The Financial Ombudsman upholds the right to reject the Jaguar I-Pace

Introduction

This is a case involving a faulty Jaguar I-Pace, an EV, bought by Mr T, from Marshall Jaguar Oxford for around £50.000.00 by way of a 60-month car finance agreement with Jaguar Financial Services (Black Horse). Mr T tried to reject it around 18 months after taking delivery.

Black Horse, the finance company, issued a final response, refusing to accept the vehicle rejection and Mr T instructed Stormcatcher Law to respond to them and to deal with the Financial Ombudsman Service complaint.

We were successful in rejecting the I-Pace and a refund of the purchase price, along with compensation and interest.

The issues

The case had several complexities, which formed part of the Black Horse’s decision to not uphold the complaint:

• While Mr T had bought the Jaguar by way of HP, he had settled the agreement soon after taking delivery of it.

• The complaint and vehicle rejection were started around 18 months after delivery.

• The compliant involved, in part, a safety vehicle recall(s).

• Black Horse could not be liable for the EV battery after the recall was carried out.

Our approach

Analysis of the facts and evidence

We discussed the facts with Mr T in video conference and reviewed the correspondence and documentary evidence.

The facts:

Soon after taking delivery of the vehicle, Mr T advised the supplying dealer that the Vehicle displayed a “Fault with High Voltage System” message, but the dealer found no faults with it.

In July 2023, the vehicle manufacturer issued the H441 safety recall because of risk of thermal overload, and Mr T had the recall carried out, but a month or so later the I-Pace displayed a Traction Battery Fault message.

In early 2024, the Jaguar infotainment became faulty, and the Vehicle broke down. It needed the wiring harness replaced and the battery to be either repaired or replaced.

The evidence

The evidence we looked at included technical information relating to the I-Pace, the vehicle diagnostics and repairs carried out by the Jaguar dealer, and the content of the manufacturer recalls both in the UK and internationally.

This revealed several recalls and technical bulletins relating to the I-Pace dating from 2019 in relation to the battery control module, gearbox, thermal overload and electric vehicle range.

The law

It was clear in issuing and carrying out the recalls that Jaguar Land Rover and the supplying dealer knew about the issues with the I-Pace and by the complaints regarding them, so did Black Horse.

It was also the case that these issues and defects were inherent, that is, characteristic of the car,  meaning Mr T could rely in the remedies under the Consumer Rights Act.

Additionally, at least one of the recalls was a safety recall, meaning Marshalls Oxford and Black Horse were under a duty to warn Mr T about them before he agreed to buy the car and in failing to do so, they were negligent.

It was also argued that because the dealer and car finance company had knowledge of the issues and defects, and they took measures to conceal them from Mr T, that they had engaged in prohibited commercial practises.

Because of these reasons we argued Black Horse could not escape liability, and the Financial Ombudsman Service agreed.

Next steps

If your complaint about a Jaguar car has not been upheld by the dealer or your car finance company, and you’re thinking about making a “reject a car” complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service,  call us first for initial legal advice.