PRODUCT SAFETY WARNING
Note: We DO NOT USE These materials in our products
Over the past 5 years the traditional caravan production industry based mainly in Victoria has responded to the take up of the full composite caravan trend and try to have the same looking flat sided walls.
That has seen 70% to 80% of wood framed or alloy framed caravans clad on the outside with Alupanel, Alucobond, Vitrabond or a similar alloy plastic sheet that was traditionally use for signs.
And then the brands and retailers are selling them as "Composite Caravans" or "Alloy Composite" and are not a true full composite or sandwich panel product, these are much more expensive and more difficult to make.
Unfortunately these products clad with Alupanel, Alucobond, Vitrabond or a similar alloy plastic sheets are not safe for use as a dwelling as show in two devastating examples are the Lacrosse building fire in Melbourne on 25 November 2014, and more recently and poignantly the Grenfell Tower fire in London on 14 June 2017.
Since that time these products have been removed off building around Australia and the world because they don`t pass fire ratings.
Unfortunately our very un-regulated caravan industry has lagged behind and to this day caravans that are homes for people are still being clad to this day with these products.
So be warned and forearmed with the information before you purchase, a good way to check is if the van has joining strips down the side of the vertical walls as sheet sizes are limited and they will need to have a joining strip on most caravans, if they have these strips then its very likely they are using this cladding.
While no product is fire proof, we should expect that they are not clad with dangerous materials.
Please click "Read More" to find out about TORUS RV construction methods, with B1 fire rating.
Below this is the details for the "Class Action" underway over these products.
Further information in relation to the Australian Combustible Cladding Class Actions
Omni Bridgeway (formerly IMF Bentham) and William Roberts Lawyers are working together to investigate and bring viable claims for compensation, on behalf of persons and entities with proprietary interests in buildings in Australia, on which there is installed certain types of aluminium composite panel cladding with a combustible core comprised wholly or substantially of polyethylene (PE). These persons and entities are the owners, owners corporations and leaseholders of buildings affected by PE core cladding.
The current class actions
This first court proceeding (Alucobond Combustible Cladding Class Action) is a product liability claim and a claim for false or misleading representations and misleading conduct against 3A Composites GmbH and Halifax Vogel Group Pty Limited (Respondents). The Respondents are the manufacturers of Alucobond PE core cladding products. If you have a building with Alucobond PE core cladding products, such as those marketed under the names Alucobond PE and Alucobond Plus, you are encouraged to register your interest - obligation free (see How to Participate in the Class Actions below).
The second court proceeding (Vitrabond Combustible Cladding Class Action) is a product liability claim and a claim for false or misleading representations and misleading conduct against Fairview Architectural Pty Limited (Fairview). Fairview is the manufacturer of Vitrabond PE core cladding products. If you have a building with Vitrabond PE core cladding products, such as those marketed under the names Vitrabond PE or Vitrabond FR (or believe that you may have), you are encouraged to register.
On 25 May 2020, the Federal Court of Australia made orders for an important notice to be provided to class members in the Vitrabond Combustible Cladding Class Action. This Court approved notice can be found above and here.
Other possible class actions
We are continuing to investigate possible class actions against other manufacturers in relation to other PE core cladding products.
The current class actions will not necessarily be restricted to buildings with Alucobond PE and Vitrabond PE Core cladding products. Accordingly, if you have a building with PE core cladding that is not Alucobond or Vitrabond branded, you are also encouraged to register your interest - obligation free (see How to Participate in the Class Actions below).
The law firm which is conducting the prosecution of the current class actions, William Roberts Lawyers will assess whether or not your building may be eligible to participate in one or the other of the current class actions or any possible future class action.
It is not proposed that any entities other than certain manufacturers of PE core cladding be sued in the current class actions or any future class action.
Compensation to be recovered
The main compensation to be sought for affected persons and entities is the amount that represents the cost of replacing the PE core cladding with suitable cladding or other material, together with all associated costs. Other losses that may be claimed include, but are not limited to, the cost to make the building fire safe where the cladding can remain on the building and the loss suffered from a devaluation of the affected property.
To participate in one or the other of the current class actions, it is not necessary for any rectification costs to have been actually incurred in relation to the PE core cladding on the building.
PE core cladding is often used for the purposes of aesthetics to act as a cover for part or all of the external walls of a building. The principal issue with the use of PE core cladding on buildings is that the polyethylene core is highly combustible.
The safety risk associated with the use of PE core cladding in buildings, especially multi-storey buildings is now well known. A number of fires around the world have drawn attention to this issue. Two such devastating examples are the Lacrosse building fire in Melbourne on 25 November 2014, and more recently and poignantly the Grenfell Tower fire in London on 14 June 2017.