Do you think you’ve been had? Perhaps you bought a defective caravan or accessory, or a caravan site wasn’t as good as it looked in an ad. You may think you are due compensation. You may be thinking of going to court. If so, you need to be careful – not angry. First follow our guide to the maze of compensation, claims and court cases.
Rule number one: going to court is your last resort. It will cost you a lot of time and money, and the outcome is usually uncertain. So before you even consider legal action, follow the steps below – and remember that your actions in these early stages may come back to haunt you if you end up in court. So don’t get mad; your end goal is to get even.
Begin by putting your complaint in writing to the seller. Set out in detail what is wrong and why they should compensate you. Give the seller enough time to respond and the chance to investigate your complaint. Don’t be fobbed off by a seller who says the manufacturer or supplier is to blame. If selling that product is their usual business, they are responsible for any defects. The seller may later claim some compensation from the manufacturer or supplier, but that is not your problem. At this stage, be open to resolving your dispute by negotiation, mediation, arbitration or some other means.
The seller will probably know your legal rights – so they will feel safe ignoring outrageous claims that will fail in court. They will, however, take a lot more care if you take into account your legal rights. You need to show you’re in the know. The following should help you through the initial stages of your claim.
If you bought a defective caravan before 31 March 2003, you would have had a legal right to reject it, or keep it and claim compensation. But you had to prove it was defective when you bought it. Courts could not usually enforce a manufacturer’s warranty or guarantee, although manufacturers often honoured them as a matter of goodwill. You had no legal right to demand a replacement or a repair, although decent dealers usually did this.
On 31 March 2003 a directive from the European Parliament came into force and improved your rights. On that date the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002 updated the Sale of Goods Act 1979 so that the seller now has to repair or replace your caravan if it is defective.
If this is impossible, too costly or cannot be done in a reasonable amount of time, you are entitled to a price reduction. You are also entitled to return the van and get your money back. You have the same rights if repairing or replacing the van causes you major inconvenience. In short, you no longer have to rely on the dealer’s goodwill. Likewise, the courts can now force a manufacturer to live up to its guarantees and warranties.
You got another important right on 31 March 2003. If a defect appears within six months of you taking delivery, the law assumes it was there when you bought the van unless the dealer can prove otherwise.

COURT IN THE ACT
If all negotiation with the seller fails to satisfy, then you may reluctantly decide to go to court. You start by issuing a claim form in your local county court. If you are claiming £5000 or less, you get a hearing before a district judge in the small claims track. If you are claiming more than £5000 but less than £15,000, you are put on the fast track – which is not as quick as it sounds and can be very expensive.
On the small-claims track, hearings are relatively informal. All the parties sit around a table, and you can argue your own case if you want. You can use a solicitor, but the judge will not make the seller pay your legal costs, even if you win, unless he or she thinks the seller has acted unreasonably. Likewise, if you lose you will not have to pay your opponent’s legal costs unless the judge decides that you acted unreasonably. The winner will, however, get limited expenses to cover costs incurred by going to court.
On the fast track, your case will be heard in court within about 30 weeks. The hearing will be more formal than for a small claim: for instance, it is in open court, so anyone is entitled to sit and watch. It is also more risky, as the loser is likely to end up paying all or some of the winner’s legal costs. You can present your own case, but you might be wiser hiring a solicitor. There is some truth in the old adage that a man who represents himself in court has a fool for a client.
A solicitor could cost £3000 to £7000 for a fast-track claim, although some might agree to a no-win-no-fee agreement. You might be advised to hire a barrister to present the case at trial. If you have an insurance policy, read the small print to see if it covers legal expenses. There is legal aid for those who are not so well off, from the Community Legal Service Fund, but if you can afford to run a caravan you’re unlikely to qualify. Once you are in court, the law takes over and events may surprise you. Here are some typical scenarios of caravanners who have felt cheated, to give you an idea of where you might stand.

SATISFACTION MAY NOT BE GUARANTEED
“I bought a secondhand caravan, and when I got home I realised its condition wasn’t as good as I had thought. I called the dealer and demanded compensation, but he said it was sold as seen and it wasn’t his problem.”

If you had bought the caravan from a private seller you would have no comeback. In such cases, ‘sold as seen’ effectively means ‘buyer beware’ – and you buy at your own risk. But this does not apply where you buy from a dealer in business.
The law is on the side of the dealer if you ought to have spotted the defects. Section 14 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 entitles you to a van of satisfactory quality, but this condition does not apply if you examine before you buy and that examination ought to have revealed the defects. If you missed obvious defects, you have no legal remedy. Likewise if the dealer has specifically brought defects to your attention.
Only if the defects were hidden or latent (see the damp discussed in the next case study) can you sue for compensation based on unsatisfactory quality. In such a case, the court might decide the caravan was not in a reasonable condition for the price – and what is satisfactory will depend on the price paid and anything else that is relevant.

DOUBLE DEALER?
“I bought a van that the salesperson said was free of damp. Some time later another dealer discovered it was riddled with damp. I believe the damp was there when I bought it. Is it too late for compensation or a replacement van?”

Let’s assume the van was damp when you bought it and that you were persuaded to buy it partly because he told you it wasn’t damp. Section 2 of the Misrepresentation Act 1967 states if a dealer says something that persuades you to buy and that statement turns out to be untrue, you should be compensated for any losses suffered because of the false statement.
To understand your legal position with this law, you need to be aware of three legal possibilities – the good news being that the law is on your side in all three cases. The quote marks signify legal terms that may have complex legal meanings.
 • The dealer was ‘careless’: the law doesn’t care to judge whether or not he knew the van was damp, it just says that as a dealer he ought to have known.
 • The dealer made ‘innocent misrepresentation’: he really believed the van wasn’t damp.
 • The dealer was ‘fraudulent’: he knew perfectly well the van was damp.
Looking at the first possibility, it is up to the dealer to prove he was not ‘careless’ when he said the van was not damp. If he cannot do this he will be liable for all of your losses directly flowing from his false statement. That could include cost of repairs, cost of hiring a van while those repairs are being made, or the cost of a replacement van if the damp van is beyond repair. You could also claim incidental expenses you have incurred.
Which takes us to the second possibility. Even if he can prove he was not ‘careless’, the statement was still false and he has made ‘innocent misrepresentation’. In this case you are entitled only to cancel the contract (return the caravan and get your money back). This is called ‘rescission’. However, a court can give you compensation instead of insisting on rescission.
If yours is a case of ‘innocent misrepresentation’ you must be careful, because your right to rescind may be lost. For example, you may have waited too long to cancel the contract, or you may have modified your caravan so much that it can’t be restored to its original state. In short, you may be lumbered with it.
This brings us to the third possibility: fraud. It is generally unwise to allege that the dealer deliberately deceived you. You will have to prove he was fraudulent, and he may counter-claim that you have libelled him. It is safer to say the misrepresentation was innocent or ‘careless’. However, if you can prove fraud then you can be compensated for all of your losses directly resulting from the deceitful statement – as in the case of the dealer being ‘careless’.
Section 1 of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 says it is a criminal offence for a dealer to knowingly apply a false description to goods in the course of business, or knowingly supply such goods. You can tell your local Trading Standards Office that an offence was committed and ask them to investigate and prosecute.
This will directly benefit you only if you also ask the prosecutor to ask the court to make a compensation order in your favour if the dealer is convicted. You would be treated as a victim of crime, and the compensation would reflect the difference in value between a damp caravan and a van in excellent condition. However, the magistrates cannot give you more than £5000 compensation per offence, and the compensation would reduce the damages you might later get in a civil court for misrepresentation or breach of contract.
Another law is also relevant here. Section 14 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 assumes your contract with the dealer says the van will be of satisfactory quality, even if there is no such clause. If it was unreasonable to expect you to discover the damp when you inspected the van and you can prove it was damp when you bought it, then the ‘existing’ law says the van is not of satisfactory quality and the dealer is in breach of contract. If you have not had the van too long, you can reject it and demand your money back plus any reasonable costs you have incurred.
The law doesn’t say how quickly you must reject the caravan, but after a month or two you may face an uphill struggle, particularly if you have been using it. However, if the court says you have kept the caravan too long, or if you want to keep it, you can claim back part of what you paid, to get the price down to the actual value. You can also recover any other expenditure, as before.
Instead of using the ‘existing’ law you could demand repair or replacement under the ‘new’ law which is discussed in detail in the next case study.

ONLY THE CRUMBLIEST, FLAKIEST…
“I bought a new tourer, and in a short amount of time the paintwork degraded. When I took it back, the dealer said that it was not his responsibility as I must have done something to the caravan.”

The law is on your side if the defects appeared within six months of your van being delivered. The ‘new’ Section 48A of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 says that even if the paintwork seemed fine on delivery, if it degrades within six months, then the law assumes the paintwork must have been defective when it was delivered. If the paintwork amounts to unsatisfactory quality, then the seller will be in breach of Section 14 of the Act. Degraded paintwork would probably be unsatisfactory quality; a hinge falling off probably wouldn’t. So you don’t have to prove the paintwork was defective when the van was delivered – it’s up to the seller to prove the paintwork was fine.
Putting the burden of proof on the seller will make things much easier for buyers. However, the law will not presume in your favour if the nature of the defect or the goods is incompatible with the presumption. This sounds complicated but comes down to common sense. If your van was clearly damaged in a traffic accident, the seller should be on safe ground suggesting it would be inappropriate to believe such damage was there in the first place.

DROVE ME CRAZY
“I drove a long way to collect a new van and found all sorts of things wrong with it. I was supposed to go on holiday in the van in two weeks, and I spent £100 on fuel to get to the dealer. The dealer offered a small discount, but I would rather have a pristine new van. “

If the defects amount to unsatisfactory quality, you can insist on a replacement. You are entitled to a caravan of satisfactory quality under Section 14 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979. Section 14 (2B) of the Act says this ‘quality’ includes appearance, finish and freedom from minor defects, and this test is applied: would a reasonable person regard the caravan as unsatisfactory when minor or cosmetic defects are considered alongside its price and description? If you are paying full price for a new van, then minor defects plus cosmetic blemishes could make it ‘unsatisfactory’.
Under the new Section 48B of the Sale of Goods Act 1979, you can now insist on a replacement within a reasonable time and without causing significant inconvenience. In this case, the replacement should arrive in time for you to go on holiday in two weeks. Section 48B says the seller has to pay to get the replacement to you – so you will not have to fork out £100 in petrol.
But beware. The seller could say the defects are too minor to make the caravan unsatisfactory. Even if a judge agrees that the van is unsatisfactory, the seller could still argue a replacement is disproportionate compensation. He could say it imposes unreasonable costs upon him compared to paying for repairs or dropping the price. He could also say it was impossible to get a replacement to you in time for your holiday, and that you should have accepted the price cut.
You could reject the van and sue for your petrol costs and your money back. The court is very unlikely to give you the cost of your holiday if you cancelled it because you rejected the van. The law says you have to take reasonable steps to keep your losses low. That means you ought to take the holiday by hiring another van or accepting the defective van while keeping your right to sue for compensation later.

AWNING WARNING
“My new awning leaked terribly on holiday. When I got back, the retailer told me the supplier said all new awnings did this – but they seal themselves after being rained on the first time. I can’t see the point of buying an awning that doesn’t work until it’s been soaked. Nothing on the awning said this would happen. I want my money back – but the retailer says all awnings do this, there’s nothing wrong with it, and they can’t take it back now it has been used.”

IF presoaking was not an obvious step, you are entitled to compensation. Section 14 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 says there’s an implied condition in the contract when you bought the awning: that it will be of satisfactory quality. Goods are not satisfactory if certain measures have to be taken before you can use them, unless those measures are pointed out clearly in advance. This is clear from the case of the itchy underpants.
In 1936, Mr Grant bought woollen undergarments from Australian Knitting Mills Limited. Unfortunately, the pants were full of sulphites used to bleach the cloth. The sulphites reacted with Mr Grant’s perspiration and gave him dermatitis. The seller argued that Mr Grant should have washed the pants before wearing them, to remove the sulphites. But there was no warning on the packaging to say this ought to be done – so the court decided the pants were not of an acceptable standard.
As with the pants, there was no indication that the awning had to be soaked. If the awning did not work because it wasn’t presoaked, you can return it and demand your money back plus compensation for your partially ruined holiday if the leaky awning affected your enjoyment. If the dealer wanted to avoid paying compensation, he would have to argue that any reasonable person would find it abundantly obvious that the awning needed to be soaked first – even if that information was not on the packaging.

JOIN THE QUEUE
I bought a new caravan – only to find it suffered from a long list of faults. When I asked the dealer to repairs it, I was told there was a queue and that my van could not be seen for at least four weeks. Can I make him repair it any faster?

At first sight the law is on the dealer’s side. If your van is of unsatisfactory quality, then the ‘new’ section 48B of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 lets you insist that repairs are done within a reasonable time and without causing you significant inconvenience. But it is highly likely a judge would regard four weeks as a reasonable time.
However, if you have a caravan holiday booked in those four weeks, that will cause you a major problem. A court decides whether your inconvenience is significant partly by looking at why you bought the goods in the first place. In this case, the court might well decide the dealership has caused significant inconvenience. If so, you could get back some of the money you paid for the van, or you could return the van and get your money back. If you insisted on returning the van, the dealer would be entitled to keep some of your cash to account for the use you have made of the caravan.

SERVICE WITH NO SMILE
“My caravan was damaged while it was with the dealer, being serviced. The dealer denies he caused the damage, and I can’t prove otherwise.”

The law is on the owner’s side, because the dealer has to prove he took all reasonable skill and care. The law sees the dealer as a ‘contractual bailee’ – a person entrusted with goods for a particular purpose and being paid for that purpose. This means two things. First, the dealer must use reasonable skill and care to keep the caravan safe and well. Second, the dealer has to prove he used reasonable skill and care. Failing that, he would have to prove the damage happened while the van was not in his care. This has been the law since 1915 and was set out in a case called Joseph Travers & Sons Ltd v Cooper.
You should get compensation unless the dealer explains how he made sure your caravan would not be damaged and why such steps were reasonable. It is worth telling the dealer that he has the ‘burden of proof’ – the onus is on him to explain the damage. You do not have to prove the damage was not there when you left the van at the dealers.
A word of warning. Dealers often add a clause to a repair contract to try and limit their duty to exercise reasonable skill and care. The clause might say they are not liable for loss or damage to your van while it is on their premises, but if it was not brought to your attention when you put your van in for repair, you can tell the dealer that the clause is not worth the paper it is written upon. You could also say the clause is unreasonable under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and/or the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.