Itchy Feet on Sherrifs Programme (1 Viewer)

[johnpengers]

I didn't see the tv programme so no comment.

We've always dealt with Itchy Feet and will do so in the future.

Eric and Michael have always been fair with us so I can only speak as I find.

Regards.

John P.

 

[cruiser]

so watch the program then comment.

 

[PeteH]

J-P From Near Shepton Mallet? One time contributer to the ARVE website?

Pete

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

 

[Deleted member 29692]

There has to be a big customer service question about any company in any field that lets a complaint get that much out of hand. Maybe it's just me but I would never dream of it. I would resolve the problem at my own cost long before that point.

 

[johnpengers]

The very same Mr Pete H.

That forum died a death years ago !

Sometimes I think the RVOC is going that way but thats just my personal opinion.

Hope all ok with you.

Regards.

John P

 

[johnpengers]

so watch the program then comment.

I will only comment on my own personal experiences and like I said before,I can only speak as I find.

Regards.

John P.

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

 

[Reallyretired]

Surprisingly I saw that bit of the programme. SWMBO has broken her ankle and having to sit around all day with her foot up (while I do all the work) was watching whatever cr*p the TV channels choose to put out, I joined her for a cuppa and saw it.
Matters were made much worse by the prat of a son swearing and threatening, without his input the matter would have been resolved amicably without showing the firm in such a bad light. It was still bad business letting it get that far though.

 

[Ian789]

The court twice found in favour of the claimant (including over £10k costs). Now based on the current news maybe the judge had his mind on other things at the time, but it seems unlikely, so it doesnt look good for the company's reputation. They sold the guys RV for him at commisssion, but part of the deal they struck involved a PX. With the cash balance they paid off the outstanding finance (took their commisssion ? not clear on programme) , and paid the balance (of the cash) to the claimant. They witheld the value of the PX until it too was sold. When this was eventually sold, they again took in a van in PX but it seems would pay no further money to the claimant until this second PX would in turn be sold. How long this cycle would have continued before Itchy feet paid the balance is unclear but you can understand why after 18 months the claimant sought legal advice, and took them to court for the balance and won his case. Very bad publicity for the company.

 

[cruiser]

the son showed him self in a very bad light. did his company no good at all.

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

 

[Chris]

I watched it last night.

It was cringe worthy wasn't it?

I bet Dad gave Son a good kicking after.

I suspect that if the company wasn't in trouble before, it might be now.

 

[DBK]

I am sure I read somewhere, on this site I think, that RV sales are declining. Which must make it hard for a business to keep the cash flowing when so much money is tied up in stock. But someone must think they are still making money. that Audi R8 which the sheriff was eyeing up to sieze wouldn't have been cheap.

 

[karolann]

hi all, used to work for i f. At brixworth,They still had cornwall site then,probably still do. They also are at sywell,and are advertising for valeters and cleaners. will comment after i watch the show,but sounds like nothings changed sadly.

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

 

[Forestboy]

Plenty of profit if you can sell someone elses 60k RV and pocket the money.
Had a mate who had the same problem with a new BMW motorbike. Health problems meant it had to be sold. The garage he bought it off offered to sell for a commission. Usual part ex bullshit from them and he never got all his money.
That company went bust a couple of years back thankfully and the Porches & BMWs were all taken as nothing was paid for.
When we sold our RV through Andy at Freedom I negotiated with him that no part ex was allowed unless I got full payment on the first deal which he agreed and honoured.
Itchyfeet could learn from him.

 

[scotjimland]

hi all, used to work for i f. At brixworth,They still had cornwall site then,probably still do. They also are at sywell,and are advertising for valeters and cleaners. will comment after i watch the show,but sounds like nothings changed sadly.

@karolann did you join just to make this post ?

If so, please read the Forum Rules before commenting further on Itchy Feet ... . http://www.motorhomefun.co.uk/forum/pages/terms/

Rule 2 Do not post defamatory comments on this forum

Motorhomefun is not the place to post defamatory posts about any person or company no matter how you might feel justified in doing so. This is a forum to discuss the Fun aspect of motorhomes and not a place to 'rubbish' others, spread gossip or assist campaigns against companies or individuals.

 

[Jim]

I've just had Itchy Feet send me an email they would like published here.

In reply to the recent posts regarding Itchy Feet featuring on a recent TV programme.

Firstly, it is regrettable that a well-respected business, like ourselves, lands up on a cheap reality TV programme which is totally over dramatized to give effect. The programme was filmed over 6 months ago and Itchy Feet is still trading today; more importantly there are always two sides to a story and therefore we have decided to respond.

The case commences in 2007 when Itchy Feet sold a beautiful motorhome to the Claimant, however when the vehicle was originally purchased from capital bank as a repossession prior to the claimants ownership, it was a different story. As all Itchy Feet motorhomes, they are the best that can be purchased in the UK and the staff we employ are the most passionate about the product.

Various people on forums make comments about dealers making profit, but very few understand the time, effort and money that goes into preparing an American Motorhome for sale; let alone the fact that there is no warranty with the purchase of an American Motorhome other than the supplying dealer standing by that vehicle for various periods, 3 months, 6 months etc. and hoping that nothing major will go wrong.

The Motorhome was sold to the Claimant and a generous allowance was given for his trade in. As the Claimant has stated, he owned a beautiful motorhome and he had no complaints with Itchy Feet.

In 2009, the Claimant’s life changed and Itchy Feet was asked to sell his motorhome. In September 2009 the vehicle was taken to Shepton Mallet and a buyer was found, however the buyer was some time away from being able to complete. Being aware of the Claimant’s position, Itchy Feet immediately cleared the outstanding finance which was of a considerable amount and also made arrangements to put some money into the Claimant’s pocket; Itchy Feet took in a part exchange where again we hoped to make profit. As far as Itchy Feet was concerned, our business transaction was concluded with the Claimant at this point in full and final payment, and we had done everything possible to help the Claimant.

Nothing was heard from the Claimant for over two and a half years, and then a claim was introduced for £23,000.00, in his pleadings it was then reduced to £20,000.00, and then reduced again to £15,000.00. The Claimant could not decide what he was owed, and was simply chancing his luck. As he states, Itchy Feet were giving him £60,000.00, selling for £65,000.00, he had already had over £45,000.00 - where does £23,000.00 come from? The maths did not stack up.

Returning to several people’s comments about a dealer only being there for profit, does anyone actually believe that after clearing off someone else’s finance, giving them money in their pocket, holding the motorhome for several months, having to pay £10,000.00 for show space at Shepton Mallet, having to pay VAT on any profit made, having to put a further three month warranty on the motorhome; we would do all this for £5,000.00? I do not think so.

The truth is the deal had been done and we must all remember this is 2009, deep recession, very little was selling and the Claimant needed to dispose of his motorhome. He could not afford to retain the vehicle.

A decision was taken to allow the claim to go to Court in 2013. There was no evidence in favour of the Claimant, only a proposal form from a finance company to give him finance in 2007.

Following the hearing the court found that the price that Itchy Feet had paid for the motorhome prior to the Claimant taking delivery and the figure that the vehicle was sold at to the Claimant, also the fact that the money the Claimant had now received from Itchy Feet, Itchy Feet had made “extortionate profit”. The Judge ruled that Itchy Feet were not allowed to make a profit. There was no evidence in support of the Claimant’s claim, only a document based on a higher purchase proposal, and what we had put it up for sale for in the retail market in 2007. In the real world, we all have to make sacrifices when we cannot meet our bills; we all want more, but we accept less. This was the case for the Claimant.

After the hearing and the judge finding for the Claimant, an appeal was launched. Transcripts of the hearing in August were obtained. Permission to appeal was heard before HHJ Leggatt QC in April 2014 who found that the original Judge did not test the evidence of the Claimant in the correct manner; the claim being for one figure and then quickly reduced to another figure and then reduced again, and the fact that all this happened back in 2009 was very suspicious. HHJ Leggatt gave clear directions that transcripts of the days hearing between himself and Mr Randle were to be obtained as the next appeal Judge would be making reference to the Permission to Appeal hearing. HHJ Leggatt paved the way for an appeal, and MK Transcribing Services were employed by ourselves to obtain these transcripts from the court. This process can take several weeks. In the meantime a new hearing day was set for June 2014, however the tapes of the hearing had not been received by MK Transcribing Services. The court was notified that without the transcripts and the findings of HHJ Leggatt that appeal could not go forward and an adjournment was requested. To Itchy Feet’s mistake, a letter was sent to the court stating that without the transcripts we would not be attending.

Regrettably the reply to this letter stated that all parties should still attend court was not received until after the date. Therefore the appeal went ahead without Itchy Feet attending. A further application was immediately made to the court to request another hearing date which was sent to the High Courts and this was acknowledged. However, although there was clear proof that an appeal was in place and was within the High Courts, we now accept we should have filed a document to stay proceedings. In its absence it left the Judgement live and allowed the Claimant’s solicitors to claim the debt.

In September 2014, our premises was visited by a Sheriff who upon seeing the documentation accepted that there was still ongoing proceedings and it was he who suggested that we contact the Birmingham High Court and gain a Stay on Writ with immediate effect.

It is accepted that we paid £10,000.00 on that day, and upon receipt of the document from the Court, the £10,000.00 was kept in a holding account with the Sheriffs until after the next hearing.

At this point what the programme has shown is very one sided and although I was not present at the beginning, the position with my son was one that was provoked entirely by the camera man for the effect that the programme required. Please do not believe that camera men are innocent and if you look at more programmes within this series, you will find most of them land up with confrontation with the camera man who is employed to provoke.

Although the programme was edited to show Michael in a bad light, having a camera pushed into your face and watching a wrong doing unfolding without the final court hearing is majorly distressing. For those of you who know Michael, you will all know that he is very hard working and is extremely passionate about the motorhomes that he sells. I therefore accept from other witnesses that he was totally provoked. In fact, a complaint was emailed to the producers of the programme that very day who did promise an investigation into the situation. It must also be accepted that camera men think they are outside of the law and have a freedom to do what they want to do. Ask yourselves the very question, would you not react the same?

After the final hearing which came down to Court protocol and not even discussing the case, it was decided that yes a mistake had been made in making a decision in June 2014 not to attend the Appeal hearing without the transcripts; because of this there was a now only a narrow window open within the appeal court. However, there would be a risk of substantial legal costs for both parties and the barristers decided to settle. The judgement was paid immediately and the only thing left outstanding was the fees of the day.

To bring this episode to a close, we have decided to set a room aside at the Itchy Feet premises with all the documentation in relation to the case, the judge’s directions, judge’s statements, transcript etc. for anyone to come and view between 9am to 5pm Mondays to Fridays, and 10am to 4pm on Saturdays. The room is away from our operations and tea and coffee will be provided.

The lesson that has been learnt by Itchy Feet is simply we are not allowed to make a profit which is very sad because it is the profit that allows us to spend more money than any other dealer in the UK on supplying some of the finest motorhomes that the UK has ever seen; over the years it has also allowed Itchy Feet to be very generous with it clients, hopefully many of you will remember that.

So moving forward, we are excited about our plans for 2015 and beyond. We hope to see many of you at the various trade shows and indeed at our premises.

Yours Faithfully


Eric Randle​

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

 

[Mel]

A nice email from the heart IMO.



Mel

 

[scotjimland]

two sides to every story.. certainly shines a different light on it..

thanks for posting @Jim

 

[Red Sonja]

I would like to thank Eric for putting his side of the story. I never watch these reality shows anymore as I realise that the camera man and sometimes the presenters Like to wind people up. I watched the clip in question and the only fault if there was one was Michaels reaction to the camera man. Itchy feet are still trading and have tried to show what happened. Hopefully they can put it behind them. I have no connection with them just like to see fair play.

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

 

[Chris]

Nice to see the other side of the story.

Good luck.

 

[DBK]

I do hope they showed that text to a solicitor. The phrase the claimant was "chancing his luck" might be open to discussion between members of the legal trade. And of course there were always going to be two sides to this story, it is just unfortunate for them they were less successful than the claimant in pressing their case in court.

And as for their idea of opening some sort shrine to this case I can only suggest don't and move on. It will all be chip wrappings in a week.

There is a very useful website on MH travels which is run by some folk who used to write for MMM then they had an article rejected to which they took such umbrage they have devoted a section of their website to the whole episode. It does them no credit. It is done and dusted, forgotten about - unless you deliberately keep the wound raw and unhealed.

 

[Cossieg]

It's good to read the other side of the story. The bit I still don't understand is the statement 'Itchy Feet were giving him £60,000.00, selling for £65,000.00, he had already had over £45,000.00'? The statement indicates that Itchy Feet still owed the guy the £15000 he claimed for? Am I missing something?

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

 

[Cossieg]

It's good to read the other side of the story. The bit I still don't understand is the statement 'Itchy Feet were giving him £60,000.00, selling for £65,000.00, he had already had over £45,000.00'? The statement indicates that Itchy Feet still owed the guy the £15000 he claimed for? Am I missing something?

 

[mariner]

They would not let it lie.

I agree with DevonBeekeeper!

Let it go!


Write it off to experience!

 

[DavidG58]

It's good to read the other side of the story. The bit I still don't understand is the statement 'Itchy Feet were giving him £60,000.00, selling for £65,000.00, he had already had over £45,000.00'? The statement indicates that Itchy Feet still owed the guy the £15000 he claimed for? Am I missing something?

I was just writing a very similar question

A lot of words from Itchy Feet that have confused me more than explained the situation

It now sounds like IF are saying they need best bit of £20K to cover selling costs, I doubt the seller would have agreed to that level of commission

As I say very confusing, to me at least

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

 

[Deleted member 29692]

Someone once said to me that there are usually three sides to every argument: your side, their side and the truth.

 

[scotjimland]

we must all remember this is 2009, deep recession, very little was selling and the Claimant needed to dispose of his motorhome.

I can attest to that..

that very same year I put my RV on the market and it took a full six months to shift it, and eventually it sold for a fraction of what I had paid some five years earlier... and 50% less than I valued it.. .. but the valuable of anything is only what someone else is prepared to pay for it..

I was just glad to be shot of it and happy to get what I could.. perhaps that is how the claimant felt when he gave it back to Itchy Feet to sell.. happy to have the burden of debt lifted.. and some cash.. but now some years later thinks he was hard done by ...

 

[EssexBoy]

I was just writing a very similar question

A lot of words from Itchy Feet that have confused me more than explained the situation

It now sounds like IF are saying they need best bit of £20K to cover selling costs, I doubt the seller would have agreed to that level of commission

As I say very confusing, to me at least

I thought the same... Lots of smoke and mirrors...
Not clear at all what was actually agreed...
Does sound like the owner expected £60k but only got £45k

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

 

[Bobby22]

Was taken looks to me that the claimant and the dealer had agreed he would get 60k for the van. If the dealer decides to spend money to market the van to make as much as he can then that is up to him.
If the dealer and the claimant agree the 60k then why only offer 45k

I would think , if i was the dealer, i wouldn't pay anything out unless with agreement there was enough profit to get involved.

Wether there was a recession or not, it looks to me that the dealer was exploiting the claimants situation in paying him 45k when they had agreed 60k in.
In the programme the claimant had asked when he was going to get the balance and they stated that a trade in was taken as part payment and they would need to sell before anything more would be forth coming.............maybe thats why it took 2 1/2 years to hear anything more....he was waiting for the trade in to be sold.
Just my opinion but without seeing facts and agreements it's just that.

 

[EssexBoy]

Was taken looks to me that the claimant and the dealer had agreed he would get 60k for the van. If the dealer decides to spend money to market the van to make as much as he can then that is up to him.
If the dealer and the claimant agree the 60k then why only offer 45k

I would think , if i was the dealer, i wouldn't pay anything out unless with agreement there was enough profit to get involved.

Wether there was a recession or not, it looks to me that the dealer was exploiting the claimants situation in paying him 45k when they had agreed 60k in.
In the programme the claimant had asked when he was going to get the balance and they stated that a trade in was taken as part payment and they would need to sell before anything more would be forth coming.............maybe thats why it took 2 1/2 years to hear anything more....he was waiting for the trade in to be sold.
Just my opinion but without seeing facts and agreements it's just that.

Must admit, re-reading the IF message does smack of "we gave you £45k, what more do you want - there's a recession on"

 

[Ian789]

On a general point about Motorhome Brokers (which if I am correct is what IF were acting as in this instance) does anyone know what the standard (if there is one) contract stipulates ? i.e. is it normal to agree a minimum sale price - with the broker taking anything above this as their profit / commission. Or does the dealer operate on a fixed price commission irrespective of the price achieved ? Or is it sometimes a mixture of the two. And how are PXs normally handled ? It does look a bit of a potential minefield unless comprehensive terms of the brokerage are agreed in writing up front.

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