# warranty rejection



## whistlinggypsy (May 1, 2005)

I have been informed by Brownhills, Newark this morning that my warranty claim on Rapido for a repair/recovering of our passenger seat due to faulty fabric has been turned down (not because of the fault) but due to the fact that the seat is over 12 months old.

The seat is in fact only 18 months old and after having independently assessed by another experienced upholstery company and their conclusion being the fabric had a inherent fault from the initial weave I would have thought it was a genuine claim, and in any case surely 18 months for something that in essence will be subjected to a certain amount of wear and tear should not be subject to a warranty life less than 12 months.

I wish at this point to say I have NO problem with Brownhills as they have tried with Rapido and if they reject the claim they can do no more.

I am advised by them to write to Rapido and ask for further explanation/reason for the rejection which I will do, but I would welcome comments from members as too their thoughts.

Thanks

Bob


----------



## autostratus (May 9, 2005)

Age might not be the only thing to take into account.
Useage ie mileage might also be a useful quote if you have done say less than average mileage.


----------



## dbh1961 (Apr 13, 2007)

Under the sale of goods act, Brownhills are responsible, regardless of whether or not they have a valid claim against Rapido.

Upholstery should be expected to last longer than 18 months.

Warranties are in addition to your statutory rights, not instead of.

Brownhills will tell you that sale of goods act only covers 12 months - that's untrue.


----------



## whistlinggypsy (May 1, 2005)

Gillian, I do not know if that bears any facts on the rejection, as nobody has asked that question but we have done 18000 miles in 18 months but to me that is our usual mileage Per Annum, and i did not buy a M/H to park it in the drive for the neighbours to admire and for us not too wear the fabric out on the seats.

Bob


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

dbh1961 said:


> Brownhills will tell you that sale of goods act only covers 12 months - that's untrue


Are you a spokesman for Brownhills then, or just running an embittered campaign? :roll:

To qualify this, I'm asking whether you have personal experience of Brownhills apparently misinforming you about the Sale of Goods Act.

Dougie.


----------



## UncleNorm (May 1, 2005)

*Warranty Rejection!*

Hello Bob!

It's so sad to hear such tales. Personally, I think you DO have a problem with B-hills. I think they are trying to pull a flanker, pull the wool over your eyes...

When I buy any vehicle, I expect to be able to do 12K miles pa, as you do. After 18 months, I would expect the vehicle to still be like new, unless it has been used on some industrial building site!

Somewhere on this forum, relating to a similar issue, someone quoted the Sale Of Goods Act and how our rights might extend beyond the first 12 months of ownership of an object. The quote made it clear that, if something was expected to last for at least 5 years, yet it failed after 2 years and outside of its warranty, the onus remained with the vendor from whom the object was bought. Such a case might involve, for example, TVs, washing machines, fridge/freezers, cars, motorhomes... Maybe someone better at searching than I will be able to find that thread.

As an aside, when Auntie Sandra and I went to the NEC in October, we went with the full intention of buying a Rapido 787F. Maybe luck was smiling on us that day. We bought an Adria.

So I think it should be back to B-hills for you, to see what THEY intend doing about your obviously substandard fabric. Crikey, if one seat has failed, when will the rest go?

I feel absolutely exasperated for you. Merry Christmas.


----------



## 104705 (May 24, 2007)

I think I would be dealing with Brownhills under Sale of Goods Act, and leaving Brownhills to deal with Rapido as they see fit. Don't become involved with Rapido who are a third party on the deal. I would be looking at fit for purpose. If the material has gone in such a short time/usage, then as has been mentioned, the material quality has to be called into question.


----------



## lindyloot (May 20, 2007)

Hi WhistlingGypsy, I think you definitely IMHO have a warranty claim 
1) The fabric is not "fit for purpose " if it has worn out in 18mths . Do you wear out your new 3 piece suite in that time ! 
2) enter it as an "abnormal warranty" claim 
and if all else fails take it to trading standards/watchdog etc. 
Goodluck Lin


----------



## whistlinggypsy (May 1, 2005)

Dougie, I am of the opinion that in our case we have always had a good relationship with with Brownhills and they have in the past done their best in our warranty dealings with them.

I am understandably a little put out with the response on this occasion as the claim was not rejected on wear and tear but warranty length.

Have you an opinion/experience you would like to share about the sale of goods acts as of which way this matter could be dealt with.

Thanks

Bob

p.s. our previous m/h a swift royale 630 had over 90000 miles on the clock and the uphostelry was still in excellent condition, when B/Hills part exchange it with us.


----------



## some-where-in-oxford (Apr 18, 2006)

Before writing to Rapido, it would be worthwhile talking to your local Trading Standards.

Last time I had a problem with a purchase, my local trading standards office drafted letters and emailed them to me.

They explained my rights and how to go about making the complaint. They will explain everything clearly so that you have the correct information on how you could proceed.

Hope this helps.


----------



## grumpyman (Sep 24, 2006)

http://www.consumerdirect.gov.uk/search 
this site may prove of value with template letters for use, remember a warranty is just an addition to your normal consumer rights.


----------



## richard863 (May 1, 2005)

Hi Bob
These warranty rejections are getting to be to much. 
On a different vein. The damage that happened to my Citroen I was told that because I have been towing it, and had a device for attaching the A frame my warranty was canceled. My brakes on the car were binding and the heat had blued the pads and discs, this heat then burnt the bellows on the drive shafts melted all the grease in the bearings and the heat then generated by the bearings distorted the plastic gear cogs in the gear box. £3200 worth of damage. There is no fault in the Aframe as it was not in use when the damage occured and been since checked over by the manufacturer .
While driving there was no pulling or anything that indicated the 1.1 engine was laboring. All of a sudden the wheel bearings started screaming, 5 miles later when I got home the latent heat had burnt a hole in the hub caps.
You may think why carry on driving when the bearing howl was noticed, well when you become aware of the noise the damage has already been done, same as if the oil lite comes while driving on the engine will most probably have seized before you can switch off.

I wish the damned thing caught on fire I would have been better off financially.

There you go Bob.


----------



## some-where-in-oxford (Apr 18, 2006)

Just a thought- Trading Standard will probably advise to carefully look at the wording of the manufacturers warranty.

Although any warranty is in addition to your statutory rights, does not replace them I am told.


----------



## Pusser (May 9, 2005)

Just imagine if Brownhills had said, "That is not satisfactory and even though the guarantee has run out we are going to sort it out for you". Anybody care to calculate how much that PR would cost if they employed people to do it against a small cost of upholstery which with their contacts would be relatively peanuts and little things like this would swing Brownhills right around to being the good guys.

How do I know - because I have seen it happen on here twice.


----------



## Rapide561 (Oct 1, 2005)

*Fabric*



dbh1961 said:


> Under the sale of goods act, Brownhills are responsible, regardless of whether or not they have a valid claim against Rapido.
> 
> Upholstery should be expected to last longer than 18 months.
> 
> ...


Very good info above. If you were to call trading standards and ask how long they would expect a fabric to last on a sofa or chair, I am sure it would be a lot longer than 18 months.

The warranty is, as sated above, in addition to your statutory rights.

Russell


----------



## wobby (May 1, 2005)

If its of any help an item must be fit for the purpose that it was made for that I believe is the sale of goods act.
I had a commissioning in-warranty and repair agency for a Major Manufacturer of cast iron heating equipment. They had a welding fault on one type of the boiler which caused premature failure, with a replacement cost of around £1200. This company extended there one year warranty to five and in subsequent years the client paid a proportion of the repair bill up to ten year cut off, I wonder why---- the sale of goods act------ it was proven that the boilers were of a faulty design. You only have to look at the battery recall that Sony did it cost them millions.

Wobby


----------



## JohnsCrossMotorHomes (Jul 21, 2007)

Pusser said:


> "That is not satisfactory and even though the guarantee has run out we are going to sort it out for you".


That would have been *EXCACTLY* what our response would have been.

Go to an independent dealer where the customer counts

Happy Xmas to all.

Regards


----------



## carol (May 9, 2005)

whistlinggypsy said:


> I have been informed by Brownhills, Newark this morning that my warranty claim on Rapido for a repair/recovering of our passenger seat due to faulty fabric has been turned down (not because of the fault) but due to the fact that the seat is over 12 months old.
> 
> The seat is in fact only 18 months old and after having independently assessed by another experienced upholstery company and their conclusion being the fabric had a inherent fault from the initial weave I would have thought it was a genuine claim, and in any case surely 18 months for something that in essence will be subjected to a certain amount of wear and tear should not be subject to a warranty life less than 12 months.
> 
> ...


Bob - this will be worth reading

http://www.motorcaravanning.com/vehicles/sixyear_rule.htm

What upholstery do you have - we have ordered Bilbao

Carol


----------



## whistlinggypsy (May 1, 2005)

Carol, not exactly sure of the name of the upholstery but i know it's not Bilbao so do not worry about yours i am sure it will be perfect, just inspect it carefully on collection, and thank you for the link, that goes to all for their input.

The time of year is now against us and also we are of too Morocco on Jan 1st. but we will call in at B/Hs on the way to Dover for more discussions with TOM.

"Watch this space" because as a often as i defended B/Hs in the past i am not going to lay down and take this warranty rejection lightly.

Bob


----------



## UncleNorm (May 1, 2005)

*Warranty Rejection!*

Dear Carol - THANK YOU for digging out that link for Bob. It made for some fascinating reading.

Merry Christmas!


----------



## carol (May 9, 2005)

*Re: Warranty Rejection!*



UncleNorm said:


> Dear Carol - THANK YOU for digging out that link for Bob. It made for some fascinating reading.
> 
> Merry Christmas!


Uncle Norm, no problem, it is one I recall Neill putting on his web site several years ago, but I couldn't find it easily from his links, but a search for it turned it up. It is fascinating isn't it.... and one worth remembering for quite a few things....

Have a good Christmas yourself wherever you spend it....

Carol


----------



## 105062 (Jun 10, 2007)

Hi, About 15 years ago I had a Fiesta that was 3 years old but had only done 22 000 miles. It had a black and white chequed upholstery. Holes started appearing across the top of the rear seat. My Ford dealer claimed against Ford but they turned it down as the cars only had a 12 month warranty in them days. The dealer ended up re-upholstering the rear seat at their cost as it was pointed out that the seats were not fit for purpose and they were ultimately responsible. I must say that they did it all with no complaints and just accepted the fact. Since then I have had 2 new cars from them as I was so impressed with their attitude.

The buck stops with the dealer and it boils down to is the product fit for purpose!


----------



## some-where-in-oxford (Apr 18, 2006)

Tribute_650 said:


> Hi, About 15 years ago I had a Fiesta that was 3 years old but had only done 22 000 miles. It had a black and white chequed upholstery. Holes started appearing across the top of the rear seat. My Ford dealer claimed against Ford but they turned it down as the cars only had a 12 month warranty in them days. The dealer ended up re-upholstering the rear seat at their cost as it was pointed out that the seats were not fit for purpose and they were ultimately responsible. I must say that they did it all with no complaints and just accepted the fact. Since then I have had 2 new cars from them as I was so impressed with their attitude.
> 
> The buck stops with the dealer and it boils down to is the product fit for purpose!


In a perfect world all dealer would be like this.


----------



## whistlinggypsy (May 1, 2005)

This morning following advise from members I have contacted consumer direct and opened a file with them in case things get naughty with you know who.

I have written to TOM again informing him of our decision to take this route and asking if we can overcome the obstacle of the warranty period as the goods are not fit for purpose, "awaiting response"

Bob

p.s. forgot to mention that the six year rule that Carol indicated was brought up by consumer direct and applies in this case.


----------



## 98483 (Apr 3, 2006)

a point has come to my mind, i take it the m/h has been used 2 up for the majority, if not all of it's short life.
why therefore has only one seat worn out. unless there is a hugely disproportionate size difference between the 2 of you (please god don't be offended if there is).
just remember that the contract is between you and brown-noses, not the manufacturer, they just ok the work so brown-noses get paid.
as has been said before, i'm glad you are getting ' the service they would expect from such a prestigious company." '


----------



## whistlinggypsy (May 1, 2005)

As a follow up in this unfortunate matter i have been in contact with Tom nearly all day.

The bottom line is as of now Rapido dismiss the claim out of hand and i fully understand the situation Brownhills are in.

At the present time and following advise from a very good friend i have entered a course of dialogue with Brownhills whereas after inspection of the offending seat at their premises on Jan 2nd we will both have the opportunity to progress from there, and after consultation with Tom and looking for an amicable end with customer relations to the fore i feel we will have a happy ending.

Some may think I have capitulated my position with B/Hills but i assure you I have not, but taking the advise of some members and also consumer direct I am willing to carry on with the current situation rather than a slanging match, so I will inform all of the outcome, and once again thank you for your input.

regards 

Bob


----------



## silverlocks (Jun 28, 2007)

Chapter and \verse on this subject is here

http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file25486.pdf

sorry but the url editor doesnt seem to work anymore

Bob


----------



## oldun (Nov 10, 2005)

Surely there are two different "rights" here.

The guarantee last for as long as it states in the paperwork associated with the guarantee. If it is for 12 months then claims will be rejected when the van is 12 months and 1 day old. Surely that is fair. If you did not like the guarantee then you should not buy the van.

However an object sold must be fit for purpose and the time scale associated with any claims made on the basis that the seats were of an unsatisfactory standard had no definite time limits. Surely it is on this basis an "out-of-guarantee" claim must be made.


----------



## whistlinggypsy (May 1, 2005)

djchapple said:


> Surely there are two different "rights" here.
> 
> The guarantee last for as long as it states in the paperwork associated with the guarantee. If it is for 12 months then claims will be rejected when the van is 12 months and 1 day old. Surely that is fair. If you did not like the guarantee then you should not buy the van.
> 
> However an object sold must be fit for purpose and the time scale associated with any claims made on the basis that the seats were of an unsatisfactory standard had no definite time limits. Surely it is on this basis an "out-of-guarantee" claim must be made.


That's exactly were we are at the moment, fit for purpose and time scale with some customer relations thrown in for good luck

Bob


----------



## Steptoe (Nov 8, 2005)

Bob, after reading your sad tale I was reminded about the worn patch on the driver's seat on my car, about 2 sq inches of the woven material has rubbed away where mine and the previous owner's bottoms have entered and exited the vehicle.

...mind you it is 21 years old and has done nearly 1/4 million miles, guess I won't bother with a warranty claim :lol: 

sorry, this is absolutely no help to you but thought it might bring a little humour to the saga, it's nearly Christmas after all. On a serious note all the other seats are in perfect condition, abeit a little grubby


----------



## whistlinggypsy (May 1, 2005)

Steptoe said:


> Bob, after reading your sad tale I was reminded about the worn patch on the driver's seat on my car, about 2 sq inches of the woven material has rubbed away where mine and the previous owner's bottoms have entered and exited the vehicle.
> 
> ...mind you it is 21 years old and has done nearly 1/4 million miles, guess I won't bother with a warranty claim :lol:
> 
> sorry, this is absolutely no help to you but thought it might bring a little humour to the saga, it's nearly Christmas after all. On a serious note all the other seats are in perfect condition, albeit a little grubby


I think after 250000 miles i would not be too concerned about the state of my seat. :wink:

Bob


----------



## richard863 (May 1, 2005)

*warranty rejection by Citroen*

Hi All

Re my Citroen C2 warranty claim. Because the clowns in my local garage can not attribute the heat created by slightly binding brakes and the wheel bearings failing to any fault of the company they are completely denying all claims related to warranty.
This lot in Slough can not get it into their heads that something must have failed to create so much damage on a 18 month old car. The first thing I knew that something had gone wrong was when the bearings suddenly started screaming.

I suppose the moral of the story is you buy junk expect junk.

Happy new year to all


----------



## fransgrandad (Dec 7, 2007)

I have to agree with pusser, what an opportunity the dealer has lost!! how many negitive postings have they had. 

May be they will see the wisdom of other dealers and do the right thing and use this forum to tell their valued customer to come in and have the seat sorted.

what does advertising cost? any case any advertising is only 50% effective a positive posting here would have a better return than that.

Come on Brownhills do the right thing sort the man's seat out. You know full well you are liable for 6 years from the date of purchase.

Les.


----------



## grumpyman (Sep 24, 2006)

At present i am in contact with Brownhills re this attached post http://www.motorhomefacts.com/ftopicp-341714.html#341714 It has taken them until today following a reminder from me simply to tell me they have heard nothing yet.If by that they mean the Manufacturer that answer took me 1 day to obtain sorry your warranty has expired.I wait with baited breadth for the reply but to be honest do not think they will do much about it unless I consider legal action which would be a shame and a waste of my time.


----------



## 109000 (Jan 3, 2008)

Brownhills warranty not worth a jot!
We have been treated so shoddily by this dealership, others should be aware! 
Our brand new van had a slight fault in the roof moulding from day one as we drove it out the showroom. Having reported this and discussed it with the staff they promised to repair it. You don't distrust or doubt the word of a dealer with whom you have had 15 years dealings including the purchase of two brand new vans do you?
Unfortunately, later on and towards the end of the year, the well known manufacturer, went into liquidation, some eight months after we first reported the faults. Brownhills then reassured us that as goodwill, like their own second hand vehicle warranties, they would honour any faulty reported in the first year. If only I had that in writing now because this promise was to changed later on. They then proceeded to take eight months to get round to organising my workshop visit, even after much hounding and many months of unanswered emails and phone calls by me trying to assist them in being competent. However as a result of the 'stalling' the goodwill warranty, they then told me, was no out of date by less than two weeks. As a result of their incompetence the year was up and they then suggested I go halves with them on the repair. They even suggested that I should prove that I had reported the issues within the year. I tried but failed to convince them of the error of their ways and of course I turned down their offer out of principle! 
At this, they finally resorted to saying that as I had not had the first annual habitation check done by them they wished no further dealings with me on the matter! 
_I had a quote from the workshop who did the hab check for less than the half price offered by Brownhills!! Say no more!!_


----------



## iandsm (May 18, 2007)

Hello, I would be very interested to know if this was resolved and whether it was to your satisfaction


----------



## JohnsCrossMotorHomes (Jul 21, 2007)

suzydo said:


> Brownhills warranty not worth a jot!
> We have been treated so shoddily by this dealership, others should be aware!
> Our brand new van had a slight fault in the roof moulding from day one as we drove it out the showroom. Having reported this and discussed it with the staff they promised to repair it. You don't distrust or doubt the word of a dealer with whom you have had 15 years dealings including the purchase of two brand new vans do you?
> Unfortunately, later on and towards the end of the year, the well known manufacturer, went into liquidation, some eight months after we first reported the faults. Brownhills then reassured us that as goodwill, like their own second hand vehicle warranties, they would honour any faulty reported in the first year. If only I had that in writing now because this promise was to changed later on. They then proceeded to take eight months to get round to organising my workshop visit, even after much hounding and many months of unanswered emails and phone calls by me trying to assist them in being competent. However as a result of the 'stalling' the goodwill warranty, they then told me, was no out of date by less than two weeks. As a result of their incompetence the year was up and they then suggested I go halves with them on the repair. They even suggested that I should prove that I had reported the issues within the year. I tried but failed to convince them of the error of their ways and of course I turned down their offer out of principle!
> ...


When one deals with a large organisation, whatever type of business it may be, always get in in writing, then there cannot be any arguements or disagreement after the event.

Staff change but theres no excuse for the treatment suzydo got especially after buying her third van from them.


----------

