What happens when you reject a new motorhome?

donnkim

donnkim

Free Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2012
Posts
254
Likes collected
212
Location
Bury
Funster No
22,178
MH
Low Line Coachbuilt
Exp
a newbie
So - I have sent my letter rejecting the motorhome because the VIN plate and C of C do not give a towing weight therefore, as it cannot tow my Picanto, it’s of no use to me. Obviously the dealer was aware that towing was a thing we always did.
My solicitor has also sent a letter and I am due to see the Sales Manager next week.
Should I just turn up with the motorhome and just leave it on their forecourt? Not sure what to do for the best especially as going to court can be so expensive and uncertain.
 
donnkim said:
So - I have sent my letter rejecting the motorhome because the VIN plate and C of C do not give a towing weight therefore, as it cannot tow my Picanto, it’s of no use to me. Obviously the dealer was aware that towing was a thing we always did.
My solicitor has also sent a letter and I am due to see the Sales Manager next week.
Should I just turn up with the motorhome and just leave it on their forecourt? Not sure what to do for the best especially as going to court can be so expensive and uncertain.
Click to expand...
Surely the towing weight is known by the dealer or manufacturer, just a matter of putting the correct one on :unsure:
 
chaser said:
Surely the towing weight is known by the dealer or manufacturer, just a matter of putting the correct one on :unsure:
Click to expand...
If there is no twoing weight on the plate it has no capacity to tow anything.They don't "forget" . Many new small cars these days have no towing capacity whatsoever.
 
I wouldn't just leave it on the forecourt, they could claim never to have seen it.
I would serve them with a letter and get a receipt at least for the MH, i assume that you have paid for it,
 
Trouble is salesmen don’t have a clue on things like this. I’ve had a few customers in the past that have been told that they can tow with the car they are buying, and turns out they are not homologated to tow or the towing capacity is not sufficient for their caravan

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 
Did you buy the van with a tow bar? if a tow bar is fitted surely the weights have to be displayed by law now?

If there is no tow bar fitted, I can't see how it could be grounds for rejecting the motorhome, as towing weight is academic if there is no tow bar fitted
 
eddievanbitz said:
Did you buy the van with a tow bar? if a tow bar is fitted surely the weights have to be displayed by law now?

If there is no tow bar fitted, I can't see how it could be grounds for rejecting the motorhome, as towing weight is academic if there is no tow bar fitted
Click to expand...
From the previous thread I think he was getting it fitted after purchase,but they knew he wanted to tow as the previous one towed .
 
I've just read some of the catalogue:


It says:

• The optional “towing” equipment can in certain cases change the number of passengers on the car registration papers. Your dealer will be able to give you more information.​
​
also mention of a tow hitch:
​
1599845516911.png
​
It therefore seems that towing isn't totally ruled out ... are you sure it's not just a mistake in the paperwork rather than anything else?
 
Be carefull, lawyers love a case like this as they are the only ones to benefit in the long run, the only thing i would add, have you got it in writing that the MH must be capable of towing, if you have, that is the only thing that would make me comfortable about going to court, if not try and negotiate a way out that doesn't leave you and the dealer in a no win situation.
 
Chris said:
Your solicitor is brave to advise you that you are entitled to reject for that reason.

I would tread carefully.
Click to expand...
Nothing wrong at all, completely within the Consumer Rights Act which says that an article must be fit for purpose, and if the OP specifically said he wanted to tow a car and the base vehicle is not capable, then the dealer is at fault. This particular situation is clearly stated as one of the reasons for not being fit for purpose. The sticking point is proving that you told the dealer you intended to tow a car. If it wasn't written down on the contract, or the dealer didn't fit the towbar then you might have significant problems.

Having been through the process of rejecting a van, as far as the OP is concerned, you do not take the van back, you keep it until a settlement is reached. In my case there was a legal document produced setting out the terms of the return and refund.

I do hope the OP used the legal cover on house insurance or van insurance and not his own solicitor, otherwise he will have to foot the solicitor's bill. You do not need to go through the formalities of a solicitor with the CRA until such times as the dealer has refused to take the van back, which clearly is not the case here at this stage. In my case with a totally uncooperative dealer, a solicitor was necessary, but before he would do anything I had to send the dealer a number of formal letters first, even though I had already rejected the van.

As a further point, don't even consider going for compensation. It is likely to cost more in solicitor's fees that any agreed settlement.
 
thebriars said:
Nothing wrong at all, completely within the Consumer Rights Act which says that an article must be fit for purpose, and if the OP specifically said he wanted to tow a car and the base vehicle is not capable, then the dealer is at fault. This particular situation is clearly stated as one of the reasons for not being fit for purpose. The sticking point is proving that you told the dealer you intended to tow a car. If it wasn't written down on the contract, or the dealer didn't fit the towbar then you might have significant problems.

Having been through the process of rejecting a van, as far as the OP is concerned, you do not take the van back, you keep it until a settlement is reached. In my case there was a legal document produced setting out the terms of the return and refund.

I do hope the OP used the legal cover on house insurance or van insurance and not his own solicitor, otherwise he will have to foot the solicitor's bill. You do not need to go through the formalities of a solicitor with the CRA until such times as the dealer has refused to take the van back, which clearly is not the case here at this stage. In my case with a totally uncooperative dealer, a solicitor was necessary, but before he would do anything I had to send the dealer a number of formal letters first, even though I had already rejected the van.

As a further point, don't even consider going for compensation. It is likely to cost more in solicitor's fees that any agreed settlement.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the legal advice.

Much appreciated (y) :rolleyes:
 
Got to ask if you did any homework - if not being able to tow a ton and a half is a big red line then surely the basic brochure would help out

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 
Presumably only front and rear axle and total weight on plate with no train weight, odd :rolleyes:
 
thebriars said:
Nothing wrong at all, completely within the Consumer Rights Act which says that an article must be fit for purpose, and if the OP specifically said he wanted to tow a car and the base vehicle is not capable, then the dealer is at fault. This particular situation is clearly stated as one of the reasons for not being fit for purpose. The sticking point is proving that you told the dealer you intended to tow a car. If it wasn't written down on the contract, or the dealer didn't fit the towbar then you might have significant problems.

Having been through the process of rejecting a van, as far as the OP is concerned, you do not take the van back, you keep it until a settlement is reached. In my case there was a legal document produced setting out the terms of the return and refund.

I do hope the OP used the legal cover on house insurance or van insurance and not his own solicitor, otherwise he will have to foot the solicitor's bill. You do not need to go through the formalities of a solicitor with the CRA until such times as the dealer has refused to take the van back, which clearly is not the case here at this stage. In my case with a totally uncooperative dealer, a solicitor was necessary, but before he would do anything I had to send the dealer a number of formal letters first, even though I had already rejected the van.

As a further point, don't even consider going for compensation. It is likely to cost more in solicitor's fees that any agreed settlement.
Click to expand...
A little bird tells me that Chris may know a bit more about the law than you think ....................................
 
thebriars said:
Nothing wrong at all, completely within the Consumer Rights Act which says that an article must be fit for purpose, and if the OP specifically said he wanted to tow a car and the base vehicle is not capable, then the dealer is at fault. This particular situation is clearly stated as one of the reasons for not being fit for purpose. The sticking point is proving that you told the dealer you intended to tow a car. If it wasn't written down on the contract, or the dealer didn't fit the towbar then you might have significant problems.

Having been through the process of rejecting a van, as far as the OP is concerned, you do not take the van back, you keep it until a settlement is reached. In my case there was a legal document produced setting out the terms of the return and refund.

I do hope the OP used the legal cover on house insurance or van insurance and not his own solicitor, otherwise he will have to foot the solicitor's bill. You do not need to go through the formalities of a solicitor with the CRA until such times as the dealer has refused to take the van back, which clearly is not the case here at this stage. In my case with a totally uncooperative dealer, a solicitor was necessary, but before he would do anything I had to send the dealer a number of formal letters first, even though I had already rejected the van.

As a further point, don't even consider going for compensation. It is likely to cost more in solicitor's fees that any agreed settlement.
Click to expand...
No doubt the OP will have that in writing 👍🏻

Me? I’d be listening to the Solicitors advice, the free advice from a Motorhome loving Solicitor
 
donnkim said:
So - I have sent my letter rejecting the motorhome because the VIN plate and C of C do not give a towing weight therefore, as it cannot tow my Picanto, it’s of no use to me. Obviously the dealer was aware that towing was a thing we always did.
My solicitor has also sent a letter and I am due to see the Sales Manager next week.
Should I just turn up with the motorhome and just leave it on their forecourt? Not sure what to do for the best especially as going to court can be so expensive and uncertain.
Click to expand...
You don’t get a holiday 😢😢😢
 
Not wishing to be argumentative, but I'm afraid, when buying something as dear as motorhome I would want to know about every nut and bolt before parting with a penny, not pay the money and then start looking, I would be very careful how you go about this, it could cost you a lot more yet by the way you are going about it and still end up having to keep it.
Sorry if that sounds abrupt but not that clever with fancy words.

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 
steve 6644 said:
Is the problem that it physically 'can't' tow the car, or that it is just not crystal clear that it can?
Click to expand...
Exactly what my query is, just because there's no figure on the plate/COC etc doesn't mean it can't do it. Until the OP comes back we are left wondering.
 
Years ago I saw a solicitor, he said you have a very good case but I can't guarantee you will win, can you afford to lose? I didn't bother going any further the otherside had very deep pockets.
 
olley said:
Years ago I saw a solicitor, he said you have a very good case but I can't guarantee you will win, can you afford to lose? I didn't bother going any further the otherside had very deep pockets.
Click to expand...

it’s good advice.

Its often overlooked that exactly 50% of people lose in court!

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 
Minxy Girl said:
Exactly what my query is, just because there's no figure on the plate/COC etc doesn't mean it can't do it.
Click to expand...
No it is perfectly plain.nothing on the towing part of the plate or converters plate , even if it has been left off accidentally, means it has no towing capacity either permanently or until sorted.
 
gus-lopez said:
No it is perfectly plain.nothing on the towing part of the plate or converters plate , even if it has been left off accidentally, means it has no towing capacity either permanently or until sorted.
Click to expand...
Not it isn't perfectly plain ... at present we don't know if it is an error or oversight on the manufacturer's part, the dealer, or both ... they need to confirm categorically one way or the other whether it is physically capable of towing or not, only then can the paperwork etc be sorted, this will not only affect this owner but any future owners too. At present the MH is in "no man's land" and may be getting blown totally out of proportion if it is just a simply paperwork error.

The dealer needs to resolve the issue about it's ability to tow, they sold it, it should be totally clear at the point of sale and not be 'ambiguous' as it appears to be at present when you take into account what they say in their brochure about towing simply stating it can't without any official confirmation is just lazy.
 
Its common for RV's not to have a towing weight on the plate, easiest answer for us is to make our own. ::bigsmile:

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 

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