to double-check the findings at the damp-test. They work very well and it will be used a lot in the future.

Geoff


----------



## SpeedyDux

That'll teach me. I should have asked you to tell me the date of purchase at the outset. Saved all that typing. 

SD


----------



## cotswoldman

SpeedyDux said:


> That'll teach me. I should have asked you to tell me the date of purchase at the outset. Saved all that typing.
> 
> SD


Thanks anyway - the advice will, no doubt, be good for some else.

Geoff


----------



## Oscarmax

cotsworldman, when you do your own damp test carry it out several times year, check all your external sealant and around openings and do not forget to climb underneath with a good inspection lamp, you do not need to be paranoid, just thorough.


----------



## bigbazza

I still think you have a fair and reasonable claim because of the known circumstances of the incorrectly fitted part and also the history of rotting floors with this manufacturers .(as seen on this forum)
The guys doing the damp tests knew about this history and I think they should have carried out a full inspection.


----------



## Zebedee

bigbazza said:


> The guys doing the damp tests knew about this history and I think they should have carried out a full inspection.


Can't see the point of a damp test that only checks the easy-to-get-at bits, as you say Barry.

Simple as that really - it's either done properly or you have a strong claim when the van falls to bits. Keep the check lists safe though, for as long as you keep the van.

Dave


----------



## pete4x4

The problem with Swift floors underneath is it is covered in a plastic sheath, probe with a damp meter and you break the seal and damp will get in. Damp in the floor is very hard to spot until something changes such as floors go spongy or like my 3 year old swift the step started to feel loose. This was following regular hab checks and the dealer only probed my floor from underneath because damp was suspected.
It is now going back to the factory to have the floor replaced and I'm buying a Bailey!


----------



## rosalan

May I thank Cotswoldman for bringing this situation to our attention. In spite of a degree of scepticism here and there, a fair degree of valuable issues have been well aired.
Alan


----------



## dipper17

Warranty period is irrelevant if it is a manufacturing defect which you can prove. However, your problem might be proving this and getting the necessary people to testify on your behalf. After all in many situation you are asking a dealer to participate in your legal action against the very people who ensure that the dealer continues to make lots of money!

Best wishes


----------



## Pat-H

I think you have to be very careful on what you have checked.
We had an Autosleeper from Marquis which was 10 years old but had a full habitation service history as well as base vehicle history.
We park with the van pointing up a slight slope and I noticed the beenie box would get water in after raining. I removed the box and discovered a rotten wooden corner of the floor. caused by water not running off correctly from teh beenie box installation.
Being only 2 months after purcahse with a 3 year Marquis warranty I passed the issue to them and there reply was that the follr contruction being inner wood then foam then outer wood emant my issue was in only the outer wood and therefore not in the habitation area and therefore not covered. 

So the swift issue with rotting floor is similar. It's the under floor wood that rots and not until that has become very bad will the inner floor sart to show signs of damp. The habitation checks up till then will roduce good results.
The base vehicle checks are mechanical checks and don;t involve the habitation area.
So the very bottom of the underfloor is neglected in every regular service check.
I have my own crude damp meter and after a close shave with purchasing a used Bessacar with damp floor syndrome and my experience with Marquis I now inspect and measure the under floor every 4 months. (Just make sure to put sealant over the test holes the damp probe makes!)
And when I have the base vehicle service done I will ask them to inspect the under area for any concerns.


----------



## caz650s

Swift repaired the rotten floor twice at their factory at no cost to me on the 2007 sundance that i used to own when it was just out of warranty but it had a full hab check history.

I just don't understand how a main Swift dealer like Marquis did not recommend that their customer took the problem up with Swift .. before they started carrying out extensive structural repairs ?

I do not know the full facts ... but as the op states at 5 in his reply 'Swift did offer to carry out the repair ... but Marquis had already done it ... hardly Swifts fault ...more the dealers ?


----------



## rayc

"Being only 2 months after purcahse with a 3 year Marquis warranty I passed the issue to them and there reply was that the follr contruction being inner wood then foam then outer wood emant my issue was in only the outer wood and therefore not in the habitation area and therefore not covered."

That's restored my belief, or lack of it, in the Marquis warranty system. I was beginning to doubt myself when there was a recent topic praising their service.


----------



## cotswoldman

caz650s said:


> I do not know the full facts ... but as the op states at 5 in his reply 'Swift did offer to carry out the repair ... but Marquis had already done it ... hardly Swifts fault ...more the dealers ?


To clarify this point. Marquis contacted Swift on my behalf after showing me the damage. Swift rejected the claim outright because the vehicle was out of warranty. I have a copy of the report and their response.

When I first contacted Swift I enclosed copies of the paperwork including the fully paid invoice from Marquis. My letter was seeking help with the costs incurred. They knew full well that the repairs had been carried out so their offer to repair the vehicle was just a meaningless offer.

In my last contact from them they stated that the matter was now closed and that they would not respond again.

Very helpful company. :twisted:


----------



## caz650s

Hi Cotswoldman,

I see your point now ... but Swift must have changed how they help owners with the 'known' floor problem when out of warranty.

They repaired mine twice out of warranty & my friends 2005 suntor last year that was almost 5 years out of warranty !

Although i have now changed to an Autotrail I found Swifts customer care 1st class ... I only hope that if i ever need it Autotrails back up will be as good.

I hope your van is now ok & that you can get out & enjoy it !


----------



## voo

*damp floor*

hi we had same problem with swift sundance 2007 we had no hab history has we bought from a broker in nottingham & swift was so helpfull they did £9000 of work on it but we had to pay £3000 but if we had service history they would have honerd it so don t buy from a broker has when they have your money your on your own has it says in the small print of motor home depot of mansfield so thank god for swift & she came back good as new,


----------



## lipupfatty

I'm not a lawyer but I'm sure that the sale of goods act states that goods must be fit for purpose, these motorhomes are clearly NOT fit for purpose, you therefore have a claim against either the seller or manufacturer.
They rely on people not wanting bother with the hassle.
Take the case to Trading Standards and let them sort it for you. :evil:


----------

