A recent Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) hearing has resulted in Victorian caravan manufacturer Roma being ordered to refund on an $83k caravan In addition, Roma was ordered to pay $9000 in interest on that purchase price, which came…
In addition, Roma was ordered to pay $9000 in interest on that purchase price, which came to the Tribunal after the van recorded an incorrect Tare weight of 3560kg.
The case has highlighted an issue that’s anecdotally reported as being widespread. Still, it often remains in the domain of social media as pursuing such cases can be daunting for many people.
The VCAT documents outline a series of events that began when the applicant, Mr Peter Cunningham, visited Roma’s Campbellfield showroom to enquire about a new caravan. Mr Cunningham was reported to have explained his intended needs for free camping and travel around Australia, and that the new caravan was to be towed by a Mazda BT-50 ute, with a towing capacity of 3500kg. The caravan settled upon was a Roma Elegance slide-out model, to which various additions would need to be made for Mr Cunningham’s travel plans.
The Roma salesperson listed in the papers was Mr Lee Mason. Through dialogue with Mr Cunningham, Mr Mason advised a twin set of spare wheels could be added to the rear of the van – as Mr Cunningham reported a shoulder issue meaning under van access wouldn’t be appropriate – plus a grey water waste tank for free camping. A satellite TV dish on the roof was just one of the extras negotiated into the sale of the van by Mr Cunningham.
While anything added to the van at time of ordering and specification, can be included in the Tare weight, Mr Cunningham stated he wasn’t made aware of the fact that these additions would increase the weight of the 2700kg Tare as Roma had advised the Elegance model weighed.
In fact, Roma [the respondent, below] presented Mr Cunningham with a VicRoads weighbridge certificate for the 2700kg when the van was originally picked up in September 2018. The van, it was certified, should have a payload of 800kg.
This entry from the VCAT hearing states:
“He was given the respondent’s weighbridge document dated 5 September 2018, which stated Tare Mass 2700kg and Payload 800kg. These weights corresponded to what he understood from his negotiations with Lee Mason to be the weight of the caravan and the amount of luggage and water he could carry in the caravan given his vehicle’s towing capacity of 3500 kg. The applicant was not warned by Lee Mason that negotiated extras would increase [the] weight beyond 2700kg.”
During the first two journeys with the caravan, Mr Cunningham experienced sway at approximately 80-85km/h. The first complaint to Roma resulted in no issues being found by them, and the second led to a freshwater tank being relocated. Without satisfactory results, and still with denials from Roma that the caravan was at fault, the Elegance was taken to a caravan chassis engineer. During this examination, the caravan was found to have a Tare weight of 3560kg. Certification from Roma and VicRoads stated the original 2700kg Tare.
From the evidence of the engineer, Mr Terrence McNicol, to VCAT:
“Terrence McNicol added to his report dated 20 December 2018. He confirmed that he had driven in the applicant’s vehicle towing the caravan on the Hume Highway. The weather and road conditions were good. The caravan performed satisfactorily up to 70 kph but swayed tremendously at 80-90 kph. The sway was not controlled by the sway control. The caravan felt unsafe at 90 kph. The caravan was emptied of possessions and both fresh and grey water and weighed at a public weighbridge where 3560kg was twice recorded. This was 60kg over the maximum aggregated trailer weight. In other words, the payload was negative 60kg, not 800kg.
In addition, Terrence McNicol found a discrepancy of 240mm in the position of the wheel box.
Terrence McNicol concluded that the caravan was not safe for road use. It did not conform with the VIN plate. A manufacturer’s last job was to weigh the caravan in-house and complete the VIN plate. It was not reasonable to restrict the speed of towing to 85 kph. Given reasonable road conditions, a caravan should be able to be towed at 95-100 kph. Relocating the spare tyres would remedy the chassis discrepancy but would not address the over-weight. The Caravan Industry Association regarded the accuracy of the VIN as a safety-critical item. No proposals of the respondent would make the caravan lighter.”
Consulting BTT Engineer, Mr Edward van den Berg was called as an expert witness and stated:
“After inspecting the caravan on site and receiving supporting documentation from the client it is our belief that the caravan is both overweight and also overlength at the rear, with the manufacturer being responsible for both of these issues.
The caravan exceeds legal limits and component ratings at Tare mass. As it has been plated with a load-carrying capacity of 800kg, it is our belief that the caravan is not fit for purpose as it is impossible to safely and legally achieve what has been promised to the customer via the compliance plate without having to replace a significant portion of the caravan’s structural components.”
Mr Edward van den Berg neither weighed the caravan nor towed it. He referred to the Caravan Industry Association of Australia Owner’s Handbook at p.57, which states:
“New caravan owners must be advised of the Tare Mass of their vehicle, along with the Ball Loading at Tare Mass Condition …
RVMAP requires a minimum design load-carrying capacity of … 400 kg for tandem axle units.”
Mr Lee Mason gave evidence to the tribunal that he had indeed advised Mr Cunningham of the effect of the new items on the Tare weight of the caravan. Further, VicRoads Certified Engineer Mrs Linda Hitch examined the caravan in question and advised that the rear overhang error of 240mm could be rectified by the spare wheels being relocated underneath the van, and that the van could actually be emptied, re-weighed and re-plated. While stating that this was not best practice, she also added that “On her calculations, the weight of luggage and water that could be added to the caravan was limited to 140-160 kg.”
The VCAT official J. Kefford in the findings summed up (in part) as follows:
On the evidence, I find that the failure to provide a caravan of the weight stated on the VIN plate of 2700kg, indeed to provide a caravan weighed at 3560kg (19 December, 2018) and 3360kg (by Linda Hitch, date unreadable) was in the circumstances a major failure. I am satisfied that no reasonable consumer, fully acquainted with the nature and extent of the failure would regard the caravan to be of acceptable quality.
“While noting that two experts have recorded weights that differ by 200kg, the highest payload proposed of 160kg is entirely inadequate for the use and enjoyment of a reasonable consumer of the experience of caravanning. A reasonable caravanner would not risk the attention of [the] police and a fine for overweight. A reasonable caravanner would require safety as a priority. A reasonable caravanner would travel at a speed appropriate for the conditions of the road and weather but would regard a risk of sway (a frightening and dangerous occurrence – evidence of Terrence McNicol) as a major failure.”
The tribunal decided that Roma refund the $83,000 purchase price plus $9277.80 interest, before May 1, 2020, and must collect the caravan from Mr Cunningham’s premises within 14 days of that payment. Failure to adhere to the May 1 payment deadline will result in Mr Cunningham being able to sell the caravan and still pursue the tribunal-ordered refund.
Costs for the case is an outstanding issue to be resolved by both parties.
To read the VCAT document in full, click here
Roma Caravans were contacted for comment re this story but no answer could be obtained. The image used is of a Roma Elegance caravan, not the exact model as discussed in the news report.
