Hi Phil - Just to give you an update on this, I sent your letter to Jeff Bowen (signed for) just over a week ago and as of the present, I have not heard a word from him.
I have to assume that the guy is not interested, my next step now would be to contact the Trading Standards people to see where I should or could go. My problem is that I require this Awning for France in 3 weeks time and now feel that I'm not going to get it resolved in time.
After this, I will never use Bowen Awnings or Dorema in future,once they have sold an awning they are NOT prepared to resolve any issues.
What do you think and thanks for your help.
I would try one further letter asking a reply and then have a chat with Trading Standards. Their role is to advise rather than to fight your corner, unless they consider that there is an offence they can persue the seller for. Costs you nothing anyway.
Phil
------------- If you're not on a fell your wasting your feet and for 2014 it's.......Feb Castleton Mar North Yors Moors; Apr Sutton on Sea; May Thirsk; Jun Clapham/Riverside (Lakes); July Wharfedale; August Crakehall; Sept Knaresborough; Oct Wirral Park/Clitheroe
In response to your undated letter, may I remind you of my previous answer via email dated 29th June 2012:
“Under the Distance selling Regulations you are obliged to check thegoods within 7 days of purchase. Also your rights are to a refund orreplacement up to 3 months after purchase. Unfortunately these periods have long since passed and as we have taken the time to consult the Manufacturer and they have stated it is not manufacture damage anyway I am afraid we are unable to assist you further. Jeff has suggested the Caravan insurance company as they will be able to assist you with a claim for accidental damage.
May I remind you that we take defamation very seriously, in any form, whether it be online or in any publication and we do not respond tothreats.
Under the Sale of Goods Act we are obliged to Repair, Refund or Replace goods that are found to have a manufacturing fault, it does not cover accidental damage and as we have already stated the Manufacturer has said that these are not manufacturing faults covered under the warranty.”
The answers to your complaints are as follows:
1. The tainting of the steel poles - not covered under warranty. 2. Distortion of pad against rear pole -not covered under warranty. 3. Zip pull being pulled off bag - not covered under warranty. 4. Discolouration of windows - not covered under warranty. Please may I draw your attention to Section 5 Pages 24 + 25 of your Dorema Manual and Instructions, which refers to Service and Warranty. This section will answer all your questions as to what is covered by the Manufacturer’s warranty. The link to the online version is: http://www.dorema.co.uk/pdf/Manual-Instructions-2012.pdf
1 PEACOCK HALL COTTAGES, LITTLE CORNARD, SUDBURY, SUFFOLK CO10 0PE
Furthermore, we are not able to accept the offer of witness statements, as to the fact your awning has not left your dining room, on two points:
1. The witnesses live too far away from LL19 8DB: Mr Hassell 70.6 miles Mr Price 44.6 miles Mr Wesley 114 miles 2. It is irrelevant as the law states you have 7 days in which to check your goods upon receipt. I now consider this issue closed.
The first issue here is that this is not a claim under the Distance Selling Regulations and so their raising of that point is misleading and missing the point. This is a claim under the Sale of Goods Act. So you can respond by making it clear that whilst they try to rely on the Distance Selling Regs your claim is not under those Regs and thus they are in error in relying on those regs.
Second issue (the important one) is that you have, I am afraid, selected a rather poor choice of witnesses. It would have been better to have used someone who lives with you. Your witness evidence is easily defeated in court. I assume that you live alone otherwise you would have offered a wife/son/daughter/father etc. If the witnesses you have offered to the fact that the awning remained unpacked for all that length of time are the only folk you can offer, then you may as well stop this claim. You will simply be chasing a losing cause. Do you have anyone who can say that they saw the awning unopened for around a year?
If you go to trading Standards, they will need evidence that you never opened the awning prior to the date you have given on this board, and if you cannot support such a claim otherwise than from the parties you have provided to the seller, then I am afraid that Trading Standards will offer little or no help. As I said earlier, they need the bullets to fire
No matter how much in the right you may be, in any dispute before the court it always comes down to evidence. From the contents of this thread, I am afraid you do not provide sufficient evidence to proove your case in court.
I am sure that this is not the answer you hoped for but we are where we are. Whenever we buy anything we must always check it out within six months to benefit from the law
Phil
------------- If you're not on a fell your wasting your feet and for 2014 it's.......Feb Castleton Mar North Yors Moors; Apr Sutton on Sea; May Thirsk; Jun Clapham/Riverside (Lakes); July Wharfedale; August Crakehall; Sept Knaresborough; Oct Wirral Park/Clitheroe
Phil - yes, I do have my wife as a witness, but thought it would not be wise to use her. The reason I used these other guys was because I was out with them the first time I used it on that June Bank Holiday.
You have to remember that, when it comes to evidence, you know that what you are saying is correct, but the other guy doesn't. He wants proof. He isn't being unreasonable, just wants to be convinced. Give him your wife as a witness to the fact that the awning remained in the bag untouched for all that time, but I suspect that they may counter with something along the lines of "well she would say that wouldn't she". They have now set their stall out, with the law on their side in view of the length of time that has passed. It will be an uphill struggle. However if you are prepared to go up that hill..........perhaps.........
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your letter of the 23rd July 2012. With respect, in seeking to avoid a liability you are, I believe, mis-directing your mind and failing to appreciate the real issue. You are mixing two areas of law.
Firstly, this is not a warranty claim against the manufacturer, it is a claim aginst your company for breach of contract. Thus it matters not, between us, just what views the manufacturer may have. It may matter as regards your contractual relationship with that supplier to your company but that is not of my concern. The breach of contract here remains your breach of the conditions implied into our contract for the awning by the Sale of Goods Act and Regulations issued thereunder.
Secondly, you are quite wrong to rely on the Distance Selling Regulations to avoid your liabilities and, with respect, fail to understand just how those regulations operate and fit into a whole raft of other consumer legislation. Those regulations simply enable a purchaser of goods to change their mind about the acquisition of those goods regardless of their condition - the cooling off period of seven days. Once those seven days have passed, any claim to reject the goods, or to have them repaired can only be based on a breach of the Sale of Goods Act. The rights I have under ths Sale of Goods Act (and subordinate regulations) are not negated by the Distance Selling Regulations just because I purchased the goods at a "distance". The Distance Selling Regulations do not stand in the place of the Sale of Goods Act rights of a consumer. They are merely an addition to those Sale of Goods Act rights.
So, can we please focus on the correct piece of legislation? I note that you decline to accept evidence from three persons willing to provide evidence to Trading Standards, (or a Court if required), simply because of where they live. In that case I also have an additional witness of fact, namely [name and address - don't say she is your wife - leave them to work out their own attack upon your witness!!!!].
So, as I set out in my previous letter your various breaches of the conditions of our contract (as impiled by the Sale of Goods Act etc) I would be grateful if you now set out your proposals for remedying your breach of contract within the next seven working days. That is to say, either how you will put right the defects in the awning or provide a replacement as required by the Sale of Goods Act.
your faithfully
etc
Remember to date the letter. No point in threatening them with Trading Standards. Trading Standards role is to advise you of your rights. In this case, your rights are to sue the trader in the local small claims court. Trading Standards will not prosecute for selling defective goods. They have to have breached those parts of the legilsation that give Trading Standards a right to prosecute e.g providing misleading information. Such a prosecution would not get you the awning fixed. By all means have a chat with Trading Standards to see if they will talk to the dealer to put him straight on the law. Don't tell the dealer you are doing that. If they are willing to have a chat with the dealer that may assist you. Broadly, in my view, if Trading Standards will not have a chat with the dealer, and you are not prepared to go to court then just drop the issue. They have set their stall out, albeit on the wrong legal basis, but I would not expect their stance to change.....unless leaned upon by Trading Standards
Phil
------------- If you're not on a fell your wasting your feet and for 2014 it's.......Feb Castleton Mar North Yors Moors; Apr Sutton on Sea; May Thirsk; Jun Clapham/Riverside (Lakes); July Wharfedale; August Crakehall; Sept Knaresborough; Oct Wirral Park/Clitheroe
PS if you do go to court you will need to fill out a form formally
submitting your claim together with what is known as a "Particulars of
Claim". This will set out the basis of your allegation against the dealer
and the remedy you want. if the Poles are so defective then they cannot be
rapaired but need to be replaced. So, it seems to me that you may as well claim
the money to replace the awning. Remember, however, that the Court may just
order, after this length of time, that you should have paid the value of a
defective awning and thus the dealer should give you back the difference
between what you paid and what would be a reasonable price for a defective
awning.
On the plus side, in consumer cases, the courts tend to favour the
consumer.
The particulars of claim are not the be all and end all of your case. If
the dealer defends the action then you have to proove your case. The burden of
proof is on a balance of probabilities and not "beyond reasonable
doubt" so that stands in your favour. The court will ask itself, "On
a balance of probabilities is it likely that the claimant did something to the
awning to make the colour run or was it defective when sold". You will
probably need to take the awning along to court as evidence, or perhaps suggest
that the judge sees the awning attached to your van before reaching a decision.
The Judge will also need to see the letters that you have sent trying to get
the issue resolved. That helps to show that you have tried to avoid court and
enables you to claim your costs for being in court. Thus, it helps where your
letters show that you have politely stuck to the relevant legislation and the
dealer has tried to fob you off quoting the wrong law.
Take legal advice, but a draft form of particulars of claim may be along the following lines...
Particulars of Claim for Defective Goods –
Sale of Goods Act 1979, as amended
IN THE [TOWN]
COUNTY COURT
CASE No.
BETWEEN
[you]
Claimant
AND
[Seller of
awning – give full legal name and registered address. That is usually on their
web site]
Defendant
PARTICULARS OF CLAIM
1.
On or around [date] August 2011 the Defendant agreed to sell and the
Claimant agreed to buy a Starcamp Futura 390 Awning which was offered for sale
by the Defendant in its capacity as a caravan accessory dealer which
included the retail of caravan awnings. The awning was sold for use with a
caravan in the open air
2.
The first occasion that the awning was removed from its bag
and used was on the [date] 2012. At that time the following defects were
found in the awning:-
1.After just one shower of rain the 3 plated
roof/front poles that fit inside the carbon roof poles become tainted in
the following manner [specify
in detail just what has happened. If we are talking about oxidation then
say so.] Thus, it is argued, the material in the poles is not fit for
its purpose (outdoors in the rain); it is not of satisfactory quality and
not of sufficient durability as required by the Sale of Goods Act 1979, as
amended
2.The foam downward pieces that fit up
against the caravan are distorted and fail to provide any reasonable level
of sealing between the van and awning. They are not fit for their purpose
as required by the Sale of Goods Act 1979, as amended [I still think that this is a dodgy
claim but you may as well throw everything in and leave a court to decide
it is not relevant .If the court agrees that you are entitled to a new
awning for other reasons then it doesn’t matter
3.The zip is broken
on the bag. (the zip pull comes of the main zip). A zip with such a
defective zip pull is clearly not fit for its purpose as required by the Sale
of Goods Act 1979, as amended
4.The blue dye has
discoloured the plastic windows after one shower of rain. A failure to impregnate the material with
an appropriate colourfast dye, knowing that it is to be used in rain, means
that it is not fit for purpose nor of satisfactory quality as required by
the Sale of Goods Act 1979,as amended.
3.The claimant, by letters
dated the [] and []made a claim against
the Defendant
for the awning to be either
repaired or replaced as
required by the Sale of Goods Act 1979, as amended and regulations
issued thereunder but the Defendant has declined to do so
4.
Alternatively, the Claimant has suffered Loss as a result of the
awning not satisfying the requirements implied into the contract between
the Claimant and the defendant under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 as amended for
the sale of the awning and is entitled to compensation to reflect the
actual value of the defective awning
AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
1. That the defendant be required to pay to the defendant such sum as
will meet the cost of replacement of the awning; or in the alternative that
the defendant be ordered to provide such replacement
2. Alternatively damages for breach of contract.
3. Interest in accordance with section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984.
4. Costs.
Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in these Particulars of Claim are true.
Dated this [] day of 2012.
To the court and
to the Defendant
SIGNED..........................[Claimant]
of [Address],
at which address he will accept service of proceedings.
------------- If you're not on a fell your wasting your feet and for 2014 it's.......Feb Castleton Mar North Yors Moors; Apr Sutton on Sea; May Thirsk; Jun Clapham/Riverside (Lakes); July Wharfedale; August Crakehall; Sept Knaresborough; Oct Wirral Park/Clitheroe
Hi Guys - Back from my holiday in France and I thought it was only right that I gave you an update on the Awning situation. I never managed to get anywhere with Mr. Jeff Bowen of Bowing Awnings, he refused to discuss anything with me and would not reply to my emails and this was the guy I bought the awning from, he refused to honour the 12 months warranty. In the end I was having discussions with Dorema who were the manufacturer of the awning and whilst they were stating the issue was between Mr Jeff Bowen and myself they eventually supplied me with another awning, which is great customer services from Dorema. My advise, watch who you purchase an awning from in future as Mr Jeff Bowen of Bowen Awnings does not have any Customer Services, he just states, take it up with your Insurance Company. So well done Dorema for coming to my rescue.
I think the OP has been very lucky to get another awning from Dorema, esp. since he didn't examine the product for 10 months!
I can see the situation from the POV of the retailer and the OP shouldn't post such negative comments about his supplier, when to be fair, he should have acted when he received the product
Thus the moral of the story is to check mail order goods within seven days of delivery!
Still, well done to the OP for getting a new awning off Dorema!
------------- Love a lot. Trust a few. But ALWAYS paddle your own canoe!!
Minds are like parachutes:- They only function when they are open!!!
Those who talk don't know.
Those who know don't talk.
Hi Guys - Yes, I've got the message now, I should have checked the awning when I had it, you always think it should be right with all the checks it has before despatch.
So I have learnt a lesson.
You are right, if it was not for Dorema, I would still be in a mess, but with good customer relations, they certainly helped me out. As far as Bowen Awnings are concerned, I would never want to use him again, once he has your money that's it and Markh1, I can only report the truth and as far as I'm concerned, that is it.
Amazing family weekend with old steam engines, classic car displays, market stalls, and full catering and bar. And camping on site - Save £25 by booking in advance.
Topic: Faulty Awning - Looking for Advice
