As some of you may be aware we are formally rejecting our L405.

I will not be posting details on this forum, until the matter is resolved, i'm sure you can understand why.

What i would like to know is who if any of you have successfully/unsuccessfuly rejected your L405, if you have already posted could you point me in the right direction.

Thanks for the help.

F 2017 L405 Range Rover TDV6 Corris Grey
1988 3.5 Range Rover Classic
1993 4.2 Range Rover Classic LSE

Not an L405, no. But I have successfully rejected 2 cars before now, one a Range Rover and the other a Jaguar.

Best advice is
1. Study the Sale of Goods Act (as amended) 1979 and the Supply of Goods Act 1982 very thoroughly so you both know and fully understand the rights it gives you. Do not expect your solicitor to do all this for you unless you want a massive legal bill.
2. Hire a VERY good solicitor, one who specialises in Consumer Law. Nothing less will do.
3. Prepare your evidence, in chronological order and it must be fully detailed. You need to be 100% clear on WHY you are rejecting, HOW the law permits you to do this and leave NO room for any kind of alternative interpretation.

One other point. If you had finance on the vehicle you would be going after the finance company since your contract is with them. They will move heaven and earth to avoid having to accept the car back (understandably) but they also know their legal rights under certain recently modified rules around the upper limits for protection under consumer credit law (FCA and €75k - just over £62k) and they will try to use this against you. Be absolutely clear that you are leveraging the Sale of Goods Act etc and NOT consumer credit law. Leave zero room for confusion on this point.

More to the point, IF you had finance on the vehicle do not stop paying for it until you have judgement or agreement in your favour. You would be in breach of contract which greatly reduces your chances of success if you end up going to court. You must remain 100% above board at all times and be seen to be the injured and innocent party.

Hope this helps.

Dom.

Remember the cases I referred you to... in your case they should be bang to rights, as you have been reasonable and it is an exceptionally expensive product.

Have you approached the dealer and are they not willing to accept rejection? I have rejected 3 cars of differing marques and still reserve the right to reject the current one. In all circumstances the dealers have been willing to accept my rights under the Sale of Goods Act without me resorting to solicitors or taking them to court.

5.0, sounds like they have been tricky about rejection and knocking suspension thusfar unfortunately.

agree with mzplcg above about doing your research, being very clear and concise and knowing your rights...

however, depending on the history of this claim and your relationship with selling dealer, first point of call would be to spend a little time writing a very detailed letter setting out events in order they happened, your rights under Sale of Goods Act, right to reject for x reason, and then very clear statement saying you reject the car and giving them a deadline (maybe a week or 7 Business Days) to respond either accepting your reject or not. copy by email to salesperson, sales manager, dealer principal and managing director, customer service manager and anyone else who seems important as well as a hard copy addressed to sales manager and managing director by signed for/recorded delivery so you have evidence it was delivered and accepted by dealer.

I found when rejecting my previous RR that this did the trick and they finally accepted, and even though I had it for a few months and about 1500 miles, they only deducted £25 as I wasn't returning with a full tank (which they gave me).

this could save expensive legal fees, but if you are not sure about your position, or the circumstances are a little complicated or not confident you can do it yourself, then worth getting a good solicitor MY11 Vogue 4.4 TDV8 - "African Queen"

Sale of Goods Act 1979:
It is helpful to be aware of Sections 14 and 48 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979. The act relates to the fact the consumer has a right to expect quality, fitness for all the purposes supplied, freedom from minor defects and a reasonable expectation for repairs to have been undertaken within a reasonable time without causing significant inconvenience. If these things are not the case with your purchase you can assert non conformity to the contract of sale within the period of six months from the date of purchase.

References to ‘caveat emptor’, meaning ‘let the buyer beware’:
If you buy a car from a *private seller* 'let the buyer beware'. You have fewer legal rights, so make sure you inspect the car and know what you are buying. You will only be able to claim against the previous owner if he/she lied, for example about its age or mileage. You will not be able to claim where there are faults with the car.

However, buying from a motor trader (or dealer) is a different matter and you have greater rights -

'Wear and tear':
A seller is not responsible for fair wear and tear, so you cannot claim goods are unsatisfactory just because they've become a bit worn over time. For goods to be unsatisfactory they need to be faulty when you bought them, even if you didn't discover the fault until later. If the goods don't last as long as they should, this suggests that they were faulty from the beginning.

** If a defect is detected within 6 months, it is presumed that the defect existed at the time of sale or delivery, unless the seller can prove otherwise. **

Whilst better to do so, *** you do not have to examine items before buying them. This means that if you haven't spotted something wrong before buying an item, you can still claim it is not of satisfactory quality. This applies even if you would have spotted the defect if you had examined it closely ***. However, if you don't complain quickly, you may have to accept a repair, replacement or partial refund, rather than a full refund.

More information on the S of G.A can be found on this link:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/

This UK Citizens Advice Bureau link is also another helpful source of information on UK Consumer Law:
http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/cons...ucts_e.htm



Complaints/Queries to LR UK - Can be made to:

E-mail lardvice@jaguarlandrover.com
Customer Relationship Centre
Jaguar Land Rover Limited
Tel: +44 (0)1926 691856
Fax: +44 (0)1926691938 ;

And / or via this forum link:
http://www.fullfatrr.com/forum/land-rover-vf33.html

[color=green][b][i]This post has been edited by the site administration team - direct contact details removed [/i][/b][/color]

Relevant Cases and why they’re important:
• #1 Lamarra v Capital Bank PLC 2006
o The Facts:
o Lamarra bought a Range Rover (P38 via Capital Bank PLC.
o The car arrived with the following problems:
o The navigation disk was missing.
o The front wheels were incorrectly balanced, causing excessive tyre wear.
o There was road speed related noise emanating from the transmission or drive system.
o There was a scratch on the ashtray cover.
o There was misalignment of the glove box
o There was poorly finished paintwork on parts of the roof of the vehicle.
o It was found, at appeal, that these were faults that a reasonable person would not accept.
o Hence Lamarra was able to rescind the contract, rejecting the car, freeing himself from further payments and being reimbursed for his deposit and first two month’s payments (it was on finance)
o (N.B. the issue you presently have is that there is only one identified issue, although the greatly increased price of a new L405 over an equivalent newe P38 must be taken into account).

• #2 Rogers v Parrish
o The Facts:
o Rogers (and another) bought a green Range Rover Classic from Parish in 1981 (British Leyland build quality; ho-ho!).
o The car again had many defects:
o Upon delivery the engine, gearbox and bodywork of the replacement vehicle were substantially defective and oil seals at vital junctions were unsound, causing significant quantities of oil to escape.
o In the six months following delivery the first plaintiff drove the vehicle for upwards of 5,500 miles but with no satisfaction, and a number of attempts were made by the first defendant to rectify the defects.
o At the end of that period, however, the engine was still misfiring at all road speeds, excessive noise was being emitted from the gearbox and substantial defects remained in the bodywork, and the plaintiffs rejected the vehicle.
o Held, that where goods as delivered are defective, they are not of merchantable quality and do not become so simply because they are capable of being used in some way.
o When a new car is bought the purchaser is entitled to get it to give the pleasure, pride and performance he expected.
o Defects which might be acceptable in a second hand vehicle would not be acceptable in a new car.
o The car was not as fit for its purpose as P expected and he was entitled to reject it.

Below is further information on what constitutes satisfactory quality of a product.
What’s meant by “satisfactory” quality?
• The list of specific factors in s 14(2B), listed below, is not exhaustive, but illustrative:
• (a) Fitness for all purposes for which goods of the kind in question are commonly supplied.
• It would be difficult to argue that the defect makes your car unfit for purpose.
• (b) Appearance and finish - see:
• *Rogers v Parish [1987] QB 933, [1987] 1 WLR 353 (CA)
• Small blemishes in the paintwork of a new Range Rover: held dissatisfactory.
• (c) Freedom from minor defects - see:
• Lamarra v Capital Bank plc 2007 SC 95
• See also Rogers v Parish (above).
• This is where you find the most support for a potential remedy.
• (d) Safety
• (e) Durability


I hope that this helps.
I have access to full transcripts of both relevant cases, along with case analysis, so let me know if you would like these.

There is some very good advice and support on this topic.

If you really feel that all negotiated options are exhausted, have you considered seeking a professional arbiter to represent your case, as it may be more cost effective and could prove fruitful.

I have found that moving to solicitors throws up barriers (even in clear cut situations) where the defendants will chance their hand and hope to deplete your resolve and importantly, your finances. For me it would be an absolute final option only after having exhausted all other possibilities.

Remember, be it the dealer or JLR, or even your own trusted solicitors, it will generally be employees who respond.

They will each be defensive for a variety of reasons, but you will remain just a name and a case. Your defendants will have a 9-5 input then and go home with no emotional feeling for your issue.

For you, it is personal and frustrating and will be 24/7. So be sure and believe you are right and then, never give up.

Conversely, it may be that the threat of litigation is sufficient for you to succeed and I very much hope this is the case, but be aware they may run you to the wire. There are a lot of disappointed owners watching a waiting on your outcome, so please keep us all posted. We can also support you.

Stay strong.

Good luck fmb123

You should not need any luck , JLR will sort without an issue  Far to many gone...

Finally over! My Dad'd new 64 identical spec L405 just turned up. We by no means got a replacement for free (had to pay the mark up in list price 2.6k and a small amount of the depreciation, and then all the lawyers fees), as they would not agree it was not fit for purpose.

And just as we came to the agreement above, and were meant to receive our existing car back to use in the interim, till the new one arrived, the car finally performed sufficient faults while at the dealership (which they hadn't agreed existed), that they couldn't return it to us, but we were so bored of dealing with the dealership, and it had dragged out for so long, we didn't re contend.

We were surprised at the lack of service on an 75k car. We felt they weren’t always being quite straight with us and we had the constant feeling they were trying to outwit us. The highlight being a the Dealership claiming they couldn’t find the paperwork/not on their system for one of the many visits prior to rejection.

Another was the dealership not agreeing that one of their staff had witnessed a fault that happened while we were there. So my Dad turned up unannounced and found the guy who witnessed it, in the workshop, and got him to sign a statement agreeing he witnessed the issue.

But heyho it's done. fingers crossed this one isn't another Friday afternoon, I want to get home so wont make it properly, job!

Even the loan range rover we had for a couple of months after they couldn’t return our last one, had faults - entire radio and sat nav failing.

almost wanted to head to the toyota dealership - but they just dont compare! 2017 L405 Range Rover TDV6 Corris Grey
1988 3.5 Range Rover Classic
1993 4.2 Range Rover Classic LSE

Unless you also signed any compromise agreement with them you could now look at the 'losses' you incurred and issue a small claim.