Negotiated settlement of Jaguar F-Pace mileage discrepancy dispute

Evidence is pivotal to all legal claims and disputes, but what constitutes evidence, what has to be proven and by who often misunderstood.

This is never truer that in cases involving car finance complaints and especially those which are made outside the six months of purchase.

This was the central issue in this case involving a Jaguar F-Pace bought by way of a Hire Purchase Agreement, which was subsequently found to have nearly three times the recorded mileage.

The relevant facts

Mr H bought a 2.0L diesel Jaguar F Pace from a dealer in Buckinghamshire for around £22,000 by way of an HP agreement with Blue Motor Finance (BMF).

The Jaguar was advertised as having and displayed 43,500 miles on the clock, had a partial service history and a new MOT.

Within a few months, the F-Pace broke down, which was thought to be because the fuel injectors needed replacing.

The injectors were replaced, but about two months later, exhaust gases seemed to be coming into the cockpit, and the car was sent to Glasgow Jaguar for diagnostic testing.

This revealed the turbo to be faulty and needed replacement, the NOx sensor was faulty, and there were signs of a serious oil leak, all of which seemed out of character for a 43,000-mile car.

Investigations into the service history revealed the car had been serviced in 2018, 2019 and 2020, and had last been serviced at 86,000 miles.

In 2021, the Vehicle was MOT’d at 10,000 miles and the following year at 4,500 miles, leading to the conclusion that the real mileage was something around 120,000 miles.

Mr H complained to BMF, which declined to uphold the complaint because although the mileage was not genuine, there wasn’t sufficient evidence to support what had caused it, and whether this had been done maliciously or as part of a wider repair.

Our Instructions

Mr H instructed Stormcatcher to correspond with BMF and explain to them the reasons why he should be allowed to reject the F-Pace, and that in relation to the mileage discrepancy, the only fact Mr H was required to prove was that the real Vehicle mileage was more than displayed by the milometer and the advert.

There was no obligation to ascertain when the mileage was altered or whether this was because the car had been clocked, or the speedo binnacle had been replaced.

Simply, both the finance company and the supplying dealer warranted the mileage, and Mr H agreed to pay the amount he did because that was the market value of a 43,000-mile car.

Research revealed that a 120,000-mile car with only part service history would be worth about £7,000 less.

Conclusion

After an exchange of correspondence, BMF accepted the Vehicle rejection, and after a series of offers and counter-offers, it was agreed that the HP agreement would be unwound and Mr H would be refunded his deposit, almost all his monthly payments, the cost of the repairs and compensation.

This case illustrates how innocent misrepresentation arises and how fault and fraud are facts in issue, but that a ‘material’ false statement on which Mr H relied when buying the Jaguar triggered his right to rescind the contract.