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.

1. 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:
1. It is being sold at the same price we paid for it, leaving you with no losses.
2. It is being sold when you do not have the V5C, therefore you do not need that document in order to sell it.
3. It is being sold when you haven't yet fulfilled the contract you signed to buy it from us.
4. It is being sold when you haven't yet paid the money to buy it from us.
5. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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!):
1. “Treat consumers fairly
2. Provide greater consumer protection and rights than required by law
3. Deliver high levels of customer satisfaction
4. Monitor customer satisfaction for continuous improvement
5. Ensure access to low cost independent redress”
5. 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.
6. 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!
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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/    
   
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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!
13. 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