Mrs W v Land Rover Financial Services

Mr & Mrs W bought brand new Land Rover Evoque in 2017 by way of a Hire Purchase Agreement with Blackhorse Financial Services trading as Land Rover Financial Services. Mr & Mrs W also bought a 3 year service plan from the supplying dealer.

The Range Rover was serviced a year later in accordance with the service and maintenance requirements following which it broke down and the turbo charger, oxygen sensor and the Diesel Particulate Filter (“DPF”) were replaced under warranty.

A month later a red vehicle dashboard warning light came on causing Mrs W to call the AA, which informed her that the red warning light is indicative of the soot levels in the DPF reaching critical levels and requiring regeneration.

The Evoque was returned to the dealer in June 2018 who told Mrs W that the cause of the red light was her driving style. The dealer carried out the repairs, but the same circumstances reoccurred in October and then November and December 2018 and the land rover dealer carried out DPF regeneration and oil services.

By the time the same problem had reoccurred twice more and the DPF had been replaced three times, Mrs W had had enough and rejected the Land Rover, which was refused, and Mrs W contacted Stormcatcher Law, who specialise in car disputes and Land Rover DPF problems.

Unbeknown to Mrs W, Land Rover vehicles fitted with the 2.0 litre ingenium engine have an inherent design issue which results in oil dilution and increased build-up of soot in the DPF. This can cause the engine to go into limp mode and may cause premature failure of the turbo and other parts.

Stormcatcher wrote to Blackhorse and prepared the factual, technical, and legal basis of Mrs W’s complaint and claim to reject the Evoque. Land Rover Financial Services resisted the complaint and rejection request, reiterating the assertion that it was Mrs W’s driving style which was at fault.

In response, it was submitted that there was no criteria advanced by Jaguar Land Rover for type of use and that the Evoque is promoted as being suitable for all uses and in virtually all types of environment.

While the finance company maintained its denial of liability, the Financial Ombudsman expressed its support for the complaint, prompting a settlement which allowed Mrs W to reject the Land Rover, the finance agreement to be unwound, the deposit refunded and at least some of the wasted finance payments.

Although Mrs W felt that the offer did not account for the time which she had been deprived of use of the Land Rover or the anxiety and stress she had suffered, she accepted the offer.