Money back for Range Rover Sport 3.0SDV6 crankshaft bearings failure

When it comes to cars and car engines, low mileage doesn’t always mean low risk and long life, and just because you’ve bought a warranty doesn’t mean it’s worth the paper it’s written on.

As the risk of owning a Range Rover increases so does the willingness decrease for warranty companies and dealerships to comply with their terms and conditions and legal obligations.

This case shows how vulnerable even powerful diesel engines can be to anything less than near perfect lubrication.

The relevant facts

Mr C bought the Range Rover Sport 3.0SDV6 for about £30,000.00 from a major dealership group which, although the supplying dealer wasn’t one, has a number of Jaguar Land Rover main agents.

The Range Rover Sport was around 8 years old but had less than 30,000 miles on the clock. Nevertheless, and despite the car having been serviced pretty much in line with the manufacturer’s intervals, Mr C bought a warranty to be on the safe side.

Within a few months the service indicator came on, which Mr C thought strange given he was under the impression it had been serviced before he picked it up, so he called the dealership.

The dealer was adamant that the car didn’t need servicing but to keep Mr C happy he agreed to carry out an oil and filter service free of charge, which Mr C accepted.

About two weeks before the service booking date the Range Rover engine developed a rattling noise and Mr C had it sent to a Land Rover dealer in the same group as the supplier.

A compression test revealed 3 of the 6 cylinders were down on compression and the engine needed replacement.

Mr C contacted the warranty company who declined cover because root cause of the vehicle fault was a material or manufacturing defect.

After 5-6 weeks of inaction, Mr C decided to reject the Range Rover.

Our Instructions

Disappointed with the supplying dealership, Mr C instructed Stormcatcher to get the money back he paid for the car and we wrote a lengthy legal opinion which set out the legal position in relation to the right to repair and how it is a replacement engine did not meet the criteria.

We also explained that if the warranty were right about the car having a manufacturing defect, then Mr C had been mis-sold the car as he should have been told about this before buying it.

The warranty was also mis-sold giving Mr C a false impression that it was suited to his car, when it wasn’t.

The compliance department were unhelpful failing to recognise this problem with the car was not one for which they could escape liability, if for no other reason that its warranty department, in declining cover, had led to the inference the car couldn’t be repaired because of the inherent defect.

A thorough analysis of the engineering evidence was provided by us, drawing on our extensive practical experience of vehicle mechanics and engines, as well as international cases involving similar car models.

Although the international cases are not binding on the UK, the Range Rover Sport is or was made exclusively by one factory, meaning the evidence is transferable.

We nonetheless vigorously pursued the case, escalating it to the dealer group’s in house legal department, hoping that they would understand the key legal principles which went beyond the Consumer Rights Act and required a deeper analysis of European and domestic case law.

Conclusion

The involvement of the legal team and in house solicitor proved pivotal and after around twelve weeks, which was longer than need be, as prevarication and slow response times postponed the inevitable, a full refund of the purchase price was agreed, with the sum for loss of use and legal costs set off against the deduction for mileage.