Note: We DO NOT USE these materials in our products.
Over the past five years, the traditional caravan production industry, mainly based in Victoria, has responded to the uptake of the full composite caravan trend by attempting to create caravans with flat-sided walls.
This shift has resulted in 70% to 80% of wood-framed or alloy-framed caravans being clad on the outside with Alupanel, Alucobond, Vitrabond, or similar alloy plastic sheets traditionally used for signs.
Unfortunately, brands and retailers are marketing these as “Composite Caravans” or “Alloy Composite,” which are not true full composite or sandwich panel products. These products are much more expensive and difficult to manufacture.
Regrettably, these caravans clad with Alupanel, Alucobond, Vitrabond, or similar alloy plastic sheets are not safe for use as dwellings, as demonstrated by two devastating incidents: the Lacrosse building fire in Melbourne on 25 November 2014, and the Grenfell Tower fire in London on 14 June 2017.
Since then, these products have been removed from buildings across Australia and around the world because they do not meet fire safety ratings.
Unfortunately, our poorly regulated caravan industry has lagged behind, and to this day, caravans that serve as homes for people are still being clad with these materials.
So, be warned and informed before you purchase. A good way to check is if the van has joining strips down the sides of the vertical walls, as sheet sizes are limited and will require joining strips on most caravans. If they have these strips, it’s very likely they are using this cladding.
While no product is fireproof, we should expect that caravans are not clad with dangerous materials.
Please click “Read More” to learn about TORUS RV construction methods, which have a B1 fire rating.
Further information on the Australian Combustible Cladding Class Actions
Omni Bridgeway (formerly IMF Bentham) and William Roberts Lawyers are collaborating to investigate and bring viable claims for compensation on behalf of individuals and entities with proprietary interests in buildings in Australia that have installed certain types of aluminum composite panel cladding with a combustible core comprised wholly or substantially of polyethylene (PE). These individuals and entities include owners, owners corporations, and leaseholders of buildings affected by PE core cladding.
To learn more about the Combustible Cladding Class Actions, please listen to our podcast here.
Alucobond Products
The first court proceeding (Alucobond Combustible Cladding Class Action) is a product liability claim as well as a claim for false or misleading representations and 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).
Vitrabond Products
The second court proceeding (Vitrabond Combustible Cladding Class Action) is a product liability claim and a claim for false or misleading representations and 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 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.
We continue to investigate potential class actions against other manufacturers concerning 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 conducting the prosecution of the current class actions, William Roberts Lawyers, will assess whether your building may be eligible to participate in one or both of the current class actions or any potential 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.
The main compensation sought for affected individuals and entities is the cost of replacing the PE core cladding with suitable cladding or other materials, along with all associated costs. Other losses that may be claimed include, but are not limited to, the cost of making the building fire-safe where the cladding can remain on the building and any loss suffered due to the devaluation of the affected property.
To participate in either of the current class actions, it is not necessary for any rectification costs to have been incurred regarding the PE core cladding on the building.
PE core cladding is often used for aesthetic purposes to cover part or all of the external walls of a building. The primary issue with 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. Numerous fires around the world have highlighted this issue. Two such devastating examples are the Lacrosse building fire in Melbourne on 25 November 2014, and the Grenfell Tower fire in London on 14 June 2017.
