Rear door restrictors

I agree Ian but I did feel that CLS was getting deluged with some over-enthusiastic comments.  He’ll have more than enough advice by now.  I’m sure we all wish him well in getting it resolved.

Tim

babian wrote:ISO9001 ISO9002 ( google it if you are unaware of what it means) 
in this matter Peugeot have no responsibility in this matter.
U.K. spec van purchased by a/s or imported then production line workers notice missing parts etc, line manager informed, rectification  
work undertaken !!! a cover up as they say ( rear door cards)
 or A/s convert vans then make up spec as the line progresses.???
new owner informed that they are purchasing " the new improved model".
make your own minds up.
always try to do your homework before buying a campervan, know what you are looking at, look at other vans before hand and take on board " common sense " , then ask the questions before you drive off " living the dream", 
no disrespect intended to anyone involved in this matter.

I’m really not sure why you think ISO 9001 negates anyone’s responsibility in this.  Firstly, we simply do not know the cause, or even if there is a ‘fault’. We also don’t know where the ‘fault’ happened (if there is one). But assuming that there is something wrong, ISO 9001 won’t help anyone avoid their legal responsibility.

ISO9001 is a companies set of objections and working practises . as in manufacturing , an item or service is made or operated and there is a set procedures for quality, specification and if a problem does arise ( in spec or quality) then there is also a set line of reporting, rectification within the production staff, supervisors and management .
this allows a company to show it has procedures in place to record quality, traceability ,uniformity  and finally a products specification in the market place.
ie, in A/S case one van is just the same as the next in spec and quality and as such if you need spares in the future, that spare is correct, fits and is the same as the reference part number.

as the above comments I wish him well in this matter

babian wrote:ISO9001 is a companies set of objections and working practises . as in manufacturing , an item or service is made or operated and there is a set procedures for quality, specification and if a problem does arise ( in spec or quality) then there is also a set line of reporting, rectification within the production staff, supervisors and management .
this allows a company to show it has procedures in place to record quality, traceability ,uniformity  and finally a products specification in the market place.
ie, in A/S case one van is just the same as the next in spec and quality and as such if you need spares in the future, that spare is correct, fits and is the same as the reference part number.

as the above comments I wish him well in this matter

Trust me, as a Senior Executive running the Quality function over a group of companies, responsible for managing and auditing ISO9001 (as well as many other standards, including those for automotive and aerospace), I know exactly what is covered. This is backed up by my position on various BSI committees preparing and issuing standards. My point remains that it does not affect someone’s legal responsibility.

However, the main issue here is that no one knows what has happened, where, when, why and how.  But yes, we all hope that this is resolved quickly and easily; this would be extremely upsetting for any new owner.

hi Rolyan,
my intention was not to point a finger at who's  "legal responsibility" it was in this case.
just to point out that a production facility has to have in place production standards, set objectives,  also  practises to work to and a line of feedback off the shop floor "if" something was " missing" or not as standard spec ( as in this case a van )
but yes I agree this matter should be easily resolved once a report is  
submitted 
ian

babian wrote:hi Rolyan,
my intention was not to point a finger at who's  "legal responsibility" it was in this case.
just to point out that a production facility has to have in place production standards, set objectives,  also  practises to work to and a line of feedback off the shop floor "if" something was " missing" or not as standard spec ( as in this case a van )
but yes I agree this matter should be easily resolved once a report is  
submitted 
ian

Hi Ian - I read your first 2 lines of your original post as referring to ISO9001 then saying that Peugeot have no responsibility in this matter. I may well have interpreted it incorrectly. 

I’m just disappointed that it’s taken so long to resolve this. Not surprised though unfortunately.

Rolyan wrote:

babian wrote:hi Rolyan,
my intention was not to point a finger at who's  "legal responsibility" it was in this case.
just to point out that a production facility has to have in place production standards, set objectives,  also  practises to work to and a line of feedback off the shop floor "if" something was " missing" or not as standard spec ( as in this case a van )
but yes I agree this matter should be easily resolved once a report is  
submitted 
ian

Hi Ian - I read your first 2 lines of your original post as referring to ISO9001 then saying that Peugeot have no responsibility in this matter. I may well have interpreted it incorrectly. 

I’m just disappointed that it’s taken so long to resolve this. Not surprised though unfortunately.

Disappointing for sure. Lets hope CLS comes back to update us all on this debacle.

My experience of ISO9001, when I was working, was that you set out your quality objectives and procedures to meet them.
In effect within ISO9001 you could set out to produce an item that was defective 100% of the time. Provided you consistently produced 100% defective items then you had met your ISO9001 quality standard.
Hardly a true quality standard!!!

So just an update on the missing door restrictors
It was Peugeout that removed these and not Auto sleepers , with no option available from Peugeot to add them to the factory order. All builds from mid July onwards will be have restrictors fitted as Peugeot have reinstated the fitting of these.
As regards my own situation I should be able to retro fit the Peugeot restrictors.

C.L.S wrote:So just an update on the missing door restrictors
It was Peugeout  that removed these and not Auto sleepers , with no option available from Peugeot to add them to the factory order. All builds from mid July onwards will have restrictors fitted as Peugeot have reinstated the fitting of these.
As regards my own situation I should be able to retro fit the Peugeot  restrictors.

Was there any explanation as to why they removed them? Did they state those vans which had them removed, how they stopped the rear door crunching the light cluster? I'm curious also as to why they've reinstated the fitting of them even though the reason seems pretty obvious! Perhaps a better question would be, why the hell did they remove them in the first place?!! 

So are you being told if you want restrictors, you can have them, but got to pay for them?

I would have thought (hoped) that AS would have queried the removal of the restrictors (door stays) with Peugeot before any conversions were sold; but apparently not.

Spospe wrote:I would have thought (hoped) that AS would have queried the removal of the restrictors (door stays) with Peugeot before any conversions were sold; but apparently not.

They probably wouldn't have known....until the first customer returns with crunched light cluster on his recently purchased £56k van. There's more questions than answers in my opinion and can't help but wonder if it was part of a ridiculous experimental cost cutting exercise. Perhaps they thought buyers shouldn't moan and use a piece of old rope to make their own "restrictor".

Auto-Sleepers Motorhomes of Excellence Still advertising as such.

What would Mark think?
----------
Richard

Where are all the other owners with the door stops missing?? My first thought was what a load of bull

If you read back through the thread both Snowwolf and GP1069 have no restrictors on their vans.

Paulmold wrote:If you read back through the thread both Snowwolf and GP1069 have no restrictors on their vans.

And GP1069 had to pay out for his door restrictors ('stops' in his case) and he said they are only effective if the door is opened slowly but a gust of wind would easily smash the door back breaking the window.

What staggers me Paul is in both cases we are talking newly purchased vans and as we know these are not cheap by any means, yet buyers are needing to spend money buying parts which imo should have been factory fitted. This lax attitude toward customers seems commonplace in Britain. 

Some Brit customers don't stand for any messing though! 

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

M

rgermain wrote:Auto-Sleepers Motorhomes of Excellence Still advertising as such.

What would Mark think?
----------
Richard

There may be an answer to that.......he has gone else where!

Kdc wrote:M

rgermain wrote:Auto-Sleepers Motorhomes of Excellence Still advertising as such.

What would Mark think?
----------
Richard

There may be an answer to that.......he has gone else where!

I admit I’m a little surprised that Autosleepers didn’t (apparently) help a little more, and a little quicker.  Although to be fair to all sides we don’t know what was said to them and what was said back.  But this appears to be a Peugeot error.  Autosleepers presumably purchased a van that was road legal and made to specification, and converted it.  So I presume their stance was that this isn’t a ‘fault’ that Autosleepers should accept liability for.

Perhaps they could have helped more (although we really don’t know all the facts) but I’m not sure that this issue means that they aren’t Motorhome’s of excellence anymore.  However, I admit I’m biased as I’ve always had excellent help from them and I think my van is excellent.

Sally

P.S. this is in no way a criticism of anyone, and it is not an attempt to dismiss what is very upsetting.

Sally wrote:

Kdc wrote:M

rgermain wrote:Auto-Sleepers Motorhomes of Excellence Still advertising as such.

What would Mark think?
----------
Richard

There may be an answer to that.......he has gone else where!

I admit I’m a little surprised that Autosleepers didn’t (apparently) help a little more, and a little quicker.  Although to be fair to all sides we don’t know what was said to them and what was said back.  But this appears to be a Peugeot error.  Autosleepers presumably purchased a van that was road legal and made to specification, and converted it.  So I presume their stance was that this isn’t a ‘fault’ that Autosleepers should accept liability for.

Perhaps they could have helped more (although we really don’t know all the facts) but I’m not sure that this issue means that they aren’t Motorhome’s of excellence anymore.  However, I admit I’m biased as I’ve always had excellent help from them and I think my van is excellent.

Sally

P.S. this is in no way a criticism of anyone, and it is not an attempt to dismiss what is very upsetting.

It's an 'error' serious enough (imo) to warrant a major damage limitation exercise.....no pun intended. 13 work days since CLS contacted AS and still nothing. If i was CEO of either company with knowledge of a customer issue, i'd pull out all the stops to avoid a scene like the infuriated Land Rover customer i posted whose patience finally ran out.

Sally wrote:

Kdc wrote:M

rgermain wrote:Auto-Sleepers Motorhomes of Excellence Still advertising as such.

What would Mark think?
----------
Richard

There may be an answer to that.......he has gone else where!

I admit I’m a little surprised that Autosleepers didn’t (apparently) help a little more, and a little quicker.  Although to be fair to all sides we don’t know what was said to them and what was said back.  But this appears to be a Peugeot error.  Autosleepers presumably purchased a van that was road legal and made to specification, and converted it.  So I presume their stance was that this isn’t a ‘fault’ that Autosleepers should accept liability for.

Perhaps they could have helped more (although we really don’t know all the facts) but I’m not sure that this issue means that they aren’t Motorhome’s of excellence anymore.  However, I admit I’m biased as I’ve always had excellent help from them and I think my van is excellent.

Sally

P.S. this is in no way a criticism of anyone, and it is not an attempt to dismiss what is very upsetting.

Yep us also very pleased with our Warwick and have always bought new A/S PVC. Last one in 2016 maybe things are or have changed.
-----------
Richard

Bulletguy wrote:

Sally wrote:

Kdc wrote:M

There may be an answer to that.......he has gone else where!

I admit I’m a little surprised that Autosleepers didn’t (apparently) help a little more, and a little quicker.  Although to be fair to all sides we don’t know what was said to them and what was said back.  But this appears to be a Peugeot error.  Autosleepers presumably purchased a van that was road legal and made to specification, and converted it.  So I presume their stance was that this isn’t a ‘fault’ that Autosleepers should accept liability for.

Perhaps they could have helped more (although we really don’t know all the facts) but I’m not sure that this issue means that they aren’t Motorhome’s of excellence anymore.  However, I admit I’m biased as I’ve always had excellent help from them and I think my van is excellent.

Sally

P.S. this is in no way a criticism of anyone, and it is not an attempt to dismiss what is very upsetting.

It's an 'error' serious enough (imo) to warrant a major damage limitation exercise.....no pun intended. 13 work days since CLS contacted AS and still nothing. If i was CEO of either company with knowledge of a customer issue, i'd pull out all the stops to avoid a scene like the infuriated Land Rover customer i posted whose patience finally ran out.

While I understand everyone’s concern, I feel we don’t actually know what has been said, and to who, at Autosleepers. Contractually, the responsibility rests with the dealer. I seriously doubt that the CEO of Autosleepers has known about this and done nothing. You say you wouldn’t, yet you’re prepared to believe that he (or she) would.

This is a sorry tale for all concerned, particularly the original poster. But I am sometimes surprised by the Autosleeper owners who seem to almost take delight in knocking them at every opportunity. Personally I still think they are Motorhome’s of excellence, and I’m not sure I’ve seen or read anything so far to change that. 

Sally

rgermain wrote:

Sally wrote:

Kdc wrote:M

There may be an answer to that.......he has gone else where!

I admit I’m a little surprised that Autosleepers didn’t (apparently) help a little more, and a little quicker.  Although to be fair to all sides we don’t know what was said to them and what was said back.  But this appears to be a Peugeot error.  Autosleepers presumably purchased a van that was road legal and made to specification, and converted it.  So I presume their stance was that this isn’t a ‘fault’ that Autosleepers should accept liability for.

Perhaps they could have helped more (although we really don’t know all the facts) but I’m not sure that this issue means that they aren’t Motorhome’s of excellence anymore.  However, I admit I’m biased as I’ve always had excellent help from them and I think my van is excellent.

Sally

P.S. this is in no way a criticism of anyone, and it is not an attempt to dismiss what is very upsetting.

Yep us also very pleased with our Warwick and have always bought new A/S PVC. Last one in 2016 maybe things are or have changed.
-----------
Richard

Hi Richard - I really haven’t seen, read or heard anything on here to change that opinion. I’m not saying they are without criticism, but to start condemning them as a brand......no way!  But perhaps it’s just me. 

Just to update my post. So decided the panel van wasn't for us and have done a deal with Nick Whale on a coachbuilt motorhome. Unfortunately never persued a resolution to the door hinge issue.

Bought my van from Nick Whale too!