Brown hills damp checks inspection (1 Viewer)

[Hayleylulu]

Damp Checks inspection

We have launched an ambitious and extensive programme of customer service improvements across Brownhills. We are the UK's largest motorhome retailer who, under new management, have already changed some of the perceptions people have of the organisation, ensuring the company is on track to deliver a first class service in every aspect of its business
Well i think they need to buy some new damp test meters or give the staff some training how to use them . if you wont a damp free moter home then stay well away from brown hills

 

[JJ]

Is it possible that troubles such as yours Martin is what brought the new policy about...

Maybe, just maybe, they are now getting to grips with the faults in their service departments that caused your troubles...

How long ago did you get your van from them?

Did they put it right (eventually)?

Were you unlucky and got the one bad salesman in the team?

Could it be that if you bought a van from them today things would be better?

I don't know, really I don't, but am just wondering...

JJ :Cool:

 

[Hayleylulu]

not had van long they told me its not damp if it was not damp why have they paid another company to do the work at a cost to them of £3000. gear box repair that they said there was nothing wrong with but they have just paid Peugeot £1300 seems to me that i know moor about motor homes than them .dont think it will be long be four they are on the TV RIP OF BROWNHILLS

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[jhorsf]

JJ Brownhills gave the previous owner less for part x as it had damp before Brownhills bought it Martin reported in a previous post.I would be pissed off as well Martinoh:

 

[Hayleylulu]

Brown hills as paid for all the work thats had to be done as the warranty Fiat care would not pay for it as i had only had the van for lees than a week. i sent brown hills a registered letter some weeks back as yet they have not replied to it sent another one this week .there so posed to be one of the biggest motorhome companies going its no wounder other motorhome companies are going bump when you have a place like brown hills selling bad vans than do there best to get out of it .well yosser hughes beat them and will continue to slag them off when ever i can

 

[Hayleylulu]

up date

well sent brown hills two registered letters and still no reply from them next letter will be sent to the MD to find out why there letting vans out in the condition there in like damp gear box problems .why are they paying staff to do a job thats not being done

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[slobadoberbob]

FAIR COMMENT IS ALLOWED however

Martin I would be the first to say FAIR COMMENT to your issues. 'Slagging them off or making slanderous statements' could cause an issue for JIM and the site.

I have every sympathy with the issues. Can I suggest you use your FAIR comment as provided in law to list the facts. I know it is hard to keep your feelings in check, but if your posts lists events like A, B and C and responses and action then members may be able to judge the issues. It may be also that Brown Hills will get a message that this debate is being carried on in a medium where they may have customers now or the future. One complaint takes 100 sales that are OK to blot it out.. just look at ebay feedback.. I do not buy without checking the feedback and if there are to many negatives then I buy elsewhere.

Do remember you do have a recourse in the Courts. The Sale of Goods Act applies as well as the Misrepresentation Act (criminal). So you could and I would do consider legal action. Once you obtain a judgement then Fair Comment or the judgement is in the public domain and you can draw as many people's attention to it as you want. But as a retired Lawyer I would say be a little careful.. we all have a lot of sympathy in your plight, and have added comments to the posts.

Regards

Bob.. yes you can p.m. if you wish.

 

[Chris]

Its news to me that the Misrepresentation Act 1967 is for criminal cases Bob.

I should think it is used more widely in civil cases.

Don't worry Yosser provided what you post is true Brownhills won't come calling.

The positive slant is that they sorted it out.

If its right that they paid the original seller less because of the damp they have more to worry about than you I can assure you.

 

[slobadoberbob]

Trading standards use it as a criminal action

Its news to me that the Misrepresentation Act 1967 is for criminal cases Bob.

I should think it is used more widely in civil cases.

Don't worry Yosser provided what you post is true Brownhills won't come calling.

The positive slant is that they sorted it out.

If its right that they paid the original seller less because of the damp they have more to worry about than you I can assure you.

Used by trading standards in the criminal sense as they do not have a contract with the party which would be a requirement if you used in as a ciil tool .. used as a sledge hammer to a walnut.. hence I did invite Martin to P.M. me so I could advise him of some of the routes open to him. Sale of Goods is fine, but if it can be shown that there is a case then Trading Standards could proceed as a criminal matter.

Bob

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Chris]

Used by trading standards in the criminal sense as they do not have a contract with the party which would be a requirement if you used in as a ciil tool .. used as a sledge hammer to a walnut.. hence I did invite Martin to P.M. me so I could advise him of some of the routes open to him. Sale of Goods is fine, but if it can be shown that there is a case then Trading Standards could proceed as a criminal matter.

Bob

Bit confused as Trading Standards don't need to have a contract to prosecute.They prosecute under Statutory powers.

Martin could sue under the Sale of Goods Act and under the Misrepresentation Act but not really any point as he already has his remedy.

I thought you were warning Martin about a defamation claim.

 

[slobadoberbob]

Yes I was before we got side tracked

Bit confused as Trading Standards don't need to have a contract to prosecute.They prosecute under Statutory powers.

Martin could sue under the Sale of Goods Act and under the Misrepresentation Act but not really any point as he already has his remedy.

I thought you were warning Martin about a defamation claim.

Yes I was giving him advice on possible defamation.

But he may still have a claim for his out of pocket expenses.. He has good consideration. I try and not make the answer to legal.. Only makes it hard to get the point across on the forum. As I am sure you will agree sale of goods act is the easiest way forward. Trading standards, will register the issue, but will not get involved unless there has been multi complaints I have found.

Bob