2019 Symbol Plus Body Water Leaks

We have had the van for one year from new but only done 3000 miles on one main trip to Scotland but suffered leaks from Ariel plate (water marked wall fabric and upholstery replaced), rear door (water marked fabric replaced), bathroom extractor fan leaking, near side window (seal replaced followed by complete window unit + wall fabric replaced) and the last straw was when the van went in for its one year service and habitation check . . . a few days before lockdown! Clearing the van for hab check we spotted n/side wall and upholstery wet and water marked. Complete frustration. I must add both AutoSleeper and Marquis Sussex have been both apologetic and made every effort to resolve the leaks, replacing wall fabric, upholstery which took ages awaiting fabric match. They seem to have sorted up to the last leak.This time the offside window suspected, wall fabric water damaged needs replacing. They have extended my warranty back to Jan 20 from March 2019 but cannot extend the Peugeot warranty as it is the van section. Also two free habitation checks.  I love the layout and reluctant to change for a different van. Problem is after 9 visits solving leaks Marquis having the van longer than I have in twelve months, van locked in at Marquis and having lost all confidence with the water tightness of this particular van . . . WHAT WOULD YOU DO . . . feedback please . . . VAN CONVERSIONS DON’T LEAK?

Welcome to the forum!

Leaks aren't actually that uncommon on van conversions - my current van (not converted by A/S) had two leaks within the first year - both of which were addressed and fixed under warranty.

It sounds as though both dealer and A/S are trying their best to fix the problem - to my mind the important question is whether the leaks that they have fixed have stayed fixed. If they have then you really need to wait until you know whether the current leak has also been fixed. If it has, there doesn't seem to be any rationale behind trying to change it for another van.

In your position I would wait patiently for the end of lockdown and then see what the result of the latest work is. Chances are that it will be the last of the teething problems on your van. If not, you have enough warranty left on the van to have more goes at fixing it - though I would expect some freebies and goodwill from the dealer if that happens!

In 2014 I had a new Warwick XL & it leaked in the rear corner with the lining material wet from the roof cupboard to seat cushion. It went back to the A-S service centre for rectification & turned out to be a badly sealed body seam on rear door surround. A-S fixed it but left me with damaged lining material where they had pulled it off looking for leak & just glued it back down on metalwork- was not impressed. I now own a 2019 Swift panel van conversion & last year it leaked down wall panel below rear side window. This has been resealed & hopefully fixed. The sliding rear door pockets fill up with water when it rained hard but dealer says they couldn’t reproduce that so this is still outstanding. So yes panel vans can leak but you’ve certainly been very unlucky- I thought it was just me who was cursed when buying a van.

Panel vans generally don't leak. They are metal welded boxes. The problems occur when you cut holes in them.

steamdrivenandy wrote:Panel vans generally don't leak. They are metal welded boxes. The problems occur when you cut holes in them.

In fairness, panel vans generally have holes in them from the factory, for the doors and windows. One of my two leaks was in a factory-fitted window. The other was in the roof "tent".

From the A/S factory yes they can have holes. As original panel vans they tend not to have.

I feel sorry for anyone that has spent hard earned money on buying what is there choice of motorhome to find it isnt fit for use by having leaks.
 Our N-Reg Duetto wasnt perfect due to its age and rust issues but the habitation area had no leaks. I did replace things like roof vents due to them cracking or loosing the outer. The water heater  leaked  because the fittings had become old and brittle. The water pump froze spliting the filter.
Our Rienza has had windows re-sealed because the origional seal had dried up due to age.
The leaks I here of on the forum are mostly newer builds. Has the standard of workmanship slipped. Are the dealers getting the back up from the builders.
I hope the leaks and trim damage are resolved and you can get back to enjoying youre travels.

We had problems with a used van bought several years ago - we don't own it now - but was a lot of money at the time. The van came with a 3 month warranty but we couldn't use it untill after this had expired. On our first outing we found several issues including damp so we contacted the dealer who told us that unfortunately it was out of warranty. The repairs were going to be expensive so I did some investigation and came across consumer legislation. To summarise if you buy something of substantial value and a problem surfaces that was not highlighted ie the van was described as in good condition - at the time of sale it was deemed to be there since then and the seller is responsible for the repairs regardless of warranties - indeed the onus is on the dealer to prove it was not there - and your van was new. With this in mind I wrote a letter to the dealer quoting the legislation and asked him to fix it and if he declined I would have the repairs done at my expense and use the small claims court to recover my losses. Within 2 weeks he wrote back offering to carry out the repairs pro bono which I accepted. Immediately after this I had a full hab service at another big dealership and all was well. We owned the van for several years and traded in it with absolutely no faults. I was prompted to take this action after reading up on the Homest John website.
Rich..

As you have found Rich it shouldn’t need to get as far as threatening legal action to get dealers to sort out problems.
As I said we had very little problems with Duetto and the people we bought it from were very good at sorting any minor issues locally without us having to travel long distances. 
During my time involved with the motor trade I came across a lot of  large dealer chains that didn’t have a clue about customers rights or customer care. They relied on sales to keep afloat. When the dealership collapsed they were quick to dump there customers with no follow up. 
Like  others we chose the Rienza because it’s what we wanted for our travels and time away so it should be fit for that purpose. Present times not counted but we hope to spend more of our retired time in the motorhome than in our house.

Bollard, have you considered rejecting the vehicle under the 'sale of goods act' ? If its clear the vehicle is unfit for the purpose intended and the dealer has made every attempt to resolve the issues (doesn't need to be the same issue each time) then you are entitled to demand a full refund of all monies paid. The Sale of goods act is there to protect the consumer. Research it before acting, document everything, ensure return of the vehicle is witnessed, take photographs of damage. The onus is on them to respond within a reasonable time and refund you. It matters not a jot that you've owned it over a year or already done 3000 miles. I accept this is the final act, normally made in desperation but its one of the few ways the dealer will take you seriously. Good luck.

Bollard states he has had the van for a year so without checking the legislation I think he is too late to reject it. Even if he is within his rights, the dealer is entitled to charge for the period he has had it and the fact that the van has done 3000 miles so even if he can reject it he will have to take a hit on what he paid.

I believe it to be 6 years, it can be longer but only in exceptional circumstances. The main stipulation is whether it was fit for purpose. If the vehicle was not fit for the purpose intended and i consider a leaking vehicle to be not fit then he's entitled to a full refund. If after giving the dealer a reasonable opportunity to repair and the problems remain then under the Sale of Goods Act 2015 a full refund can be claimed. There's no account taken of wear and tear. Its just a full refund. Obviously the amount of money involved is large and legal representation should be sought. Some vehicle insurance companies provide this if legal protection was taken at purchase.

Maybe cars (or motorhomes) are different. According to HonestJohn , you only have 6 months...

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

The Sale of Goods Act 2015 (SOGA 2015) doesn't differentiate between cars or motorhomes. If you've purchased goods then it applies.

To be pedantic it's the Consumer Rights Act 2015 that applies, it replaced the Sale of Goods Act 1979 in lots of respects.

To give it its correct title, Its Consumer Rights Act 2015. The rejection of sale applies in the specific circumstance that you find a fault within 30 days and you can then use the legislation to reject the goods. This specific circumstance gives the dealer no option but to refund the purchaser. The dealer has to comply. However in this case that particular piece of legislation is not being used. The goods, in this case a motorhome, must be fit for the purpose intended, it leaks and despite 9 visits to the dealer it continues to leak, it can reasonably be demonstrated the purchaser has given the dealer every opportunity to rectify the various faults without success. So under the legislation the sale can be rejected. I strongly suggest legal advice is sought.

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



Citizens Advice gives examples and this may be about a mobility scooter but I think the principles are the same....

Example  1 You  buy  a  mobility  scooter and  use  it  frequently  over the  course  of  five  months.  By the  end  of  this time  you  notice  that  the  battery  is not  performing  properly  or retaining its charge  for long.  The  trader  performs  a  repair  but  the  scooter continues  to  perform poorly  so  you  choose  to  reject  it  and  get  a  refund. Under the  Act,  because  you  had  only  had  the  scooter  for  five  months,  the  trader must  provide  a  full  refund. If,  however,  you  had  rejected  the  scooter more  than  six  months  after you  received  it, the  trader would  have  been  entitled  to  reduce  the  refund  to  take  account  of  the  use that  you  had  had  of  the  goods.

In this instance a smart lawyer (i'm neither)  would demonstrate the faults were present at the time of purchase and had caused extreme inconvenience and expense to the purchaser (which could be the subject of a further action to recover!) To subtract a premium for use and depreciation would be unreasonable. In any event the act stipulates a full refund of monies paid. The important point is that the faults/leaks were present when it was purchased and reported as soon as they ocurred. The rejection has been made within the 6 year period. I doubt the dealer would even have the gall to oppose it.

Honest John, AA and Citizens Advice all speak from experience, so I'm not saying any more on the subject.

Steve&Veronique wrote:In this instance a smart lawyer (i'm neither)  would demonstrate the faults were present at the time of purchase.

I doubt a lawyer could demonstrate that. You would need evidence, not a lawyer, to demonstrate that.

In my experience, some leaks may be present at the time of delivery, but most leaks tend to develop over time.

If the leaks are reported to the dealer as they occurred, and each was fixed as a result, then the leaks are not a satisfactory reason on which to reject the motorhome. If it was a leak that kept recurring and could not be fixed then the situation would be different, but the OP does not describe that.

My personal view is that it's not helpful to tell the OP to expect to get all of their money back with no reduction for use. That may happen in exceptional cases, but I don't think it's reasonable to say to the OP that it is likely.

Thank you all for your extensive replies. All leaks from day one of ownership have been logged and photographed as well as dates on which van went in to Marquis. Caravan and Motorhome club legal dept. agree I have an excellent documented case. Well nothing can be done at present as previously mentioned it’s locked in at Marquis Sussex which is annoying because the service and habitation check would have been done and the van returned had it not had another leak! Stay safe everyone and thank you all again for your advice.