For UK buyers the Consumer Rights Act 2015 says that the purchase contract is taken to include a requirement for the goods (405) to be of satisfactory quality, defined as the standard that a reasonable person would consider satisfactory taking account of the description, price and other relevant circumstances, including appearance and finish and freedom from minor defects.

Whether, even in the context of a £100,000 vehicle, a slight unevenness in doors caused by the use of softer aluminium sheet rather than steel, which is hard to see otherwise than through use of a reflection bar, would be accepted by the courts as striking the hypothetical reasonable person as unsatisfactory, is probably doubtful. If this is an inherent feature of the otherwise beneficial use of the lighter material and all of the cars have this to a greater or lesser extent, JLR might well succeed with the argument that 99% of buyers either didn't notice or didn't care and therefore represent the "reasonable" people who accept this. If some cars stand out as particularly bad, or if the presses, robots or operators have changed so that some cars are outside the norm accepted by the "reasonable" majority of buyers, then it would be different.

It would make an interesting test case for someone with plenty of money and an appetite for litigation. Only Range Rovers since 1988

Hi CS

For UK buyers the Consumer Rights Act 2015 says that the purchase contract is taken to include a requirement for the goods (405) to be of satisfactory quality, defined as the standard that a reasonable person would consider satisfactory taking account of the description, price and other relevant circumstances, including appearance and finish and freedom from minor defects.
A dented or creased door is at least a minor defect in any car and the act makes it clear that price must also be taken into consideration

Whether, even in the context of a £100,000 vehicle, a slight unevenness in doors caused by the use of softer aluminium sheet rather than steel, which is hard to see otherwise than through use of a reflection bar, would be accepted by the courts as striking the hypothetical reasonable person as unsatisfactory, is probably doubtful.

It is not hard to see without a reflection bar – it is just hard to photograph - anybody can clearly see it looking down the length of the car.

If this is an inherent feature of the otherwise beneficial use of the lighter material and all of the cars have this to a greater or lesser extent,

They don’t – many JLR cars do not have this fault and I would not think other manufacturers would entertain it. I have had 4 other aluminium cars – they did not.

JLR might well succeed with the argument that 99% of buyers either didn't notice or didn't care and therefore represent the "reasonable" people who accept this. If some cars stand out as particularly bad, or if the presses, robots or operators have changed so that some cars are outside the norm accepted by the "reasonable" majority of buyers, then it would be different.

I don’t know the legal standing here but would have thought that even if 99.9% don’t notice or report a fault, it doesn’t mean it has to be accepted (or is acceptable) by the person that does.

I would also add that if three doors are acceptable and one is dented, it would seem fairly obvious that there is some part of the process at JLR that is faulty.

It would make an interesting test case for someone with plenty of money and an appetite for litigation.

Yes- but the case would be against the franchise not JLR (though of course JLR may chip in to back the franchise) Hopefully it won’t come to that.

Thanks Andy, notwithstanding the dry tone of my post I do sympathise and hope you get a satisfactory solution. If other 405s don't have this and the other door is flat that does suggest there is a manufacturing defect which JLR should address. If the dealer isn't helping it might be worth contacting LR Customer Relations, either by phoning them or through the forum.

The distinction between the "reasonable" buyer and the unreasonably fastidious one will be for the court to decide - I'd still think that if 99% accept something a claimant from the 1% will have a difficult task.

I know you don't want to reject the car, but threatening to do so might focus minds at the dealer and at JLR. When my gearbox needed replacement within a fortnight of purchase of the car, and I was told there were none, they were on back order and there was no indication when they might come in, I wrote saying I didn't want to reject but reserved the right to do so if the car was not fixed within a reasonable time and without inconvenience to me (as per the Sale of Goods Act which applied then) and also spoke to LRCR. Lo and behold a gearbox materialised and was delivered within the week.

That said when I had wheel arch corrosion when my car was just over two years old, I was confident that a claim under the paintwork warranty should succeed, but LR declined on the grounds of "external influence - weather conditions" and they would not budge despite repeated efforts with LRCR and a supportive dealer. So it seems there will be cases where they will tough it out even if it seems unreasonable.

Good luck. Only Range Rovers since 1988

OK, will admit that would drive me crazy also but as a thought here, is it heat expansion? Its aluminum skin right and dark paint and 405 has very smooth body. Just a thought but I would assume if the sun hit a panel like that thats thin aluminium skin but rigid structure something must give.

Just about every one I've seen has this imperfection/dent including mine but I figured it originated from the aluminium skin deforming against the frame it is attached to inside the door.

I think your observation/explanation is fairly accurate.
It's strange how none of their other models have this problem.
I ultimately rejected my first car and the replacement vehicle is far, far less noticeable and acceptable to me.

Thanks Andy. Mine isn't too bad but I have noticed all the cars out there seem to have it and interestingly only on the passenger door!

Anybody have a breakdown of the door internal structural arrangement? Would be interesting to see.

Anybody else have these creases in their doors. I've noticed loads of L405's on the road with them lately..

Did anyone get to the bottom of this one? I'm learnt to live with it but wondered if anyone had resolved the issue by having a door replaced or the imperfection/dent removed? 2017 Range Rover Vogue V6 Diesel
2006 Range Rover Vogue V8 Diesel - gone

I have them on both front doors mine too  Kev

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

Both front doors on mine to, dealer told me they were common when I purchased it but I never believed him until now.

Must have been a gaping error in the quality control process 2017 Range Rover Vogue V6 Diesel
2006 Range Rover Vogue V8 Diesel - gone