Advice needed.

Simon Select

Simon Select

MH Trader
LIFE MEMBER
Joined
Mar 18, 2016
Posts
1,349
Likes collected
7,839
Location
Devon
Funster No
42,036
MH
A Class Coachbuilt
Exp
25 Years
So I have sold a 2020 Knaus panel van. Lovely van and a lovely couple. They live miles away and put a holding deposit on it subject to a test drive. They turned up drove it and loved it. 2 months later they have sent a 2 page email saying the van is not fit for purpose so they want a full refund. The reason being…. The captains chairs are not comfortable on long journeys.
Am I being unreasonable saying I reject the rejection? Just want some opinions!!!
Simon
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
No not unreasonable at all, no way can that be a reason for rejection.
Most PVC's have standard Fiat seats nothing to stop them fitting ISRI or Aguti. seats, that's what I would do if I found the seats uncomfortable.

How many miles have they done in it?
 
Upvote 0
2 pages saying the captains chairs are uncomfortable? :oops:

My gut feel is that the test drive was opportunity to verify suitability/comfort of the seats and therefore that would not be a valid reason for rejection of the vehicle some 2 months after the sales transaction. But then what do I know…

Besides, there are options to replace seats or have the current seats embellished to their needs.
 
Upvote 0
I would say that’s a flat no. A seat is for sitting on, unless the construction of it has failed (foam/springs/webbing etc) then it is working as designed.
I do get the comfort thing, I’ve got Isri seats and they’re bloody uncomfortable 😣, but I just stick a memory foam pad under my arse and it’s fine.
 
Upvote 0
Further to message sent, would a Mercedes dealer accept a return from a 2020 SLK 500 after a couple of months because the seats werent comfortable for driving long distances ?
 
Upvote 0
No not being unreasonable
 
  • Like
Reactions: f6c
Upvote 0
Send them a two page letter back saying that they have no chance of a refund.
 
Upvote 0
Suggest Volvo XC90 seats best around!

Cheers James

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 
Upvote 0
From comments by your customers on this forum you seem to be really customer focused and always go the extra mile, which is a rare commodity in the motorhome world. However, I think on this occasion you are fully justified in rejecting their claim as it really smacks of buyer regret. It appears to be a 'try on' in an attempt to take advantage of your known goodwill.
 
Upvote 0
If the only fault I find on my new Van when it arrives is uncomfortable seats I reckon I would have had a result!(y)
I have had Volvo seats most of my driving life and they are sublimely comfortable armchairs. There is a Cinema in Stockholm with Volvo car seating throughout! So my expectation is that my Fiat Van seats are not going to be as comfortable as my Volvo's.
If that proves to be the case I either get used to it or I add it to the inevitable list of modifications one expects to do to suit our needs.
That reason alone stands on extremley weak legal ground for refund.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 1
pappajohn said:
My guess is they've had one or two trips in it and realised the motorhome lifestyle isn't for them.
As said.....send them a couple of cushions.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Plus restrictions continue and it has turned ruddy cold and wet.
Besides, whether a seat is comfortable or not is subjective. I've had *luxury* cars with seats of varying comfort in that they weren't as hard/soft/supportive/adjustable as I would've liked but that wasn't the fault of the manufacturer or the dealer as I had tried them before purchase.
 
Upvote 1
Simon-Alan Kerr said:
So I have sold a 2020 Knaus panel van. Lovely van and a lovely couple. They live miles away and put a holding deposit on it subject to a test drive. They turned up drove it and loved it. 2 months later they have sent a 2 page email saying the van is not fit for purpose so they want a full refund. The reason being…. The captains chairs are not comfortable on long journeys.
Am I being unreasonable saying I reject the rejection? Just want some opinions!!!
Simon
Click to expand...
I’ll give them £10k for it if their unhappy 👍🏻

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 
Upvote 0
Silver-Fox said:
I wouldn’t of thought the seats being uncomfortable being a reason for “not fit for purpose”

Also is it outside the rejection period 🤷‍♂️

Surely the drive home would of alerted them to the seats 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...

On a private sale, there is no rejection period is there?

EDIT: After reading on, it appears it's not a 'private' sale but I agree with others, it's far too late for rejection BUT it might be worth reminding them of the VERY high 2 month, daily hire charge total?:giggle:
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Tell them you are so sorry and, as long as the vehicle is in the condition it left you in, are happy to return their money. It's been two months, You'll be able to sell it for more than they paid. '\ Win - Win.

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 
Upvote 0
Jim said:
Tell them you are so sorry and, as long as the vehicle is in the condition it left you in, are happy to return their money. It's been two months, You'll be able to sell it for more than they paid. :D Win - Win.
Click to expand...

Surely less a reasonable 'Hire Fee.'
 
Upvote 0
If it is just the seats then they must just be trying it on,if its numerous faults then its understandable ,do you know how many miles theyve done ?
i agree with the others its probably not the lifestyle or type of van and they are trying it on, if it is just the seats. Then they are cheeky bu..ers ,using the not fit for purpose law to return something
good luck pampam
 
Upvote 0
I don't see the couple (as nice as they are), having any grounds whatsoever to reject the goods under CRA15 for 'uncomfortable front seats'. I'm just being picky but:

Chapter-2 (Goods) CRA15, Section-9, Para-4, sub-sect (b) refers; inasmuch as the consumer inspected the goods prior to the contract/purchase being made and was subsequently happy to proceed with said contract.

'IMO' you should also note that Section-3, Sub-Sections a-e inclusive, cannot be used as a defence because Simon/Alan Kerr Motorhomes supplied a product which was in tip-top condition; as what a normal consumer would expect (in terms of quality) for this type of van, S2 refers.

........see S4(b) below:

Goods to be of satisfactory quality​

(S1) Every contract to supply goods is to be treated as including a term that the quality of the goods is satisfactory.

(S2) The quality of goods is satisfactory if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would consider satisfactory, taking account of—

(a) any description of the goods,
(b) the price or other consideration for the goods (if relevant), and
(c) all the other relevant circumstances (see subsection (5)).

(S3) The quality of goods includes their state and condition; and the following aspects (among others) are in appropriate cases aspects of the quality of goods—

(a) fitness for all the purposes for which goods of that kind are usually supplied;
(b) appearance and finish;
(c) freedom from minor defects;
(d) safety;
(e) durability.

(S4) The term mentioned in subsection (1) does not cover anything which makes the quality of the goods unsatisfactory—

(a) which is specifically drawn to the consumer’s attention before the contract is made,
(b) where the consumer examines the goods before the contract is made, which that examination ought to reveal, or
(c) in the case of a contract to supply goods by sample, which would have been apparent on a reasonable examination of the sample.
 
Upvote 0

Join us or log in to post a reply.

To join in you must be a member of MotorhomeFun

Join MotorhomeFun

Join us, it quick and easy!

Join us

Log in

Already a member? Log in here.

Latest journal entries

Back
Top