meetoo wrote:

---

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.

---

 John,

I sympathize with you if you have a caravan with faults that are not being rectified. Talk to Colin at the CCA, he might be able to help you.

I am still puzzled as to what qualifies a new caravan as a "lemon". Who makes that determination?

Surely if a van has faults that the dealer/manufacturer are refusing to rectify then you can't really blame the van...it's the people who sold it to you.

Or, as is the case with a recently publicized situation, you have a van with faults and you refuse to allow the manufacturer to rectify them. Again hardly all the van's fault.

Monty

I think those that are long standing members of this site are aware that I post items to this site that are of interest or use to the Nomad Community in general, hence the original post.

Montie, you ask what is my claim to fame; I could start with being raised in an Aboriginal Community with poor parents both serving in WW2 in uniform no school nor any transport to get to one. Initially raised by Aunties and attended a one room school. Matriculating with no chance of affording a tertiary education so enlisted at the beginning of Vietnam Conflict at age 17, (strong military history in my family) Grandfathers (one in Light horse {Bethsheba} other AIF, lost Great Uncle on the Somme) My Parents Dad AIF -Mom Army Driver, Uncles at Tobruk, Egypt, Kokoda. Sons Duntroon & RAME.

I achieved a tertiary education whilst working paying for it as I went. Served my whole life to date. Law enforcement, Writing Legislation, Task Force 2 Site Commander Thredbo Disaster Relief. Emergency and Disaster Management, previous SES Volunteer over 20 years, several rescues with Air & Sea Rescue, Foundation Member Crop a Cop (Bluey Day) Committee.

Biggest claim to fame I suppose is being a Christian with Christian ideals particularly in helping the less fortunate , Raised a loving family of Four (many year on my own). None of whom ever was on any Welfare or Dole.

Tony my ideals are to assist the down-trodden and help them up -

No matter how much you bluster and try to defend the RV Industry - People will see you for what you are and be aware of your self interest motives.

There are some genuine people in the industry such as Colin Young in the Caravan Council who through Lemon Caravans is helping clean up the industry.

So I in return ask you "What's your Claim to Fame"?
.

Perhaps that explains your avatar of the big gun and the bloke standing tough with the hand on the hip.

It wasn't being aimed at a caravan dealer that had dudded you, was it Possum?

Possum3 wrote:

---

I think those that are long standing members of this site are aware that I post items to this site that are of interest or use to the Nomad Community in general, hence the original post.

Montie, you ask what is my claim to fame; I could start with being raised in an Aboriginal Community with poor parents both serving in WW2 in uniform no school nor any transport to get to one. Initially raised by Aunties and attended a one room school. Matriculating with no chance of affording a tertiary education so enlisted at the beginning of Vietnam Conflict at age 17, (strong military history in my family) Grandfathers (one in Light horse {Bethsheba} other AIF, lost Great Uncle on the Somme) My Parents Dad AIF -Mom Army Driver, Uncles at Tobruk, Egypt, Kokoda. Sons Duntroon & RAME.

I achieved a tertiary education whilst working paying for it as I went. Served my whole life to date. Law enforcement, Writing Legislation, Task Force 2 Site Commander Thredbo Disaster Relief. Emergency and Disaster Management, previous SES Volunteer over 20 years, several rescues with Air & Sea Rescue, Foundation Member Crop a Cop (Bluey Day) Committee.

Biggest claim to fame I suppose is being a Christian with Christian ideals particularly in helping the less fortunate , Raised a loving family of Four (many year on my own). None of whom ever was on any Welfare or Dole.

Tony my ideals are to assist the down-trodden and help them up -

No matter how much you bluster and try to defend the RV Industry - People will see you for what you are and be aware of your self interest motives.

There are some genuine people in the industry such as Colin Young in the Caravan Council who through Lemon Caravans is helping clean up the industry.

So I in return ask you "What's your Claim to Fame"?

 

You already know my claim to fame (you even know who and where I am)......an RV dealer for 32 years and travelling strong thanks to selling good products and looking after customers.

A marketing degree, which did involve some legal studies, which does not entitle me to offer legal advice to anybody.

I prefer to take our Association's barrister's advice when it comes to my responsibilities under the Consumer Act.

I was going to mention that big cannon in your profile pic but somebody else beat me to it!!

Montie

---

 

DMaxer wrote:
People studying courses that might contain a subject relating to law does not qualify them to practice or advise on the law or legal principles. I have a first aid certificate from school days. Would you self professed legal experts rely upon my medical diagnosis or allow me to perform surgical procedures on you? I find it hilarious that people with no legal qualifications love to lecture the masses with their inverted logic and their misguided view of legal interpretation.
--------

Firstly I think the analogy is a bit extreme. If you had a first aid certificate and I was not breathing I would be more than happy for you to perform CPR on me. You don't need to be a doctor to be able to keep someone alive.

I also think it is somewhat arrogant to claim that interpretation of legislation is only for lawyers. I assume you are one? Perhaps next time a police officer gives you a speeding ticket you may want to tell them that you don't accept their interpretation of the law because they are not a lawyer. Legislation is written by many stakeholders, not just lawyers. Most parliamentarians are not lawyers and yet they are the ones tasked with voting in laws. The ACL is written in plain English to enable consumers to know their rights and act on them. The ACCC sites provide guidance on interpretation and implementation. So I challenge your condescension of anyone who might also have a brain that can read and interpret and have a professional opinion on legislation.

Thirdly, what is inaccurate about what I wrote about the ACL? I think it would be a much better debate if you addressed the information in the posts rather than trying to discredit the legitimacy of the poster.

-- Edited by mumpedo on Friday 20th of January 2017 12:36:46 PM

mumpedo wrote:

---

Monty wrote:
I am still puzzled as to what qualifies a new caravan as a "lemon". Who makes that determination?

Surely if a van has faults that the dealer/manufacturer are refusing to rectify then you can't really blame the van...it's the people who sold it to you.

Or, as is the case with a recently publicized situation, you have a van with faults and you refuse to allow the manufacturer to rectify them. Again hardly all the van's fault.

Monty

Monty as I am sure you know, the term 'lemon' is common vernacular for a new vehicle that has multiple defects or defects that are not repairable or if it is off the road more than on the road. The US has lemon laws and use that definition. There was an inquiry in Queensland you may want to read. It has a lot of debate about the definition of a lemon. www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/tableOffice/TabledPapers/2015/5515T1704.pdf

Then if the dealer and/or manufacturer don't repair the van as was reported in that interview I think that it only compounds the problem.

I think you need to listen to that interview again Monty before making misleading statements about that lady from the lemon group who was interviewed. I was sure she said she tried to get repairs so I listened again and she clearly explains how she tried to get repairs and got the run around. soundcloud.com/612abcbrisbane/is-your-caravan-a-lemon Starts at about 2:50 in.

I am not sure why you are so defensive Monty if you are doing the right thing by your customers. If that were properly the case why dispute what Possum and I have written about the consumer law? Or are you unhappy that the law is more extensive than you thought and are concerned that consumers will now know their rights?

---

 

Very happy with the law at the moment because, like most other dealers, I have very little to do with it.

I always find that there is an aggressive minority who like to wave the law in peoples faces, I think it makes them feel important but probably doesn't achieve much else.

The way you guys rabbit on about all these "lemon" caravans (not a legal term) one could be excused for thinking that the courts are jammed with consumer claims on faulty caravans which of course is not the case.

I would also like to know why these people on the FB lemon caravan site have not pursued their alleged claims through the proper legal channels...that's what you keep telling me the Consumer Act is for...maybe you should offer them some of your extensive legal knowledge, because frankly I really don't need it.

Montie  

Gday...

Cheers - John

DMaxer wrote:

---

People studying courses that might contain a subject relating to law does not qualify them to practice or advise on the law or legal principles. I have a first aid certificate from school days. Would you self professed legal experts rely upon my medical diagnosis or allow me to perform surgical procedures on you? I find it hilarious that people with no legal qualifications love to lecture the masses with their inverted logic and their misguided view of legal interpretation.

---

 So true DMaxer. 

Aussie Paul. 

rockylizard, I heed your statement - I'm out of here (on this post only) Those that need or want to know have had enough of it - if others want to carry on that's their business. To quote the Chief Hoo Roo.

rockylizard wrote:

---

Gday...

Cheers - John

---

 you bring a smile to my dial nearly every day rockylizard

cheers

blaze

montie wrote:

---

mumpedo wrote:

---

Monty, from what was said in the interview by the repairer and the guy from the Caravan Council it would seem that the problem is a lot bigger than anyone realised.

I think it depends on where you are but legal action is pretty expensive. I have heard anything from $100 000 or more. Not sure if any lemon caravan owners can afford to risk that sort of money after already spending the same on their caravan.

---

Not the case at all.

In all states of Australia there is a Tribunal that deals with consumer claims at very little cost to the claimant. With the exception of Queensland which is limited to $25000 max claim, all the other states have no limit. Solicitor's are not allowed to attend the hearings, only the claimant and the other party (dealer or manufacturer). You may of course use a solicitor to prepare your evidence brief and this applies to both parties. The Tribunal will make a decision based on the evidence presented and witness statements. They can make an order which is enforceable in court.

The cost to the claimant should be no more than around $1000.

Contact the CCA if you wish to make a claim or contact the authority in your relevant state...QCat, VCat, NCat etc.,

Montie  

---

Montie, before you give advice you should check your facts. The only small claims tribunals in Australia that have unlimited claims for civil consumer law disputes are NCAT and VCAT. Both of these tribunals are allowing dealers and manufacturers legal representation in spite of protests from consumers. The cost in VCAT can be well in excess of $1000 unless you have a health care/pension card. https://www.vcat.vic.gov.au/resources/fees/civil-division .

NCAT is the least expensive but now they are allowing legal representation it will cost a minimum of $5000 to $10000 in legal fees to get to a hearing. Same in VCAT if representation is allowed.

WA: Magistrates Court.
QLD: QCAT limit $25000. Over this then Magistrates Court.
SA: Magistrates Court. Minor claims without representation limit $12000. If over $100 000 then it is the Supreme or District Court.
TAS: Magistrates court minor claim $5000, civil claim $5000 to $50 000. Over $50 000 by consenus of all parties only. Otherwise Supreme Court.

So unfortunately for the consumer it isn't as easy or inexpensive as you make out. I am sure if it was we would see a lot more cases being resolved in the courts.

I also know that business insurance covers a lot if not all of a business's legal expenses so there is little to no cost to the dealer or manufacturer, only the consumer.

-- Edited by mumpedo on Friday 20th of January 2017 05:32:29 PM

montie wrote:

---

meetoo wrote:

---

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.

---

 John,

I sympathize with you if you have a caravan with faults that are not being rectified. Talk to Colin at the CCA, he might be able to help you.

I am still puzzled as to what qualifies a new caravan as a "lemon". Who makes that determination?

Surely if a van has faults that the dealer/manufacturer are refusing to rectify then you can't really blame the van...it's the people who sold it to you.

Or, as is the case with a recently publicized situation, you have a van with faults and you refuse to allow the manufacturer to rectify them. Again hardly all the van's fault.

Monty

---

For the lawyers and other antagonists that claim that the law is their sole purview, plain language drafting of legislation is now the norm to ensure that legislation can be clearly understood and interpreted by everyone. There is a consensus that the populace has a right to know their rights clearly and to be able to have them enforced.
www.opc.gov.au/plain/index.htm

Plain Language

The Office of Parliamentary Counsel has been active in encouraging the use of plain language in legislation and in developing and using plain language techniques.

In addition to OPCs participation in major plain language projects such as the Tax Law Improvement Project and the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program, we have incorporated plain language drafting into all of our work. We have also reviewed the effectiveness of some of the techniques we have introduced. The survey results are now available.

We prefer to use the term plain language rather than plain English because we believe that it covers a wider range of techniques and practices.

In a paper given to the Emerging Trends in Legislative Drafting Conference in Dublin in 2000, Professor Ruth Sullivan of the University of Ottawa gave the following description of plain language. We believe that it is an accurate description of the approach taken by OPC drafters.

Plain language drafting refers to a range of techniques designed to create legislation that is readable and easy to use by the relevant audience(s) for that legislation.

At the level of vocabulary, plain language drafters try to use words and expressions that are familiar to everyone. Although technical language is sometimes necessary to achieve an acceptable level of precision, unnecessary jargon and gratuitous obscurity are eliminated.

At the level of syntax, plain language drafters try to create sentence patterns that are easy for the average person to process. According to the experts, such sentences tend to be short, avoid embedding, and branch to the right. They rely on verbs rather than nouns, the active rather than the passive voice, and positive rather than negative formulations to state the intended law.

At the level of structure, plain language drafters try to organise statutes in a clear and meaningful way. The sequencing of provisions is based on chronological order, logical order, order of importance or some other principle or combination of principles that is likely to make sense to the reader. Equally important, the structure of the statute is clearly revealed to the reader through use of headings and sub-headings, marginal notes, transitions, tables of contents, summaries and the like.

Plain language drafters also draw on the research and insights of experts in document design. They pay as much attention to fonts and white space as they do to choice of words. They try to devise methods of presenting material visually that will assist the reader to use the statute book effectively, and with minimum effort.

Finally, plain language drafters try to provide information that will help readers to interpret the text. Such information typically takes the form of purpose statements, explanatory notes, examples, summaries, overviews and the like. The less familiar a reader is with legislation and its application by official interpreters courts, tribunals and administrators, the greater is the need for context of this sort.

Where's a padlock when ya need one