In today's news, it states the ACCC are taking Jayco to court over misleading advertising. The article (and the ACCC web site) states Jayco have shown images in their advertising depicting their "off-road" products on 4wd only roads and undertaking water crossing. More, they have promoted RVs with phrases such as purpose-built off-road hybrid RV, built with off-road travel at the forefront, all terrain, and designed specifically for off-road adventures.
Yet the warranty details specifically exclude coverage for use on "water crossings, damage from use on corrugated and uneven surfaces or any damage from use on 4WD-only tracks" the ACCC filing said.
Chatting to a guy next to us at the Kununurra CP who is planning on the Gibb River Road in a few days (I have just crossed and he was asking about conditions/places). He has a Jayco Outback (I think it had a sticker saying "Cross Track" or similar, unfortunately he's left now). He saw the article and stated to me he's pretty confident he's covered as that is what he was told at the time he purchased (I asked him if he specifically mentioned the Gibb or similar tracks, but he said he was simply told it was build for "off track" travels). On a few forums I looked at, the Jayco owners not only feel their vans are built for 4wding, many have taken them over the Gibb and similar. I certainly saw quite a few at the various campspots.
Is the general feeling that these vans are suitable for 4wd tracks (whatever that means)? Please note: the comments from the article are quoted from the ACCC website and do not reflect a personal opinion on the issue. It will be interesting to see what comes of it.
Not only Jaco making off road statements.
Have friend with an "off road" tandem axle van suitably constructed for steep entry and exit angles in creek crossings. They found they do not have enough traction with their 4 wheel drive vehicle with heavy lugged tyres, to actually pull the 3.5t out of the creek. This is why farmers have duel or tri tyred drive wheels on tractors.
This all only one part, the fridge and airconditioner pipes cracked and doors etc fall off.
I find the whole industry a bit of a joke, driven by fashion.
Independent suspension is not a sensible choice for a trailer, but that is the fashion, so that is what manufacturers make.
Cheers,
Peter
I really believe Jayco are wasting their money fighting this.
Consumer law is pretty cut and dried these days and given their advertising showing their off road vans being towed into a number of distinctly offroad situations including through water crossings, all a lot more adventurous than the odd piece of dirt road, there is a reasonable expectation from consumers, that if they buy one of these vans, that they are fit for that purpose and are warranted to cover that use.
Hiding a warranty clause in the fine print isn't going to cut it when all your advertising is pushing the off road barrow.
Regardless how good their product may or may not be, it is highly misleading and false advertising to strongly promote that use but then not warrant that on page 10 in the fine print.
Jayco are stuffed and better be ready for a significant fine.
Other manufacturers need to start looking at their advertising and fine print too.
And it is not enough not to advertise it.
If your sales staff say this is an off road van you are still in trouble if you don't cover that in the warranty.
Whenever the ACCC decide to flex their muscles in the RV industry Jayco are usually the first port of call given they are the largest manufacturer in Aus. The thinking there would be that if we can pull the big boys into line the rest of the industry will follow.
At this stage the ACCC are alleging that Jayco misled the consumer in how they have described and advertised their products, an allegation that Jayco have stated they will defend.
Not only Jaco making off road statements. Have friend with an "off road" tandem axle van suitably constructed for steep entry and exit angles in creek crossings. They found they do not have enough traction with their 4 wheel drive vehicle with heavy lugged tyres, to actually pull the 3.5t out of the creek. This is why farmers have duel or tri tyred drive wheels on tractors.
This all only one part, the fridge and airconditioner pipes cracked and doors etc fall off.
Neil
It would be interesting to know what that manufacturer states in his warranty and handbook about the capabilities of his van in these types of situations. Common sense from the operator would surely dictate that attempting to pull a 3.5 tonne van out of steep creekbeds might be stretching the capabilities of his 4wd tug and his van!
-- Edited by montie on Tuesday 17th of June 2025 05:21:34 PM
I'm in agreement with the ACCC on this one. If a manufacturer shows an ad with product performing in a particular way, then it creates an expectation for the buyers (no matter how naive that is) that the product will perform as shown.
Everyone from car makers to pharmaceutical products show ads which appear to show products working in unreasonable ways. A lot will have a tiny disclaimer along the bottom of the ad or a voice-over saying the product 'may' do certain things.
At least most of us are sceptical enough to see through the BS in advertising.
This link sums up 80% of the problem, I have a friend who purchased an imported motorhome with a toyota engine. He is ia wood duck, he got ripped of because he didnt know what he needed and he lacks the skills to research, consume and retain the information to ask the correct questions. the end result is he has a little motor home that is not fit purpose, its not the dealers fault.
Bottomline dont blame someone else because of glossy advertising, its your responsibility to do you due dilligence.
And 50% of that 80% its allways someone elses fault because you lack comon sense, and didnt readeverything.
