It's a design problem.
The shell bearings do not have a locating tag on them and they can move. I though JLR had sorted it months ago???

Yes, mine has been recalled ( sensor replacement )

I heard that they had recalled the 3.0 for faulty crank position sensors, not sure how this would cause the failures that are being seen though?

Surely it would just not run or start.... There is nothing that can't be fixed with a hammer😜😜
FFRR 4.4 SDV8 Autobiography Santorini Black.
KIA E-Niro 4+
2021 Discovery 5 D300 MHEV commercial

Similarly, but slightly off topic, some 4.4 SDV8's have also been recalled for replacement of the Crank Position Sensor, as there is a possibility that the vehicle will not start or could cut out without any detectable warnings  GONE 2010 Facelifted 3.6 TDV8 - Stornoway Grey + 22" Overfinch Olympus
HAVE 1999 Discovery 2 GS 4.0 V8 - Silver - Off Road Toy
GONE 2013 L405 4.4 SDV8 Vogue. Black with Silver roofline and 22" s
HAVE 2015 Jaguar XF.

Had seen that too but there doesn't seem to be any correlation as the problem is oil supply and bearing related in the 3.0 and there haven't been any reports I've seen on 4.4s snapping cranks..... There is nothing that can't be fixed with a hammer😜😜
FFRR 4.4 SDV8 Autobiography Santorini Black.
KIA E-Niro 4+
2021 Discovery 5 D300 MHEV commercial

I had a good chat with the head technician at another dealership and it is a known problem with the shell bearings spinning It has been designed out now. They started seeing it in late previous model cars and have had a few new model cars in such as mine. So confirms what I was told by the repairing dealership.

Ps I'm turning myself in tomorrow even though no one in the real world seems bothered

Haylands wrote:

And you posted on a public forum that you damaged their car, if they ask you about it you are going to say you didn't do it and anyone could have done it as you abandoned it at the dealers, insecure, with the keys in it.

That is Fraud, I believe the maximum penalty is currently 10 years....

It's also questionable that failing to inform them that you caused damage to their car is a criminal act.....

Given I spend a lot of mine time with QC's (and a lot of money) I happened to be in the company of a criminal barrister today and I ran through my scenario and the suggestion I had both been fraudulent and acted criminally as implied.

He confirmed the obvious (after laughing) that the contract with the hire company would be a civil (contract) matter and not a criminal one. Similarly as I was fully insured at all times whilst driving the car and there was no thrid party involved he can see no criminal act having been carried out. As the contract with the hire company was with JLR and did not specify any terms on which the car should be returned (I checked that out as I actually read contracts before I sign them ) then my leaving the car at the JLR dealership at the time of receiving my repaired vehicle with the keys was not unreasonable and again he could see no reason why this would be either a criminal act or breach of the hire agreement or implied agreement with JLR.
He further confirmed that it is my right not to answer any question or query with regard to how the car was damaged. In doing so I would not be carrying out a criminal act. He could not comment on whether it would be a breach of contract but could not see how that could be enforced.

In short to the armchair lawyers, you watch too much TV

Anyway, the "advice" cost me a costa coffee, happy now. We did have a good laugh about car forums though (he is a car nut and runs a amongst others a Porsche 993 like me)

Interesting information

I remember when i had an automatic Vauxhall as a courtesy car and it ended up getting put in reverse doing 100mph by accident
Car never did drive the same after that and then being taken drifting round a farm...

I also remember picking up a courtesy Audi from the main dealer that had about 1500 miles on it. When the gent went over it with me to spot any damage i noticed the whole nearside of the car was caked in flecks of cement where the previous driver had taken it on a building site or something similar. The car basically needed to be completely repainted. His response: "Ah it. It's already wrecked, if you bring it back with any marks on it, it's not like we'll know. I mean its a courtesy car after all!" - and this was a dealership's own car. Safe to say it got absolutely thrashed.

I think laws aside, there is generally a unspoken rule that a courtesy car is meant for being driven and used properly. Not meticulously cared for and historically, they get thrashed. All dealerships/hire companies know this.

Talk of being prosecuted for fraud, or even a criminal act is hilarious and possibly one of the silliest things i have read this month. At most it would be an insurance claim. No laws were broken and posting it online doesn't mean anything, you could be making it up for entertainment purposes for all we know!

Here’s 3 idiots displaying this perfectly:
 Jordan


'56 SC 4.2 ‘21-Current
'56 SC 4.2 ‘16-‘18

andy2577 wrote:

I dropped my L405 off at a dealer in Lancashire this morning to solve my key issue and the workshop manager told me he had 4 range rovers in and every one needed new engines due to seizing up ! one of which was a sport L494

seems to be a pattern emerging here

Jonttt wrote:

Haylands wrote:

And you posted on a public forum that you damaged their car, if they ask you about it you are going to say you didn't do it and anyone could have done it as you abandoned it at the dealers, insecure, with the keys in it.

That is Fraud, I believe the maximum penalty is currently 10 years....

It's also questionable that failing to inform them that you caused damage to their car is a criminal act.....

Given I spend a lot of mine time with QC's (and a lot of money) I happened to be in the company of a criminal barrister today and I ran through my scenario and the suggestion I had both been fraudulent and acted criminally as implied.

He confirmed the obvious (after laughing) that the contract with the hire company would be a civil (contract) matter and not a criminal one. Similarly as I was fully insured at all times whilst driving the car and there was no thrid party involved he can see no criminal act having been carried out. As the contract with the hire company was with JLR and did not specify any terms on which the car should be returned (I checked that out as I actually read contracts before I sign them ) then my leaving the car at the JLR dealership at the time of receiving my repaired vehicle with the keys was not unreasonable and again he could see no reason why this would be either a criminal act or breach of the hire agreement or implied agreement with JLR.
He further confirmed that it is my right not to answer any question or query with regard to how the car was damaged. In doing so I would not be carrying out a criminal act. He could not comment on whether it would be a breach of contract but could not see how that could be enforced.

In short to the armchair lawyers, you watch too much TV

Anyway, the "advice" cost me a costa coffee, happy now. We did have a good laugh about car forums though (he is a car nut and runs a amongst others a Porsche 993 like me)

Didn't see this reply at the time..

To make matters perfectly clear, your actions are a civil matter, no question...

The fraud is that you are going to lie about how the damage happened, if you are truthful then it's civil, if they can prove that you lied then it is criminal, you stated on a public forum that you are going to lie...

I'm sure if you buy your mate another cup of Costa and run that by him, he will confirm this...

I am not going to lower myself to your level and cast aspersions as an ending though, just trying to let you know that your actions are unwise.......  Pete
__________________________________________________
2014 L405 Autobiography SDV8 4.4 Loire Blue Ebony interior
2011 L322 Vogue SE 4.4 TDV8 Baltic Blue. Parchment over Navy Interior. Sold
2012 L322 Autobiography 5.0 Supercharged Ipanema Sand, Jet Interior. Sold
2002 L322 Vogue 4.4 V8 Epson Green, Ivory over Aspen Interior (Fatty Offroader) Sold
-Click for Project Fatty off roader-

I once exaggerated publicly on Facebook and Google on the behalf a Jaguar dealer - i got a letter of his lawyer - cost me 1.200.-- Euros.

I had to sign a declaration of discontinuance subject to penalty of 20k.

My lawyer and a friend who is a judge said - sign it fast.  All my spelling errorz are belong to me!

2023 FFRR L460
2021 AM new Vantage

Your friend the Judge is also a smart man. I'm afraid that forums have some down-sides to their many plus points but everyone should always work on the principle of never putting something on a public forum that they don't want to be cross-examined over in court.......And that's coming from someone who has appeared in court(not as the accused you understand ) many more times than I would care to think about.

You have obviously had a bad experience with the car and the service from JLR and I'm pleased you got it back OK in the end.

My only thought is that you had a rather cavalier attitude to the hire car and the way you treated it. Leaving aside any question of criminal or civil liability, in my view, you did display a morally poor approach to the use and treatment of the hire car.

Although you had an ongoing dispute with JLR, in the end it would be the hire company who suffered and, possibly, others who followed you with it, including subsequent hirers/purchasers. Even if the vehicle had been a JLR one I wouldn't be impressed.

I have to say that you aren't the only one who has posted similarly on the use of hire/loan cars on the forum.

IMHO it shows a lack of respect. If JLR or the dealers don't act correctly, why lower yourself to their level?

My tuppence worth.  John
2008 Stornoway Grey 3.6 Tdv8 Vogue
2005 TD6 Java Black Vogue - Written off!!
GAP iiD BT
2003 Discovery TD5 Auto, Nanocom Evolution - gone to a new home!
MasseyFerguson 152 - No electronics!! - Sold

I was still allow to correct my rating on Google on the behalf of the Jaguar dealer staying with the facts

But he deleted his Google account later. - he had to many bad rantings. All my spelling errorz are belong to me!

2023 FFRR L460
2021 AM new Vantage

So what's the lawful excuse?

For sure there is civil liability, in both contract and tort.
Seems pretty clear to be a criminal liability too.

If plod comes knocking, the behaviour won't seem so clever then.
But my guess is there is an element of BS and hubris here, and in reality the hire car was probably treated better than the tall story would have us believe.