The Anatomy of a Land Rover Complaint

For the last nine years or so, we’ve probably advised over a thousand if not thousands of consumers and businesses about problems with Jaguar Land Rover vehicles, none more so than about those vehicles fitted with the 2.0 litre ingenium diesel engine, including the Range Rover Sport, Evoque, Land Rover Discovery, Jaguar F Pace, XJ, XF, XE and E Pace.

While the problems remain, the way in which Jaguar Land Rover (the retail dealer network) and Black Horse (trading as Land Rover Financial Services) and finance companies in general deal with complaints about these vehicles has taken a sinister turn.

It now seems the strategy is to give the customer false and misleading information rather than properly understanding, investigating and applying the law. For example:

Service History

A vehicle engine requires proper lubrication by way of the engine oil. The oil degrades over time and requires replacement by regular servicing.

Car dealers know if a vehicle is not regularly serviced, the parts will suffer accelerated wear and premature failure. Therefore, service history is crucial.

In response to the allegation that a Land Rover main dealer failed to inform the buyer of a Discovery having missed a prior annual service, Black Horse stated the buyer chose to buy the vehicle with incomplete service history and it was their responsibility to ask the dealer questions.

This is wrong.

The supplying dealer is required to inform the buyer of anything, which if known, would affect the consumer’s decision to buy the vehicle.

Similarly, the seller will be liable for providing false information to the consumer. There is no duty on the consumer to investigate the truth of what they are told.

COVID

It is often said the vehicle “missed a service because of Covid lockdown during which car dealerships were closed to all but emergency service vehicles.”

And

Vehicle manufacturers are sympathetic to this

However, the car doesn’t care if the dealer is closed due to a pandemic, it needs to be serviced. If it’s not, this will potentially impact the vehicle longevity and the customer is entitled to know about it.

No evidence the fault was present at the point of sale

When a customer is misled and/or the vehicle is misrepresented by the dealer before the customer agreed to buy the vehicle, obviously this is not a question regarding the quality of the vehicle, but its description.

In any event, the lack of servicing existed before the sale and continued thereafter. Therefore, the argument that there is no evidence the fault was present at the point of sale, is irrelevant.

Additionally, even if it were relevant in these circumstances, which it is not, the law states it can be present OR developing on delivery.

Consumer Rights Act is not the only appropriate law.

The suggestion the Consumer Rights Act is the only law which applies to the sale of faulty, misdescribed and mis-sold cars is wrong.

Firstly, the Consumer Rights Act only applies to circumstances which occur or become evident with 6 months of delivery.

After 6 months, the common law applies.

This means a customer is entitled to make claims in negligence, fraudulent misrepresentation, distance selling regulations, product liability or breach of statutory duty.

Expert evidence on timing chain failure

If the timing chain is not an item which requires replacement, or requires replacement by a certain mileage or before a certain age, then as a matter of fact, failure before that mileage or time is premature.

If a Land Rover dealer or suitably experienced mechanic states, “the timing chain has failed due to oil dilution”, that is evidence of the cause of the premature failure of the timing chain.

Therefore, the only question to be answered is whether the oil dilution is due to something done or not by the customer.

If the vehicle has been regularly and properly serviced since purchase, the customer cannot be liable and the supplying dealer and/or finance company will be.

There is no need for expert evidence.

DPF disclaimer

There has been a rise in the inclusion of disclaimers in sales literature and invoices, which seeks to “advise” buyers for example of the need to regularly drive the vehicle over 40 mph for 30 minutes and that doing so will mitigate oil dilution and DPF blockage.

This is incorrect. The vehicle DPF should regenerate during urban and motorway driving; if it does not, it’s not operating as it should.

Minimum usage

It has also been suggested by lawyers and finance companies that diesel vehicles are not suitable for low mileage use and must be used for a minimum mileage. There is no evidence supplied by these companies which supports this.