This is a copy from another site; It does appear that the Industry is being overhauled and dragged kicking and screaming into legitimacy.
1. If a company has 10 or more full time employees they cannot sue for defamation. Part time employees are added on an FTE basis....
2. If you are telling the truth and it is your honest opinion, and have evidence to back that up, then it is not defamation.
3. It costs a huge amount of money to run a defamation case (so I have been told by a lawyer).
4. A company can sue for injurious falsehood but they must prove falsity, malicious intent, publication and economic loss. The burden of proof is on them and they have to prove all four points.
-- Edited by Possum3 on Wednesday 18th of January 2017 02:59:03 PM
-- Edited by Possum3 on Wednesday 18th of January 2017 02:59:58 PM
DMaxer said
03:03 PM Jan 18, 2017
Oh dear! The hot weather has been affecting quite a few people lately.
Onedodger said
04:01 PM Jan 18, 2017
Thanhs for that information.
DMaxer said
04:26 PM Jan 18, 2017
I don't really understand how an amendment to the Defamation Act that took place over ten year ago has anything to do with overhauling an industry or dragging them screaming and kicking into legitimacy.
Defamation has nothing to do with consumer legislation. Are you seriously saying that if a consumer complains about a product then he will be sued for defamation?
If someone intentionally maligns a product without basis the remedy for companies is a civil action in tort. Defamation does not come in to it.
Ron-D said
04:29 PM Jan 18, 2017
I had a look at that lemon Caravans site some of it's pretty ugly ,but most of the problems there winging about are simple things to fix...
-- Edited by Ron-D on Wednesday 18th of January 2017 04:31:55 PM
Possum3 said
05:51 PM Jan 18, 2017
D Maxer, there are several listed instances where manufacturers/dealers are threatening persons with legitimate complaints regarding faulty caravans with major faults that have caused dangerous occurrences such as cracked chassis, caravan explosions, etc.
Additionally Mr Colin Young from the Caravan Council of Australia was interviewed and he is working with Lemon owners to help clean out the industry - you would be living in a vacuum if you haven't been aware of the recent activities of the 4WD and Caravan Shows on TV mentioning this movement.
Ron-D; I have also been reading of some of the evidenced faults Illegal wiring, illegal compliance plates, engineers reports stating not suitable for use on road. There are nearly 9,000 members of Lemon RV's and over 3,500 members of Shonky Caravans - yes there are a few that aren't happy with minor items and maybe they are possibly whingers, but definitely the majority are those who after spending between $80K and $150K (on average) for a new van get sold a caravan not fit for purpose. I think I'd whinge just a little when roof leaks after ten attempts to fix on new van, or van delivered without appliances fitted, Electrical fires, doors falling off, faulty brakes, broken chassis, etc
Many of them have spent their life savings or sold up their houses to live their twilight years on the road only to end up with an unusable pile of junk.
Possum3 said
06:05 PM Jan 18, 2017
I am aware and know personally know of individuals who have been threatened because they complained about their lemon caravans. It seems they are trying to bully them into silence.
brickies said
06:41 PM Jan 18, 2017
I think sometimes members take on problem that don't effect them instead of getting on with the good life .
The Belmont Bear said
09:16 PM Jan 18, 2017
This seems to have migrated from an original post by Cupie, the reason I thought in that post that it was not a good idea to defame manufacturers or dealers on forums etc. wasn't really due to the legal side of things. It was more that if you are going for some sort of compensation one of the main weapons you have is the threat to go public with it, most reputable businesses would really like to avoid that sort of bad publicity. If you have already denounced them you have lost one of your best bargaining tools - hopefully people get their problems sorted through the normal channels long before they have to resort to that type of thing.
Lancelot Link said
02:22 AM Jan 19, 2017
Can I, as a concerned person who does not want to enter into this discussion because it would only lead into heated rhetoric and distasteful discussion, request that this thread be closed. I find any discussion related to the Lemon Caravan Facebook Site to be nugatory to discussions on the Grey Nomad site apart from a permanent link with a suggestion that people visit it for their own information! Let's get on with our life, my caravan is new and has problems, lets share the good times, share fixes on minor problems.
montie said
06:40 AM Jan 19, 2017
Lancelot Link wrote:
Can I, as a concerned person who does not want to enter into this discussion because it would only lead into heated rhetoric and distasteful discussion, request that this thread be closed. I find any discussion related to the Lemon Caravan Facebook Site to be nugatory to discussions on the Grey Nomad site apart from a permanent link with a suggestion that people visit it for their own information! Let's get on with our life, my caravan is new and has problems, lets share the good times, share fixes on minor problems.
Could't agree more.
Most of the people on that "Lemon" site have agendas other than having their minor problems fixed. The lady who runs the site admitted on radio that she has refused an offer to have her problems rectified so what's her agenda.
Life's too short get out there and enjoy your van and the lifestyle!
Montie
Tones said
08:37 AM Jan 19, 2017
I would have thought that everyone who owned a caravan would be right behind the likes of that other site. The main reason for the disquiet is simply because the Rv manufacturing industry is totally un-regulated and has too many cowboys. where do grey nomads go to seek remedy if the dealer and manufacturer will not make good a buyer's problems. The National Competition and Consumer Legislation of 2010 was written by Federal authorities to give a national approach to consumer protection. The intent of that legislation was to have the States enact enabling and complementary legislation so that consumers would be protected at State level, I.e. By complementary legislation.
The real effect of that Legislation was to make it the job of retailers to make good any product problems, whether it be by way of local remedy or by Way of interaction with the manufacturer. This has quite obviously not worked! For example, in Queensland, if a dealer is not prepared to do the right thing by one of his customers, then the customer has no recourse other than to go to the QCAT tribunal for an outcome. It is a bit hard to do that when the tribunal has a legislative jurisdictional limit of $25,000.00 There are not too many vans around today that can be purchased for that amount of money (unless second hand).
If you bought a new car and it had major problems with the brakes, chassis, bodywork electrical system etc, where would you take it to have the situation fixed. I bet you would not take it to Victoria or another State to the manufacturer for remedy.
Can I suggest that the existence of the other site is a good thing for consumers and something that dealers do not want. If there is no problem with RV manufacturing in Australia, what harm can it do. The real problem is that the RV manufacturing industry remains un-regulated And that is not a good thing for Grey Nomads or any other class of Nomad!
Tones
-- Edited by Tones on Thursday 19th of January 2017 08:50:18 AM
DMaxer said
08:56 AM Jan 19, 2017
I am fully aware of the issues that some consumers have with manufacturers, Possum.
I just did not understand why you felt the need to quote a ten year old amendment to an unrelated area of legal jurisprudence.
It has as much relevance as quoting a section from the Dividing Fences Act.
Bryan said
09:35 AM Jan 19, 2017
Thanks for making the effort Possum 3. I certainly appreciate the information.
montie said
09:54 AM Jan 19, 2017
You can say whatever you like so long as it's true. If it's proven to be untrue you might be in a bit of strife. Just ask some of those celebreties who sue the media!
As Dmaxer pointed out, intentionally maligning a product has nothing to do with defamation.
Montie
-- Edited by montie on Thursday 19th of January 2017 10:05:22 AM
TheHeaths said
10:02 AM Jan 19, 2017
I guess before this thread does get shut, my only comment would be to Montie.
Unfortunately, my experience, and that of many others is that
1) Too many vans have too many "minor" problems when new. Certainly they are much worse, in my experience than new cars.
2) Too many new van owners have too many problems getting dealers and or manufacturers to take the fixing of those "minor" problems seriously, with expectation that the owner will quite happily accept that it may take 2 or 3 months to "fit" them in to have fixes done.
3) Too many vans come out of the factory with "major" problems that are even harder to get fixed, and really shouldn't have happened in the first place if the van was built with some degree of care. Our only new van had major leaks 5 days after getting it home, and the replacement I demanded had a fibreglass wall delaminate 3 days after getting it home. My dealer was good, the product was ordinary. The manufacturer then sent a replacement wall the wrong colour first, than sent one that got damaged in transit, and told the dealer to fit it, and finally sent a good one. Luckily my dealer was good and offered a refund if I had wanted it.
4) Too many problems are passed off as "not our fault", eg problems with electrical items and chassis built by others. Go and see the distributor. Sorry, but I gave the dealer my 30, 40, 50 or 100,000 dollars, so the dealer should be handling this on my behalf.
I know this may not apply to you Montie, and you do come on the forums to put a point of view, but quite frankly, dealers like yourself appear to be in the minority, and buyers have had enough.
At the end of the day, why should a buyer have to pay from $30 - $150k for a new van, and then accept that due to "minor" problems generally created during manufacture, they should accept a repaired unit? That is not what they have paid for.
montie said
10:24 AM Jan 19, 2017
TheHeaths wrote:
I guess before this thread does get shut, my only comment would be to Montie.
Unfortunately, my experience, and that of many others is that
1) Too many vans have too many "minor" problems when new. Certainly they are much worse, in my experience than new cars.
2) Too many new van owners have too many problems getting dealers and or manufacturers to take the fixing of those "minor" problems seriously, with expectation that the owner will quite happily accept that it may take 2 or 3 months to "fit" them in to have fixes done.
3) Too many vans come out of the factory with "major" problems that are even harder to get fixed, and really shouldn't have happened in the first place if the van was built with some degree of care. Our only new van had major leaks 5 days after getting it home, and the replacement I demanded had a fibreglass wall delaminate 3 days after getting it home. My dealer was good, the product was ordinary. The manufacturer then sent a replacement wall the wrong colour first, than sent one that got damaged in transit, and told the dealer to fit it, and finally sent a good one. Luckily my dealer was good and offered a refund if I had wanted it.
4) Too many problems are passed off as "not our fault", eg problems with electrical items and chassis built by others. Go and see the distributor. Sorry, but I gave the dealer my 30, 40, 50 or 100,000 dollars, so the dealer should be handling this on my behalf.
I know this may not apply to you Montie, and you do come on the forums to put a point of view, but quite frankly, dealers like yourself appear to be in the minority, and buyers have had enough.
At the end of the day, why should a buyer have to pay from $30 - $150k for a new van, and then accept that due to "minor" problems generally created during manufacture, they should accept a repaired unit? That is not what they have paid for.
I appreciate your comments. Being a dealer posting on a public forum can sometimes be a lonely stance and does attract some unfriendly fire.
I am not doubting that there are dealers and manufacturers out there not properly honouring their warranties, but I do question to what extent it is a problem in the big picture of 19000 vans sold per annum.
Forums and the CCA and other bodies really only hear from the unhappy buyers, but human nature being what it is, we rarely hear from people who are happy with their lot.
Now I'm not suggesting for one moment that the minority should be allowed to get away scott free and bring the industry as a whole into disrepute. They need to be dealt with and the CCA has just introduced an iniatitive to assist that and I fully support it.
Banging on on FB about your problems achieves nothing. Contact the CCA and they will guide you in the direction of getting satisfaction through mediation or under Consumer Law.
That is of course if you really want your faults rectified.
Montie
brickies said
10:44 AM Jan 19, 2017
When I thinking about buy a caravan I did a lot of research and talk to caravan owner about their purchase and who they dealt with , I took the advice on board and when we brought our caravan we had no trouble with the caravan or dealer , A friend just recently brought a a new Jayco and are happy with it and the dealer .
Possum3 said
01:49 PM Jan 19, 2017
As I posted previously The Caravan Council of Australia (Colin Young) is working with Lemon Caravans on FB - He is on record (just listen to the podcast I linked previously). I cam aware that R V Dealers wish to close down discussions about faulty caravans and disreputable dealers - and hope the gullible pensioners spent their monies and have no recourse after being sold a lemon;
It is a matter of record of what is happening in the Multi Billion dollar industry. There is currently the ACCC seeking submissions to increase penalties, etc.
At the moment the industry is totally deregulated and anyone with a staple gun can manufacture or repair caravans.
Shutting down discussions will not prevent The Regulators from shining a light onto the industry.
I being an Australian with choice to belong or not to any group or organisation I choose, I say more power to them. At least they, in the main have all their claims checked and verified prior to postings being approved - which can't be said for the Caravan club pages that delete any comment that highlights faulty caravans.
Who I am and my history is out there for all to see and I don't hide behind a screen of anonymity - Unlike R V Dealers.
mumpedo said
03:31 PM Jan 19, 2017
Just like breaching road rules, breaching the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) is illegal. We don't need a lawyer to tell us if we have breached the road rules. We are expected to know them and abide by them. The ACL is the same. It is written clearly in plain English and there are a wealth of guidelines on the ACCC web site to ensure that businesses clearly know their responsibilities. When a dealer or manufacturer then chooses to breach this law the burden of proof should be on them to show that they haven't breached it, not on the consumer who has already provided proper evidence, followed the procedure in the ACL to reject the product and requested the remedy as specified under the law. Manufacturers should also know that some breaches can lead to criminal charges, specifically s. 106 for selling a non compliant product. www.accc.gov.au/business/treating-customers-fairly/consumers-rights-obligations
When dealers and manufacturers try to silence any lemon product owner with defamation threats it is not in the best interests of consumers or the market. That is why the ACCC is taking action against Meriton Apartments for stopping unhappy customers from writing negative reviews on TripAdvisor.
"Consumers rely on independent review platforms like Trip Advisor when making purchasing decisions. If reviews are manipulated to falsely create a more favourable impression about a provider, consumers may choose that provider on the basis of that falsehood over another accommodation provider who has not engaged in misleading conduct."
This also applies to deleting negative reviews from business owners web sites and Facebook pages or getting their employees and friends to give five star reviews. It creates a more favourable impression about a business and consumers are choosing to purchase from them without full evidence. This comes under misleading and deceptive conduct under the ACL.
My understanding of defamation threats is that they are generally hollow, as to run a defamation case can cost millions. It is pretty rare they ever get to court. So if that is the case the threats are probably used to scare a consumer into silence. I think this would come under unconscionable conduct in the ACL.
montie said
08:04 PM Jan 19, 2017
Isn't it amazing how all the keyboard experts come out of the woodwork at the mention of the Consumer Act and can quote chapter and verse according to Mr Google All theory of course as most of these experts live in a world of cyberspace.
Dealers on the other hand live and operate in a real world, selling real products to real people who pay real money. We dont really need Google or the keyboard experts to tell us what our responsibilities are because we have been required to attend numerous seminars on the subject since the Consumer Act was introduced.
It is a fact that 99% of faults in a new caravan are of a minor nature and as expected we rectify those faults at no cost to the customer. Faults like a leaking hatch, fridge not cooling, stove not working, electrical problems, etc, etc are issues that we deal with where necessary. The Consumer Act doesn't come into it...it's a minor fault and we fix it...everyone is happy. For the experts a minor fault is one that can be rectified in a reasonable time as defined in the Act. (Check Google ) This would be the case with hundreds of dealers nationally.
We have never had a claim for a major fault (Cannot be rectified or difficult to do so.again check Google). A major unrectifiable fault, whilst I'm sure they occur, would be an unusual event.
The main "not fit for purpose" claims are more related to representation of the product rather than faults that it has. An example would be where a dealer misrepresents his van as being suitable to be towed by a certain tug and it is not.. Representing a van as being "off road" when in fact it very evident that it is not and so on. Many of these cases can finish up in court if the dealer/manufacturer and buyer cannot agree.
Another myth the experts would have everyone believe is that the dealer will take the brunt in the case of a major manufacturers fault when in reality a dealer nearly always names the manufacturer as co defendant in the claim, and why wouldn't he if it's not really his fault.
Sometimes it's a long way between the keyboard and reality!
Montie
Possum3 said
08:50 PM Jan 19, 2017
Some people are actually University graduates that don't utilise Google or Wikipedia, they use correct Legal references and follow the rule of Law they don't defer to bully tactics. On the other hand there are those who hide behind pseudonyms and attempt to huff and puff and attempt to belittle those that they see as a threat.
mumpedo said
09:10 PM Jan 19, 2017
Montie sadly in spite of all those seminars you attended, you clearly still don't know the ACL. You also don't know whether I have legal expertise or not so calling people such as myself a 'keyboard expert' is rather derogatory. Like Possum3, I am not a lawyer or member of the bar but have completed studies that include legal studies.
You wrote: "We have never had a claim for a major fault (Cannot be rectified or difficult to do so.again check Google). A major unrectifiable fault, whilst I'm sure they occur, would be an unusual event."
I think that this is because you don't understand the true definition of a major failure (aka major defect or major fault). It doesn't have to be 'unrectifiable' under the Australian Consumer Law. So therefore you claim never to have had one where it is likely you have had many.
It is important that consumers know their full rights and that dealers do as well or else it is likely that they are being misinformed by dealers about their consumer rights. If Montie is telling consumers the above, he is misinforming his customers of their rights, which is also an offence under the ACL.
Here is the exact wording from the ACL of a definition of a 'major failure' which entitles the consumer to a choice of refund or replacement under s. 263. As you can see it is easy to understand and in plain English. The intent was that consumers would have a simple way of getting consumer rights without having to resort to legal action, as shown in the document Possum3 linked. Part (a) alone would apply to most lemons.
260 When a failure to comply with a guarantee is a major failure
A failure to comply with a guarantee referred to in section 259(1)(b) that applies to a supply of goods is a major failure if: (a) the goods would not have been acquired by a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the nature and extent of the failure; or (b) the goods depart in one or more significant respects: (i) if they were supplied by description--from that description; or (ii) if they were supplied by reference to a sample or demonstration model--from that sample or demonstration model; or (c) the goods are substantially unfit for a purpose for which goods of the same kind are commonly supplied and they cannot, easily and within a reasonable time, be remedied to make them fit for such a purpose; or (d) the goods are unfit for a disclosed purpose that was made known to: (i) the supplier of the goods; or (ii) a person by whom any prior negotiations or arrangements in relation to the acquisition of the goods were conducted or made; and they cannot, easily and within a reasonable time, be remedied to make them fit for such a purpose; or (e) the goods are not of acceptable quality because they are unsafe.
Also, under s. 259 (2) if repairs take longer than a 'reasonable time', it also allows the consumer to reject the product and claim a refund or replacement. This is not from Google, it is from the actual legislation. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/caca2010265/sch2.html
Definition of a reasonable time is here on page 7:
So as you can see Montie, your simplification of the ACL is misleading to consumers. I suggest that you may want to read some more about this on the ACCC web site at: https://www.accc.gov.au/business/treating-customers-fairly/consumers-rights-obligations
This clearly shows that the supplier has the full responsibility under the ACL for the consumer guarantees on the product. Then the supplier has to take action against the manufacturer to recover costs (s. 274).
This is not just 'Google' but the authoritative documentation about the Australian Consumer Law including the law itself.
-- Edited by mumpedo on Thursday 19th of January 2017 11:31:37 PM
montie said
09:34 PM Jan 19, 2017
Possum3 wrote:
Some people are actually University graduates that don't utilise Google or Wikipedia, they use correct Legal references and follow the rule of Law they don't defer to bully tactics. On the other hand there are those who hide behind pseudonyms and attempt to huff and puff and attempt to belittle those that they see as a threat.
I'm not hiding behind anything.....I'm a dealer who fully understands his responsibilities after 30 odd years in the industry and I do not conceal the fact. Believe it or not I also have a degree.
Now...what's your claim to fame?
Montie
-- Edited by montie on Thursday 19th of January 2017 09:36:36 PM
montie said
09:40 PM Jan 19, 2017
mumpedo wrote:
Montie sadly in spite of all those seminars you attended, you clearly still don't know the ACL. You also don't know whether I have legal expertise or not so calling people such as myself a 'keyboard expert' is rather derogatory. Like Possum3, I am not a lawyer or member of the bar but have completed studies that include legal studies.
You wrote: "We have never had a claim for a major fault (Cannot be rectified or difficult to do so.again check Google). A major unrectifiable fault, whilst I'm sure they occur, would be an unusual event."
I think that this is because you don't understand the true definition of a major failure (aka major defect or major fault). It doesn't have to be 'unrectifiable' under the Australian Consumer Law. So therefore you claim never to have had one where it is likely you have had many.
It is important that consumers know their full rights and that dealers do as well or else it is likely that they are being misinformed by dealers about their consumer rights. If Montie is telling consumers the above, he is misinforming his customers of their rights, which is also an offence under the ACL.
Here is the exact wording from the ACL of a definition of a 'major failure' which entitles the consumer to a choice of refund or replacement under s. 263. As you can see it is easy to understand and in plain English. The intent was that consumers would have a simple way of getting consumer rights without having to resort to legal action, as shown in the document Possum3 linked. Part (a) alone would apply to most lemons.
260 When a failure to comply with a guarantee is a major failure
A failure to comply with a guarantee referred to in section 259(1)(b) that applies to a supply of goods is a major failure if: (a) the goods would not have been acquired by a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the nature and extent of the failure; or (b) the goods depart in one or more significant respects: (i) if they were supplied by description--from that description; or (ii) if they were supplied by reference to a sample or demonstration model--from that sample or demonstration model; or (c) the goods are substantially unfit for a purpose for which goods of the same kind are commonly supplied and they cannot, easily and within a reasonable time, be remedied to make them fit for such a purpose; or (d) the goods are unfit for a disclosed purpose that was made known to: (i) the supplier of the goods; or (ii) a person by whom any prior negotiations or arrangements in relation to the acquisition of the goods were conducted or made; and they cannot, easily and within a reasonable time, be remedied to make them fit for such a purpose; or (e) the goods are not of acceptable quality because they are unsafe.
Also, under s. 259 (2) if repairs take longer than a 'reasonable time', it also allows the consumer to reject the product and claim a refund or replacement. This is not from Google, it is from the actual legislation. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/caca2010265/sch2.html
Definition of a reasonable time is here on page 7:
So as you can see Montie, your simplification of the ACL is misleading to consumers. I suggest that you may want to read some more about this on the ACCC web site at: https://www.accc.gov.au/business/treating-customers-fairly/consumers-rights-obligations
This clearly shows that the supplier has the full responsibility under the ACL for the consumer guarantees on the product. Then the supplier has to take action against the manufacturer to recover costs (s. 274).
This is not just 'Google' but the authoritative documentation about the Australian Consumer Law including the law itself.
Wow!
Studies that include legal studies.......I'm impressed!
Now..can we get back to reality!!
Montie
-- Edited by mumpedo on Thursday 19th of January 2017 09:23:11 PM
Moorey said
09:42 PM Jan 19, 2017
I have been sitting back reading for and against the debate re the problem with dealer and manufacturer interaction with RV purchasers. I have spent a great deal of time inquiring about different types of Caravans. It is my intention to sell up and travel this year after my TKR. The problem I see is not whether the dealer is willing to fix problems with a caravan but WHEN they will fix the defect or defects. When you take delivery of a new van no matter how precise your inspection there is still the chance you will have a defect. Whenever I see a caravan that I like, I introduce myself and inquire as to the after purchase service supplied by the dealer.
It is this area that most owners I spoke to had problems when they had a defect. When you take delivery of your new vehicle you are required to make the final payment but if you find defects at a later date you are asked to wait until there is a time available to correct the defects. If you were to say to the dealer that you will make the final payment when you have the time available you would not be leaving with your van. These defects in a lot of cases should have been identified during the pre-delivery check and have led to a delay in travel. Maybe a complete overhaul of the RV industry is needed to ensure that owners are not required to wait for extended period for repairs. I do not have a problem with the fact that there will be defects occasionally because of human (sometimes untrained) interaction with the construction, but I do believe that if you ask me for my money now and the vehicle has defects then I want it fixed when I find the defect not weeks down the track.
Happy traveling and keep up the pressure on you local MP.
Moorey
rockylizard said
09:47 PM Jan 19, 2017
Gday...
Cheers - John
mumpedo said
11:36 PM Jan 19, 2017
Montie wrote:
Wow!
Studies that include legal studies.......I'm impressed!
Now..can we get back to reality!!blankstare
Montie
----
What is not reality about the actual Australian Consumer Law? I quoted it directly. I supplied links to the ACCC information.
I feel that it is you that is not accepting the reality. This is possibly detrimental to your customers and their rights. Ignorance is no defence.
I know which dealership you own in Queensland but I believe it can't be named due to the site rules. It is easy enough to find though.
meetoo said
01:31 AM Jan 20, 2017
montie wrote:
Snip -
Dealers on the other hand live and operate in a real world, - Snip
Montie
- Snip
So do customers, even the ones unfortunate enough to end up with a lemon!
Cheers, John.
montie said
07:15 AM Jan 20, 2017
mumpedo wrote:
Montie wrote: Wow!
Studies that include legal studies.......I'm impressed!
Now..can we get back to reality!!blankstare
Montie
---- What is not reality about the actual Australian Consumer Law? I quoted it directly. I supplied links to the ACCC information.
I feel that it is you that is not accepting the reality. This is possibly detrimental to your customers and their rights. Ignorance is no defence.
I know which dealership you own in Queensland but I believe it can't be named due to the site rules. It is easy enough to find though.
You can name it if you wish, we like many other reputable dealers who get bashed on forums like this one by people with a point to prove, have absolutely nothing to hide. That's probably why we've been around for over 30 years and have thousands of repeat and satisfied customers.
Just be careful that anything you say about the dealership is true and verifiable.
This is a copy from another site; It does appear that the Industry is being overhauled and dragged kicking and screaming into legitimacy.
1. If a company has 10 or more full time employees they cannot sue for defamation. Part time employees are added on an FTE basis....
2. If you are telling the truth and it is your honest opinion, and have evidence to back that up, then it is not defamation.
3. It costs a huge amount of money to run a defamation case (so I have been told by a lawyer).
4. A company can sue for injurious falsehood but they must prove falsity, malicious intent, publication and economic loss. The burden of proof is on them and they have to prove all four points.
Refer http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/da200599/
http://defamationwatch.com.au/?page_id=13
-- Edited by Possum3 on Wednesday 18th of January 2017 02:59:03 PM
-- Edited by Possum3 on Wednesday 18th of January 2017 02:59:58 PM
Oh dear! The hot weather has been affecting quite a few people lately.
I don't really understand how an amendment to the Defamation Act that took place over ten year ago has anything to do with overhauling an industry or dragging them screaming and kicking into legitimacy.
Defamation has nothing to do with consumer legislation. Are you seriously saying that if a consumer complains about a product then he will be sued for defamation?
If someone intentionally maligns a product without basis the remedy for companies is a civil action in tort. Defamation does not come in to it.
I had a look at that lemon Caravans site some of it's pretty ugly ,but most of the problems there winging about are simple things to fix...
-- Edited by Ron-D on Wednesday 18th of January 2017 04:31:55 PM
These complaints have just recently been the subject of a series of interviews on Radio 612 (ABC Qld). Kelly Higgins-Devine interviews about caravans on ABC radio. radio.abc.net.au/programitem/pe8Qb2787Q
radio.abc.net.au/programitem/pel3P6ZPjL
Additionally Mr Colin Young from the Caravan Council of Australia was interviewed and he is working with Lemon owners to help clean out the industry - you would be living in a vacuum if you haven't been aware of the recent activities of the 4WD and Caravan Shows on TV mentioning this movement.
Ron-D; I have also been reading of some of the evidenced faults Illegal wiring, illegal compliance plates, engineers reports stating not suitable for use on road. There are nearly 9,000 members of Lemon RV's and over 3,500 members of Shonky Caravans - yes there are a few that aren't happy with minor items and maybe they are possibly whingers, but definitely the majority are those who after spending between $80K and $150K (on average) for a new van get sold a caravan not fit for purpose. I think I'd whinge just a little when roof leaks after ten attempts to fix on new van, or van delivered without appliances fitted, Electrical fires, doors falling off, faulty brakes, broken chassis, etc
Many of them have spent their life savings or sold up their houses to live their twilight years on the road only to end up with an unusable pile of junk.
Could't agree more.
Most of the people on that "Lemon" site have agendas other than having their minor problems fixed. The lady who runs the site admitted on radio that she has refused an offer to have her problems rectified so what's her agenda.
Life's too short get out there and enjoy your van and the lifestyle!
Montie
I would have thought that everyone who owned a caravan would be right behind the likes of that other site. The main reason for the disquiet is simply because the Rv manufacturing industry is totally un-regulated and has too many cowboys. where do grey nomads go to seek remedy if the dealer and manufacturer will not make good a buyer's problems. The National Competition and Consumer Legislation of 2010 was written by Federal authorities to give a national approach to consumer protection. The intent of that legislation was to have the States enact enabling and complementary legislation so that consumers would be protected at State level, I.e. By complementary legislation.
The real effect of that Legislation was to make it the job of retailers to make good any product problems, whether it be by way of local remedy or by Way of interaction with the manufacturer. This has quite obviously not worked! For example, in Queensland, if a dealer is not prepared to do the right thing by one of his customers, then the customer has no recourse other than to go to the QCAT tribunal for an outcome. It is a bit hard to do that when the tribunal has a legislative jurisdictional limit of $25,000.00 There are not too many vans around today that can be purchased for that amount of money (unless second hand).
If you bought a new car and it had major problems with the brakes, chassis, bodywork electrical system etc, where would you take it to have the situation fixed. I bet you would not take it to Victoria or another State to the manufacturer for remedy.
Can I suggest that the existence of the other site is a good thing for consumers and something that dealers do not want. If there is no problem with RV manufacturing in Australia, what harm can it do. The real problem is that the RV manufacturing industry remains un-regulated And that is not a good thing for Grey Nomads or any other class of Nomad!
Tones
-- Edited by Tones on Thursday 19th of January 2017 08:50:18 AM
Thanks for making the effort Possum 3. I certainly appreciate the information.
You can say whatever you like so long as it's true.
If it's proven to be untrue you might be in a bit of strife.
Just ask some of those celebreties who sue the media!
As Dmaxer pointed out, intentionally maligning a product has nothing to do with defamation.
Montie
-- Edited by montie on Thursday 19th of January 2017 10:05:22 AM
Unfortunately, my experience, and that of many others is that
1) Too many vans have too many "minor" problems when new. Certainly they are much worse, in my experience than new cars.
2) Too many new van owners have too many problems getting dealers and or manufacturers to take the fixing of those "minor" problems seriously, with expectation that the owner will quite happily accept that it may take 2 or 3 months to "fit" them in to have fixes done.
3) Too many vans come out of the factory with "major" problems that are even harder to get fixed, and really shouldn't have happened in the first place if the van was built with some degree of care. Our only new van had major leaks 5 days after getting it home, and the replacement I demanded had a fibreglass wall delaminate 3 days after getting it home. My dealer was good, the product was ordinary. The manufacturer then sent a replacement wall the wrong colour first, than sent one that got damaged in transit, and told the dealer to fit it, and finally sent a good one. Luckily my dealer was good and offered a refund if I had wanted it.
4) Too many problems are passed off as "not our fault", eg problems with electrical items and chassis built by others. Go and see the distributor. Sorry, but I gave the dealer my 30, 40, 50 or 100,000 dollars, so the dealer should be handling this on my behalf.
I know this may not apply to you Montie, and you do come on the forums to put a point of view, but quite frankly, dealers like yourself appear to be in the minority, and buyers have had enough.
At the end of the day, why should a buyer have to pay from $30 - $150k for a new van, and then accept that due to "minor" problems generally created during manufacture, they should accept a repaired unit? That is not what they have paid for.
It is a matter of record of what is happening in the Multi Billion dollar industry. There is currently the ACCC seeking submissions to increase penalties, etc.
At the moment the industry is totally deregulated and anyone with a staple gun can manufacture or repair caravans.
Shutting down discussions will not prevent The Regulators from shining a light onto the industry.
I being an Australian with choice to belong or not to any group or organisation I choose, I say more power to them. At least they, in the main have all their claims checked and verified prior to postings being approved - which can't be said for the Caravan club pages that delete any comment that highlights faulty caravans.
Who I am and my history is out there for all to see and I don't hide behind a screen of anonymity - Unlike R V Dealers.
www.accc.gov.au/business/treating-customers-fairly/consumers-rights-obligations
When dealers and manufacturers try to silence any lemon product owner with defamation threats it is not in the best interests of consumers or the market. That is why the ACCC is taking action against Meriton Apartments for stopping unhappy customers from writing negative reviews on TripAdvisor.
"Consumers rely on independent review platforms like Trip Advisor when making purchasing decisions. If reviews are manipulated to falsely create a more favourable impression about a provider, consumers may choose that provider on the basis of that falsehood over another accommodation provider who has not engaged in misleading conduct."
This also applies to deleting negative reviews from business owners web sites and Facebook pages or getting their employees and friends to give five star reviews. It creates a more favourable impression about a business and consumers are choosing to purchase from them without full evidence. This comes under misleading and deceptive conduct under the ACL.
My understanding of defamation threats is that they are generally hollow, as to run a defamation case can cost millions. It is pretty rare they ever get to court. So if that is the case the threats are probably used to scare a consumer into silence. I think this would come under unconscionable conduct in the ACL.
Isn't it amazing how all the keyboard experts come out of the woodwork at the mention of the Consumer Act and can quote chapter and verse according to Mr Google
All theory of course as most of these experts live in a world of cyberspace.
Dealers on the other hand live and operate in a real world, selling real products to real people who pay real money. We dont really need Google or the keyboard experts to tell us what our responsibilities are because we have been required to attend numerous seminars on the subject since the Consumer Act was introduced.
It is a fact that 99% of faults in a new caravan are of a minor nature and as expected we rectify those faults at no cost to the customer. Faults like a leaking hatch, fridge not cooling, stove not working, electrical problems, etc, etc are issues that we deal with where necessary. The Consumer Act doesn't come into it...it's a minor fault and we fix it...everyone is happy. For the experts a minor fault is one that can be rectified in a reasonable time as defined in the Act. (Check Google
) This would be the case with hundreds of dealers nationally.
We have never had a claim for a major fault (Cannot be rectified or difficult to do so.again check Google). A major unrectifiable fault, whilst I'm sure they occur, would be an unusual event.
The main "not fit for purpose" claims are more related to representation of the product rather than faults that it has. An example would be where a dealer misrepresents his van as being suitable to be towed by a certain tug and it is not.. Representing a van as being "off road" when in fact it very evident that it is not and so on. Many of these cases can finish up in court if the dealer/manufacturer and buyer cannot agree.
Another myth the experts would have everyone believe is that the dealer will take the brunt in the case of a major manufacturers fault when in reality a dealer nearly always names the manufacturer as co defendant in the claim, and why wouldn't he if it's not really his fault.
Sometimes it's a long way between the keyboard and reality!
Montie
Montie sadly in spite of all those seminars you attended, you clearly still don't know the ACL. You also don't know whether I have legal expertise or not so calling people such as myself a 'keyboard expert' is rather derogatory. Like Possum3, I am not a lawyer or member of the bar but have completed studies that include legal studies.
You wrote:
"We have never had a claim for a major fault (Cannot be rectified or difficult to do so.again check Google). A major unrectifiable fault, whilst I'm sure they occur, would be an unusual event."
I think that this is because you don't understand the true definition of a major failure (aka major defect or major fault). It doesn't have to be 'unrectifiable' under the Australian Consumer Law. So therefore you claim never to have had one where it is likely you have had many.
It is important that consumers know their full rights and that dealers do as well or else it is likely that they are being misinformed by dealers about their consumer rights. If Montie is telling consumers the above, he is misinforming his customers of their rights, which is also an offence under the ACL.
Here is the exact wording from the ACL of a definition of a 'major failure' which entitles the consumer to a choice of refund or replacement under s. 263. As you can see it is easy to understand and in plain English. The intent was that consumers would have a simple way of getting consumer rights without having to resort to legal action, as shown in the document Possum3 linked. Part (a) alone would apply to most lemons.
260 When a failure to comply with a guarantee is a major failure
A failure to comply with a guarantee referred to in section 259(1)(b) that applies to a supply of goods is a major failure if:
(a) the goods would not have been acquired by a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the nature and extent of the failure; or
(b) the goods depart in one or more significant respects:
(i) if they were supplied by description--from that description; or
(ii) if they were supplied by reference to a sample or demonstration model--from that sample or demonstration model; or
(c) the goods are substantially unfit for a purpose for which goods of the same kind are commonly supplied and they cannot, easily and within a reasonable time, be remedied to make them fit for such a purpose; or
(d) the goods are unfit for a disclosed purpose that was made known to:
(i) the supplier of the goods; or
(ii) a person by whom any prior negotiations or arrangements in relation to the acquisition of the goods were conducted or made;
and they cannot, easily and within a reasonable time, be remedied to make them fit for such a purpose; or
(e) the goods are not of acceptable quality because they are unsafe.
Also, under s. 259 (2) if repairs take longer than a 'reasonable time', it also allows the consumer to reject the product and claim a refund or replacement. This is not from Google, it is from the actual legislation.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/caca2010265/sch2.html
Definition of a reasonable time is here on page 7:
https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Motor%20vehicle%20sales%20%26%20repairs%20-%20an%20industry%20guide%20to%20the%20Austalian%20Consumer%20Law.pdf
So as you can see Montie, your simplification of the ACL is misleading to consumers. I suggest that you may want to read some more about this on the ACCC web site at:
https://www.accc.gov.au/business/treating-customers-fairly/consumers-rights-obligations
This clearly shows that the supplier has the full responsibility under the ACL for the consumer guarantees on the product. Then the supplier has to take action against the manufacturer to recover costs (s. 274).
This is not just 'Google' but the authoritative documentation about the Australian Consumer Law including the law itself.
-- Edited by mumpedo on Thursday 19th of January 2017 11:31:37 PM
-- Edited by montie on Thursday 19th of January 2017 09:36:36 PM
I have been sitting back reading for and against the debate re the problem with dealer and manufacturer interaction with RV purchasers. I have spent a great deal of time inquiring about different types of Caravans. It is my intention to sell up and travel this year after my TKR. The problem I see is not whether the dealer is willing to fix problems with a caravan but WHEN they will fix the defect or defects. When you take delivery of a new van no matter how precise your inspection there is still the chance you will have a defect. Whenever I see a caravan that I like, I introduce myself and inquire as to the after purchase service supplied by the dealer.
It is this area that most owners I spoke to had problems when they had a defect. When you take delivery of your new vehicle you are required to make the final payment but if you find defects at a later date you are asked to wait until there is a time available to correct the defects. If you were to say to the dealer that you will make the final payment when you have the time available you would not be leaving with your van. These defects in a lot of cases should have been identified during the pre-delivery check and have led to a delay in travel. Maybe a complete overhaul of the RV industry is needed to ensure that owners are not required to wait for extended period for repairs. I do not have a problem with the fact that there will be defects occasionally because of human (sometimes untrained) interaction with the construction, but I do believe that if you ask me for my money now and the vehicle has defects then I want it fixed when I find the defect not weeks down the track.
Happy traveling and keep up the pressure on you local MP.
Moorey
Gday...
Cheers - John
Wow!
Studies that include legal studies.......I'm impressed!
Now..can we get back to reality!!blankstare
Montie
----
What is not reality about the actual Australian Consumer Law? I quoted it directly. I supplied links to the ACCC information.
I feel that it is you that is not accepting the reality. This is possibly detrimental to your customers and their rights. Ignorance is no defence.
I know which dealership you own in Queensland but I believe it can't be named due to the site rules. It is easy enough to find though.
So do customers, even the ones unfortunate enough to end up with a lemon!
Cheers, John.
You can name it if you wish, we like many other reputable dealers who get bashed on forums like this one by people with a point to prove, have absolutely nothing to hide. That's probably why we've been around for over 30 years and have thousands of repeat and satisfied customers.
Just be careful that anything you say about the dealership is true and verifiable.
Outside of that I will welcome the publicity
Montie