Consumer’s Right to Reject when Land Rover Discovery engine seized & turbo failed

The Discovery 5 and Discovery sport are prone to early service warnings and the need for the increased frequency of engine oil and filter replacement because of oil dilution.

Because oil dilution can lead to accelerated wear and failure of engine parts and ultimately the engine seizing, regular servicing is crucial.

If the Discovery has been well maintained JLR may make a goodwill contribution towards to the repair cost: if it hasn’t, you’re on your own, leaving you to slog it out with the supplying dealer.

The following case shows, if nothing else, how difficult it can be to get a refund, even when the engine fails within six months of purchase.

The relevant facts

Mr C bought a 2018 Discovery for about £35,000 from a dealer specialising in prestige vehicles. It had about 50,000 miles on the clock and was advertised on Autotrader as having a full service history.

A few months later the engine management light came on but did not reappear after starting and restarting the engine.

Almost six months to the day after buying the car, it broke down and the RAC were called, who carried out a scan revealing codes for the EGR, crankshaft position sensor and ‘invalid data received – engine control module’ (ECM).

The car was recovered to a Land Rover dealer who confirmed the engine has suffered a catastrophic internal failure and the engine had seized.

The JLR dealer applied for a goodwill contribution towards the repairs which was declined because of insufficient service history.

The dealer declined responsibility.

Our Instructions

Mr C first instructed Stormcatcher to advise on what evidence he needed to pursue his reject a car claim and who has the burden of proof. Mr C was advised to obtain an engine oil sample analyses which he did, using Millers Oil https://www.millersoils.co.uk/oil-analysis/

The oil analysis revealed high levels of iron, aluminium and copper particulates indicating crankshaft, big end bearing and turbo failure. The engine seizing further supported bottom end engine failure.

The oil was also heavily contaminated with soot, which along with the fact that the Discovery didn’t have full-service history, pointed to the lack of servicing being causal of the engine and turbo problems.

We wrote to the supplying dealer setting out in some considerable detail how the misrepresentation claim arose because of the poor servicing and how this had led to the engine failing and a claim for breach of contract.

Additionally, and unbeknown to Mr C, the car also had a windscreen defect which caused water to gradually leak into the cockpit and damage the electrics, which the dealer also denied liability for, despite this being a well-documented defect.

Conclusion

The additional water leak issue led the dealer to become increasingly resistant to taking the car back, largely because of the scope of the faults and required repairs, meaning the matter became drawn out.

The dealer also insinuated that that Mr C had caused significant damage to the bodywork for which an estimate of over £12000 was supplied. Fortunately, the dealer could not provide adequate evidence of the condition at the point of sale and our significant experience in the accident repair and body shop industry proved decisive.

Ultimately, the Consumer’s Right to reject the Land Rover Discovery was achieved, because of the engine seizure, turbo failure and misrepresentation of the service history.