I am trying to understand if my VIN falls within the range that is understood to be prone to failure. FA218827

Yes, your VIN falls within the range. It's from 195780 to 228236. Kev

2014 L405 RR Vogue SE 4.4 SDV8 in Corris Grey
2010 L320 RRS HSE 3.0 TDV6 in Stornoway Grey

In reply to Dijit post instructing people to report there failures to VOSA , VOSA no longer exists as it was closed down in March 2014 and was replaced by the DVSA .

are earlier Vins definitely not affected? Mine is a 2014 car but has a 159*** vin number so in theory falls outside the vin range mentioned but is the same year as some of the cars that failed  Paul

2014 Range Rover vogue se 4.4sdv8 Loire Blue
1992 Range Rover Vogue LSE 4.2 Ardennes green

I'm in the same situation as you Paul. Currently though, all the reported cases as far as we are aware, fall within the VIN range and are 2015, not 2014 variants. Kev

2014 L405 RR Vogue SE 4.4 SDV8 in Corris Grey
2010 L320 RRS HSE 3.0 TDV6 in Stornoway Grey

It was RagingRovers car that got me thinking, his is a 2014 but his vin falls within the listed range (204***) but it seems a big jump in numbers for the same year so I guess some are missing Paul

2014 Range Rover vogue se 4.4sdv8 Loire Blue
1992 Range Rover Vogue LSE 4.2 Ardennes green

Anymore news from DVSA / LR? 405 AB exec seats Baltic and Cirrus
93 RR Classic efi

Remember it's easier to get forgiveness than permission!

Gone in order:
4.4 TDV8 SE - gone to a good home
93 Classic hard dash Plymouth Blue
03 L322 Oslo Blue
2000 Disco TD5 ES Epsom Green
98 P38 Rioja Red
89 Classic Cairngorm Brown

My first contact with the DVSA was 16/09/2021 and since then they have collected both front knuckles from my car and been in contact with JLR, i contacted them on 09/11/2021 to see if there was any update and there reply was "With regards to this issue, dialogue with the manufacturer is still ongoing. Unfortunately, I cannot give you any further information but just wish to assure you that DVSA are fully committed to reaching a satisfactory outcome." so they are still on the case which is good.

As far as JLR i am still dealing with them and as far as i know its a Solutions Executive i am in contact with after several others within the UK Customer Experience Centre have said there is nothing they can do, my latest reply was 16/11/2021 and they have taken advice from the technical team within Jaguar Land Rover for guidance and even though i sent them pictures of the Catastrophic failure of front knuckle which i asume they showed to the technical team within Jaguar Land Rover its currently there view below .

The suspension within the vehicle has components which do move with the vehicle and taking the age of the vehicle also into consideration, the repair would be deemed to be a result of wear and tear I had contacted the technical team within Jaguar Land Rover for guidance on the repair completed on your vehicle. It has been advised a knuckle joint is a working component within the suspension. If the cause was from the manufacture of the vehicle in February 2015, then they would have expected the part to have failed before now.
I must respectfully advise, the vehicle is now 6 years and 9 months old, with the last recorded mileage over 80,000 miles, the repair would be deemed to be fair wear and tear.

Standard "Best Practice" in Engineering design (especially Automotive & Aerospace) is that no component that is subject to likely "wear & tear" deterioration can fail in a catastrophic / life threatening manner.

All items that could fail catastrophically should be engineered to have a large "safety factor" that should mean they never fail under normal use.

Any competent company normally carries out something called Failure Mode Effect Analysis (FMEA) to evaluate the functions of all critical components & how they can fail to perform their function. The documented analysis should then identify methods of preventing failures occurring - such as special materials, increased dimensions, special manufacturing etc.

The LR comment is absolute BS & an attempt to deflect further investigation of what went wrong / was done badly - either by them or their suppliers ! Paul,
2001 Discovery 2 TD5, 211,000 miles & climbing
2006 FFRR TDV8 Vogue 145,000 miles & climbing
Member of Midland (Land) Rover Owners Club, www.mroc.co.uk

The JLR Technical reply is indeed amazing. Essentially what they are saying is that catastrophic failure (with the risk of death or injury to vehicle occupants and others) can fairly be expected to occur to cars of a certain age and mileage, 6y9m/80,000mls or less. If they know that to be the case they ought to be specifying a preventative maintenance replacement of the affected parts at an age/mileage they believe safe, e.g. 5y/60,000 miles or whatever, especially when it is impossible to see a developing problem through e.g. inspection at annual services. Pawl is absolutely right that there ought to be a safety margin and even if they didn't know the potential problem when the system was designed they need to act now they know the facts. DVSA may bring about a necessary change of mind. Only Range Rovers since 1988

HI CS
Your reply is exactly what my thoughts were when i received the reply from JLR ,i was going to add my thoughts to my previous message but i wanted to see if anyone sugested it and it has taken less that 2 hours for you to do just that.

'Solutions Executive' - you go to give JLR credit for that!

So in effect you could die but after 80k thats your fault not ours despite our obvious failings.

The attitude of JLR on this issue makes my blood boil.

I wonder if the stance is the same in the U.S? Class action feeling about this. 405 AB exec seats Baltic and Cirrus
93 RR Classic efi

Remember it's easier to get forgiveness than permission!

Gone in order:
4.4 TDV8 SE - gone to a good home
93 Classic hard dash Plymouth Blue
03 L322 Oslo Blue
2000 Disco TD5 ES Epsom Green
98 P38 Rioja Red
89 Classic Cairngorm Brown

The cause cannot be wear and tear as there is no movement - it isn't a ball joint!

I think most people understand that it isn't a ball joint situation.
It is either an unwanted stress problem with energy absorbed from suspension and steering movements and/or a chemical reaction caused by differing metals and the way the pinch bolt is having an affect on the joint. As it is an unserviceable part of the suspension, I really don't see how the car owner is expected to take "due care" of it.
It's an insult to everyones intelligence for LR "Executive Director" to take this high minded attitude. It's probably some newby teenager working from home, tasked with fobbing off customer complaints.
Also, if LR say that age and mileage are a factor with this part, they should be stating that it is an important replacement, much as they do with timing belts etc.
Keep pushing for an independent opinion.

I wonder if any VIN's in that known range of failure's, were sent to the USA?
A failure over there, would have a huge knock on effect.

Its such a pity UK/Russian inspectorate are so slow to respond/react to such failures etc 2018 SE SDV8 4.4 Byron Blue