Avida Birdsville motorhome leaking

montie · Guru

RE: Avida Birdsville motorhome leaking

Possum3 · Guru

Some recent Federal Legislation:-
To clarify though, this was already in place in case law for some time, where the cumulative effect of non-major failures amounted to a major failure. It has now been clarified just how many are needed, and it is only two. (2).

This is a game changer for consumers, especially those out of pocket tens of thousands and spending too much to enforce consumer rights. It will be nearly impossible to be fobbed off to repeated repairs now for defects that are repairable, but would have stopped a reasonable consumer from purchasing the product in the first place.
I am feeling so excited about this amendment.

www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2020A00141

Schedule 4 paragraph 36:
36 At the end of section 260 of Schedule 2
Add:
(2) A failure to comply with a guarantee referred to in section 259(1)(b) that applies to a supply of goods is also a major failure if:
(a) the failure is one of 2 or more failures to comply with a guarantee referred to in section 259(1)(b) that apply to the supply; and
(b) the goods would not have been acquired by a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the nature and extent of those failures, taken as a whole.
Note: The multiple failures do not need to relate to the same guarantee.
(3) Subsection (2) applies regardless of whether the consumer has taken action under section 259 in relation to any of the failures.

39 In the appropriate position in Chapter 6 of Schedule 2
Insert:
Part 6Application and transitional provisions relating to the Treasury Laws Amendment (2020 Measures No. 6) Act 2020
303 Application of amendments relating to multiple nonmajor consumer guarantee failures
(1) The amendments made by Part 1 of Schedule 4 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (2020 Measures No. 6) Act 2020 apply in relation to goods supplied under a contract entered into on or after the day that that Part commences.
(2) The amendments made by Part 1 of Schedule 4 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (2020 Measures No. 6) Act 2020 apply in relation to a services supplied under a contract entered into on or after the day that that Part commences.

LEGISLATION.GOV.AU
Treasury Laws Amendment (2020 Measures No. 6) Act 2020

montie · Guru

Any new legislation that protects the consumer is always a good thing and I believe the ACA is working really well.

I was trolling through the QCat decisions yesterday and whilst there were no RV related claims in the last 300 decisions I was surprised at the number of motor vehicle claims that were dismissed because of inadequate evidence of a major failure. Perhaps the new changes may impact this, but a number of claimants quoted a number of minor repairable failures as a basis for a full refund but in all cases that I found they were dismissed by the Tribunal. Another interesting point was if a claimant sought a full refund plus any related compensation and it was dismissed, no order was made to have the faults repaired. In other words they only ruled on the actual request in the claim.

It was also interesting that a couple of motor vehicle claims were deferred in order to include the manufacturer as a co respondent to the dealer.

Tony Bev · Guru

Getting back to the OP (Original Poster)

At nearly 80 years of age, (in my opinion), they should not have to climb on the roof to fix, whatever is damaged

After paying a lot of money for a 2020 Avida Birdsville motorhome, they have every right to be asking the question, about their RV

As they have been back 3 times for repairs, without any satisfaction of having the water leak fixed, this does look good for the manufacturer/seller

I may (in the not too distance future), be in the market for a new RV, but I will certainly now, not be interested in an Avida Birdsville motorhome

If the OP would like to tell us who the seller was, then I shall certainly stay away from them as well

Also in my opinion, when people tell the truth as they see it, they should have no fear of legal complications

oxleigh · Veteran Member

If you own a Sxxxxtxn on Mxxxxxxs chassis check ground clearance of the exhaust as it exits just in front of the drivers side rear wheel, all I have seen are so low that they can hit on speed humps, a family member has one a few months old and was told by Axxxa it was a Mxxxxxxxs fitted part. Mxxxxxxxs said they would not put their name to it because it was so badly designed and fitted, No flexible mount on the bracket and welded straight to the chassis!!!!.

When an independent exhaust fitter checked the vehicle he found numerous faults, The exhaust repair was done before it caused an accident by being ripped off or began cracking and leaking fumes into the vehicle.

The most frightening finding was that a 30 to 40m spacer had been fitted between the rear axle and the spring, obviously when the body was built on the chassis, the problem is the U bolts were the original and not long enough, the nuts did not have the threaded part of the u bolt all the way through and did not protrude out of the nuts at all.

This is being investigated along with other basic quality control issues.

-- Edited by oxleigh on Saturday 29th of May 2021 09:23:31 PM

Possum3 · Guru

montie wrote:
I was trolling through the QCat decisions yesterday and whilst there were no RV related claims in the last 300 decisions

Nuth v Soel Products Australia Pty Ltd trading as Caravan RV CQ [2020] QCAT 369 | Supreme Court Library Queensland (sclqld.org.au)

oldbloke · Guru

Got her $80k. Good. No damages though. You would think you would get something just for the stress it must cause.

Possum3 · Guru

The clarification of the ACL plus the recognition by ACCC may address that to some extent although the $1.00 paid up Capital Companies will fold their tents and seek other ways to fleece the unsuspecting.

-- Edited by Possum3 on Monday 31st of May 2021 09:53:26 AM