Erroneous Description and Subsequent Illegal Sale of an Autocruise Starblazer Motorhome by Marquis Motorhomes June - July 2014
The Complaints Spelled out for Marquis Motorhomes Barry and Margaret Williamson Start with: Introduction and Overview The Previous File: The Ultimatum from the Group Aftercare Manager The Next File: The Marquis Attempt at a 'Complaints Procedure' See all Nine Files at: Marquis Malpractice
This is the almost unbelievable story of how
Marquis Motorhomes failed to deal with any of the several complaints we made arising from
their mis-advertising and mis-selling of an overweight motorhome from their
South Yorkshire branch and how they refused to refund the money we had paid
without inordinate delay and draconian conditions. Cheltenham 25 July 2014
Autocruise
Starblazer YN06JOU
We do of course regret that you have
rejected our reasoned request of 23 July for the payment of the £18,598.50
owing to us from our sale to you of the above motorhome.
In the interests of maintaining a detailed record
of this ongoing process, and of pressing our case, we make the following
points.
- Motorhome for Sale. Our
motorhome is now for sale on the Marquis website.
http://www.marquisleisure.co.uk/motorhomes/stock-item/autocruise-starblazer-21383#.U9J7nPldXg9
This raises the following issues:
- It is being
sold at the same price we paid for it, leaving you with no losses.
- It is being
sold when you do not have the V5C, therefore you do not need that
document in order to sell it.
- It is being
sold when you haven't yet fulfilled the contract you signed to buy it
from us.
- It is being
sold when you haven't yet paid the money to buy it from us.
- It is being
sold on the assumption that you own the motorhome. Perhaps this is
another case of misleading advertising and a consequent mis-selling.
- Mis-sold Tax Disk. You still have
not dealt with the matter of the mis-selling of the tax disk. We were
charged £230 Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) for a Private Light Goods Vehicle
(ie one under 3.5 tons). This was part of the pretence that the motorhome
was registered as being under 3.5 tons. At the same time, you bought a tax
disk for a Private Heavy Goods Vehicle at a VED of £165. This was
tantamount to both fraud and deception.
- Complaints Procedure? It appears to
us that you do not have a complaints procedure. We have only been given
the option of reluctantly sending our complaints (such as those presented
here) to the Sales Manager at the Dinnington branch, nominally the source
of these complaints. All he can do is deny the complaint or pass it on to
his superior for a decision. This puts him in a difficult position and it is
leading nowhere.
- NCC Code of Practice. Following
from (3) above, we note that Marquis is not a member of the NCC Approved
Dealership Scheme, unlike others such as Brownhills, Lowdhams, Broad Lane,
etc. The NCC (with a total membership of over 800 organisations) has a
Code of Practice by which dealerships can “demonstrate to existing and
potential customers that it makes a conscious and tangible commitment to
protect their interests.”
The main principles of the Code are as follows and we can be quite sure
that none of them has been applied to us (if only!):
- “Treat consumers fairly
- Provide greater consumer
protection and rights than required by law
- Deliver high levels of
customer satisfaction
- Monitor customer
satisfaction for continuous improvement
- Ensure access to low cost
independent redress”
- Keeper vs Owner. As the seller of the motorhome, you have
described in a very ambiguous sentence the procedure you used to obtain
the V5C: “The procedure you write about does not involve taxing a vehicle
which we did and thus surrendered the V5C to the Post Office who send to
the DVLA.”
As pointed out in our email of 23 July 2014, the DVLA specifies four
things that we should expect as the buyer
when the seller applies for the V5C. Three of those you did not fulfil.
Just take one of those three: without consultation with us, you gave the
address of the owner of the
motorhome while the DVLA asks for the address of the keeper, the person responsible for the registration and taxing
of the vehicle. The V5C is not proof of ownership.
- Correct Address. You may have
made a mistake in entering the address (we couldn't check that), meaning that
there will be an indefinable delay in obtaining the V5C. This is to your
advantage since, under your unreasonable terms, you would continue to
retain our money!
- Gagging Order. The more
this farrago (which is entirely of your making) drags out, the more we
realise why you wanted to impose a gagging order on us. We feel that we
were both misled and coerced into signing the agreement that contained
that order. We were misled by being told that the V5C would take only 2 weeks
(that oral statement is part of the contract) when the DVLA aims for
between 2 and 4 weeks. We were coerced through being told that the
alternative to signing was prolonged litigation that would be expensive in
both money and time.
- Reputation. You cannot
be proud of your actions in this matter if you do not want them to be known
within the motorhoming and caravanning community. We have developed, manage,
edit and contribute to five websites, so we know just how inter-connected
the web is. Information moves and spreads quickly between and among
websites, blogs, forums and the social media. The relevant magazines rely
on revenue from manufacturers and dealers and therefore take an anodyne
approach to malpractice. But the web thrives on the sharing of customer experience
and the dissemination of true and useful information.
- 606 Readers' Comments. If you haven't
already, do take a look at some of the 606 Readers' Comments on our
website (more are in the process of being added). They are all positive
and they all welcome the motorhoming information and experience that we
share. Many find our example inspirational, encouraging them to take up
the life of the motorhomer as a long-term, long-distance traveller.
http://www.magbaztravels.com/content/view/1495/345/
- An Alternative Scenario. We think
that the Dinnington Sales Manager would have preferred a very different
approach. One based on acknowledging and learning from the initial mistake
and the way its effects were compounded by ill-informed sales staff. Our
caravan and money could have been returned on 9 July, along with some
compensation for our extra expenses. The least possible time would have
been wasted, we would have gone on our way and the Marquis reputation
would have been enhanced by the way you had handled a difficult situation.
To have produced happy customers out of this situation would have been an
outcome to make you proud, one you would want to share.
- Professional Advice. We have
taken professional advice (something allowed within the terms of your
agreement). The professional was in turn amazed, disgusted and ultimately
angry at your behaviour. Overall, his conclusion is that we are being
punished for your mistakes in a way that is unprofessional and in parts potentially
illegal. Apart from immediately paying us for the motorhome you are now
selling, which is our right, he suggests that you should also offer an
apology and compensation for the time and money that your mistakes have
cost us, since this situation is in no way of our making.
- Personal Insult. You are holding
on to a very large sum of our money as a way of forcing us to give you the
V5C that we had no part in obtaining. We are a graduate professional
couple, behaving in a restrained, co-operative and reasonable manner under
extreme provocation. What do you think we would do with the document
without your threat? Your actions will not make the V5C arrive any sooner,
in any case it is not a matter of any urgency for you!
- Derogatory! Our writing
hasn't been and doesn't need to be 'derogatory' (a word used in the
gagging order). We write for intelligent and aware adults who are capable
of letting the facts speak for themselves.
Barry and Margaret Williamson Start with: Introduction and Overview The Previous File: The Ultimatum from the Group Aftercare Manager The Next File: The Marquis Attempt at a 'Complaints Procedure' See all Nine Files at: Marquis Malpractice
|