Avida Birdsville motorhome leaking

Marlene6 · Member

Avida Birdsville motorhome leaking

Possum3 · Guru

If you check on all the Lemon sites - Water leaking in Avida's is a very common fault - My Avida was returned numerous times - Had massively costly case through NCAT and finally got purchase price refunded by Dealer (Country Motors).

Sorry that you have had to go through this - A note To ACCC may get some assistance.

Aus-Kiwi · Guru

Its possibly a simple fix ? But under warranty ? Its up to them ! Most are just fitters !! Not tradies or any experience in what seal or screws to use ! Only what they have ! Steel self tappers in ply wood for example . Can still be condensation in unit with higher humidity ? Blocked or faulty drain pipe ?

Marlene6 · Member

Dealer says Dometic Harrier Lite is warped allowing water to come in!!!.The motorhome has only travelled 5000 since new. Bought last July.
So now the story is; cannot get another aircon until November. Means we have not been able to use it since April. We are both almost 80. Time is running out for us. Don't really know what to do.

Possum3 · Guru

Marlene, I think it is time to get serious legal advise and seek/demand refund or replacement under Australian Consumer Law.

montie · Guru

Possum3 wrote:
If you check on all the Lemon sites - Water leaking in Avida's is a very common fault - My Avida was returned numerous times - Had massively costly case through NCAT and finally got purchase price refunded by Dealer (Country Motors).

Sorry that you have had to go through this - A note To ACCC may get some assistance.

You got your money back so obviously the legal system works.

You are now spruiking on a public forum that your issue is a "common fault".

You are a brave man and so is the admin of this forum.

Aus-Kiwi · Guru

I would say ? Sikoflex should seal any reasonable warping ? Its an excuse for poor work person ship !

Dicko1 · Senior Member

montie wrote:
Possum3 wrote:
If you check on all the Lemon sites - Water leaking in Avida's is a very common fault - My Avida was returned numerous times - Had massively costly case through NCAT and finally got purchase price refunded by Dealer (Country Motors).

Sorry that you have had to go through this - A note To ACCC may get some assistance.
You got your money back so obviously the legal system works.
You are now spruiking on a public forum that your issue is a "common fault".
You are a brave man and so is the admin of this forum.

I also have been made aware that there are indeed issues with water leaking in some of the models. Also a bigger issue is the aluminium underfloor corroding away. There are many vans of various makes that leak water..Pretty crap situation really. However what else would you expect from a totally unregulated industry

Marlene6 · Member

Saga continues.
Dealer says it's Avida's problem, Avida thinks it's Dometic problem. Meantime no one seems to think it is our problem!
So our booked ($1000)Northern holiday hangs in the balance. As the Aircon is not usable we asked for it to be at least sealed/removed so we could go North. Yep, finished yesterday, brought home, rained last night Yep it leaked. It is the most ridiculous situation imaginable. If these things are well known lemons, why aren't people talking about it?

Possum3 · Guru

Marlene6 wrote:
Saga continues.
Yep, finished yesterday, brought home, rained last night Yep it leaked. It is the most ridiculous situation imaginable. If these things are well known lemons, why aren't people talking about it?

When Lemons are discussed on public forums Manufacturers, Dealers, Ex Dealers? Issue veiled threats against the forums and sites - In some instances they even hire High Powered Legal firms to issue demands against honest purchasers that have been basically hung out to dry with unusable products - It takes years to get satisfaction through inept legal systems - that is why some just spend thousands of dollars rectifying design faults and shoddy workmanship - The ACCC has amended the ACL but until it all comes into force it will continue to be a problem.

montie · Guru

On this occasion I agree with Possum....he had a problem that was not being addressed so he used the legal avenues available to him to get compensation.

He states that he got a refund through the ACL so his claim was justified.

The Consumer Act is there to protect consumers and is not expensive to access.

Having said that there is no available resolution to any problem by brand bashing on any public forum other than exposing yourself to being sued for defamation.

Aus-Kiwi · Guru

Its only defamation if what you are saying is NOT true ! As a moderator on a car forum this comes up often !! So it SEEMS its leaking from other section of roof ? Or the patch on roof defective ?

montie · Guru

Aus-Kiwi wrote:
Its only defamation if what you are saying is NOT true ! As a moderator on a car forum this comes up often !! So it SEEMS its leaking from other section of roof ? Or the patch on roof defective ?

Yep...and if challenged you will need to prove that.

If you present enough evidence to prove your statement is true then no problem.

Otherwise...bring your cheque book...

Now why would you put yourself through that if you had a perfectly legal avenue to resolve your problem.

Marlene6 · Member

Final chapter.
Avida and dealer are working together to solve the problem.
Very good response from both.
BTW the comments from Monty didn't have much to do with the issue. Surprisingly I do know the definition of defamation, which wasn't the question or the subject.
Thank you to the two other gentleman who tried to help.

Aus-Kiwi · Guru

Is the roof leaking ? YES have they fixed it ? NO !! End of story . Or take it to a lawyer to fix !! When has Aust gone soft from the offended !!!

oldbloke · Guru

Aus-Kiwi wrote:
Its only defamation if what you are saying is NOT true ! As a moderator on a car forum this comes up often !! So it SEEMS its leaking from other section of roof ? Or the patch on roof defective ?

I agree. If the makers just did their job in the first place and/or stood by their product there would be nothing to winge about.

Should be taken to the cleaners more often in my book.

Buy a faulty item at Aldi, immediate refund or replacement. No problem. As far as vans go, the biggest sellers are the worst. Not good enough. IMO if you get a dodgy product and the seller doesn't fix or refund its simply theft.

DMaxer · Guru

I find that most dealers, manufacturers and sellers of shonky goods like the idea of tribunals. They drift along with people filing their documents airing their grievances and the worst outcome for the shonks is that they have to either remedy a problem or refund money if it all goes against them at the end of the proceedings.

The joy of the alternative approach by commencing an action in Local or District courts is that not only do you have the joy of watching your instructed counsel boof it right up the miscreant and expose their practices for all to see but you also get the added thrill of seeing them not only having to pay for the costs of your repairs but damages for your loss and an order for your legal costs to be paid.

Entertainment for the whole family.

montie · Guru

DMaxer wrote:
I find that most dealers, manufacturers and sellers of shonky goods like the idea of tribunals. They drift along with people filing their documents airing their grievances and the worst outcome for the shonks is that they have to either remedy a problem or refund money if it all goes against them at the end of the proceedings.
The joy of the alternative approach by commencing an action in Local or District courts is that not only do you have the joy of watching your instructed counsel boof it right up the miscreant and expose their practices for all to see but you also get the added thrill of seeing them not only having to pay for the costs of your repairs but damages for your loss and an order for your legal costs to be paid.
Entertainment for the whole family.

Plus lots of $$$$$'S for the solicitors and barristers.

What a pity they don't allow solicitors at tribunal hearings! smile

A bit like the local council setting up a free camp next door to a caravan park!

I can understand why solicitors do not like Tribunals....no $$$'s. From the consumer's perspective it is an inexpensive way to make a claim against a supplier and doesn't cost a fortune if you lose.

-- Edited by montie on Tuesday 25th of May 2021 11:06:26 AM

DMaxer · Guru

You are wrong Montie. Costs are set out in a fees agreement at the commencement of acting for a client. These fees are set out in the court scale. If a lawyer wishes to charge outside of scale it must be agreed to by the client and the client is made aware that it is outside the scale. If the client is successful then a costs order is made against the losing party. That is why shonks don't like this venue.

In the Tribunal there is no order for costs. This is why the shonks like tribunals as the worst that can happen for them is that they have to rectify the faults or pay for the repair but are not subjected to damages or costs.

I didn't find the consumer cases financially rewarding as the amount of time that needed to be taken in preparation and the actual litigation was not cost effective. On the other hand, the look on the face of the shonk when they got their right comeupance, well, money could not buy that.

montie · Guru

DMaxer wrote:
You are wrong Montie. Costs are set out in a fees agreement at the commencement of acting for a client. These fees are set out in the court scale. If a lawyer wishes to charge outside of scale it must be agreed to by the client and the client is made aware that it is outside the scale. If the client is successful then a costs order is made against the losing party. That is why shonks don't like this venue.
In the Tribunal there is no order for costs. This is why the shonks like tribunals as the worst that can happen for them is that they have to rectify the faults or pay for the repair but are not subjected to damages or costs.
I didn't find the consumer cases financially rewarding as the amount of time that needed to be taken in preparation and the actual litigation was not cost effective. On the other hand, the look on the face of the shonk when they got their right comeupance, well, money could not buy that.

No litigation solicitor that I know of will work for less than $400 per hour and if you are successful the court will only order payment of a fraction of that. On the other hand if you lose, the litigation costs more than what you have to pay the claimant! And let's not forget the barrister's fee of probably $1000 per hour if the case goes to a hearing.! Then of course you have to beware of the shifty solicitor who covers his ass and sits you down and tells you that you have a 70% chance of winning! disbelief

In a Tribunal there are no orders for costs because there aren't any! And the shonks still get what's due to them.

-- Edited by montie on Tuesday 25th of May 2021 11:52:58 AM

oldbloke · Guru

The system needs to change. Whether in courts or tribunal the dodgy brothers need to get some sort of penalty over and above the cost of repairs. Otherwise there isn't an incentive to change their dodgy ways.

DMaxer · Guru

You seem to mix in odd company Montie.

montie · Guru

DMaxer wrote:
You seem to mix in odd company Montie.

Yep, some of my best golfing mates are solicitors! smile smile

montie · Guru

oldbloke wrote:
The system needs to change. Whether in courts or tribunal the dodgy brothers need to get some sort of penalty over and above the cost of repairs. Otherwise there isn't an incentive to change their dodgy ways.

So are you suggesting that if your motorhome has a water leak, not only should you get your money back but the directors of the builder should go to prison! smile

I reckon the firing squad would be far more effective! smile smile

DMaxer · Guru

I think what he was suggesting is that as well as fixing the issue, if they have been negligent in either their workmanship or quality control they should also pay for damages for the loss of enjoyment the customer suffered. I don't think that was too hard to work out or were you just trying to be clever Montie.

oldbloke · Guru

DMaxer wrote:
I think what he was suggesting is that as well as fixing the issue, if they have been negligent in either their workmanship or quality control they should also pay for damages for the loss of enjoyment the customer suffered. I don't think that was too hard to work out or were you just trying to be clever Montie.

Agree.

Really you shouldn't verbal people Montie, not professional. I never mentioned prison.

But compensation or fines should be applied more often. And the fines need to be substantial, designed to hurt the seller or manufacturers. Otherwise nothing will change and innocent buyers will continue to be ripped off. Let's get real here. If I buy a toaster that does not work and the seller refuses to replace, fix or exchange they are common thieves.

-- Edited by oldbloke on Tuesday 25th of May 2021 02:43:37 PM

montie · Guru

Both the Court system and State Tribunals allow for additional damages to be claimed but it is up to the Member or Judge to award them.

A search of the Tribunals or Courts does not reveal that many cases anyway relative to the number of RV's sold.

oldbloke · Guru

montie wrote:
Both the Court system and State Tribunals allow for additional damages to be claimed but it is up to the Member or Judge to award them.
A search of the Tribunals or Courts does not reveal that many cases anyway relative to the number of RV's sold.

Then it clearly is not enough. If it was, it would be improving, and it clearly isnt.

montie · Guru

I just did a search of the last 400 claims heard and decided by QCat and there was not one RV related claim.

Possum3 · Guru

From Avida Discussion group www.caravanersforum.com/viewtopic.php

Unfortunately to search for cases heard by Tribunals you need to know both parties names listed in the Hearing, a long and arduous task. There are some legal sites that can pick up on single name ie Claimant or Respondent, these sites are usually restricted to Members of Legal Firms that pay a membership fee.