Discovery Sport Forum banner

Rejection Advice

7K views 20 replies 10 participants last post by  PhilMabbots17 
#1 ·
Has anyone successfully rejected a car for the oil dilution, short service interval problem? If so I would be grateful for any tips or advice. So far seem to be in head and brick wall mode.

The story so far. The car is a MY 17 150hp SE Tech bought last May with 3700 miles on the clock. Needed it's first oil change at 6400 miles in September and looks like the next one is going to be required after a further 4000 miles at the end of the month. I wouldn't mind (well I would really) but I specifically discussed with the salesman that I normally kept my cars for several years and was assured that this one would be cheap to maintain because of the 2y/21000 mile service interval.
Set the ball rolling on rejection for the usual "not as described", "not fit for purpose" reasons in October and three and a half months later I feel that I have been treated with utter contempt by the dealer and JLR . So far I've had the "driving style" nonsense thrown at me although unsurprisingly they did not reply when I asked them to point me in the direction of the documentation describing the appropriate driving style I would need to adopt to achieve the advertised service interval. I've also been told that JLR claim the car is performing as expected. That's as maybe but the key point is that it is not performing as I was lead to believe it would by the dealers and JLR advertising material. The bottom line is that if I had known that the claims for this car were, to use a good Scottish expression, mince I would not have bought this car. My bad for not researching this forum until too late. By the by I do realise that some peoples experience of the service interval may be different but I do live in a rural area and the car almost never is driven in heavy, stop start traffic.

The final straw came today, or rather let me rewind by a week when I thought there might be a chance of a resolution and a chance for the dealer to redeem themselves when they offered to swap me out of the Disco possible for another make (they are a multifranchise) at a discount. Today's generous offer was list price on the car I suggested (btw £5k discount is easily available online for these cars) and a cost to swap which implies a trade value for the Disco not much higher than any of the online companies or that I have been offered at another dealers against he same car.

I have Trading Standards teed up ready to go and am in the process of lining up legal representation.

Sorry for the long rant but in 50 years of car ownership I have only once had to escalate a problem to a dealer principal (again a premium brand) but in that case the issue was dealt with quickly and efficiently and I was actually made to feel like valued customer. Sadly not the case here, CRC are you listening?
 
See less See more
#3 ·
You are not alone in your feelings , I have messaged another member who has successfully rejected his vehicle he should contact you soon.

And yes several have rejected for this reason , sadly JLR and the dealerships make this process extremely hard. They do that hoping you will give up , so don't !

If needs be get a solicitor , there's plenty of evidence here on the forum and many members are suffering the same problem.

On top of Miss selling under the consumer rights act 2015 here http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/contents/enacted

There is also a perhaps more appropriate law The Misrepresenration Act 1967 which applies in your case and that is here
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/7

They are just covering it up , they don't care.
 
#6 ·
You do wonder why CRC don't follow up with unhappy customers. You can't ignore that a sustainable business is based upon loyalty and new custom combined. This forum shows a standard pattern of excitement over the purchase of a fantastic and versatile vehicle yet far too often ending in rejection and disappointment. Rejection should be a rare and not well understood, not common language and guidance! I do hope LR CRC listen and fix this before it's too late.
 
#7 ·
You're right sceptre but I don't believe that LR CRC really have the clout within the organisation to actually get things changed. I have the impresssion that LR do, to a certain degree listen to dealer feedback. The problem there is that it's apparent that some dealers don't care either. The main thing is we keep complaining in the hope that one day things will change.
 
#8 ·
CRC get involved if you call them which sometimes helps but 90% of the time just hinders.But they can offer assisted buyback to the dealer to get you a replacement vehicle. They won't assist you with buyback if you want to walk away from the Brand. You could try them and go for a petrol DS as another thought. The car was clearly misssold.

Imortant points :

If you bought the car on Finance you have to reject through the finance company.They own the car , do not be put off by this several others have rejected through Finance.

If you bought the car cash then you reject yourself through the dealer. Remember your contract if you bought cash is with the dealer not JLR or CRC so you need to fight hard and can always get a solicitor involved.

I believe VDS or NDS as he is now known , has now gotten in touch through pm so you will get all the info from him on rejection , please let us know how this goes so we can help others on here that have the same issue.
 
#9 ·
Mine was on LR finanace and I rejected through my dealer. I got assisted buy back, a newer model year car and ended up with more trade in value against my D5 because of this. . All in all it was an easy process managed by the dealer.
 
#10 ·
CRC get involved if you call them which sometimes helps but 90% of the time just hinders.But they can offer assisted buyback to the dealer to get you a replacement vehicle. They won't assist you with buyback if you want to walk away from the Brand. You could try them and go for a petrol DS as another thought. The car was clearly misssold.
Almost finished my "rejection" of 20 month old DS. The final e-mail to the dealer included a "Miller oil analysis". (Have a look at it, bottom of page
https://www.discosportforums.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=6132&start=30). The critical iron (FE) level is 100 ppm and mine was 238 ppm. Silicon was also twice the critical level. This was prior to the second oil change after 16,000 miles. The first lasted 10.000, this one 6,000. The rejection also related to gearbox and starting issues.

JLR were adamant that there was no problem with the oil but then changed their tune and agreed with roughly a £12,000 input via the dealer to the "assisted buyback". The dealership have been very good throughout. The oil analysis can only have helped move the issue forward. Just about to move sideways into a new 240bhp Petrol version. They have said I can continue to use the present one until the new one arrives.

Get an oil analysis and good luck!
 
#12 ·
The first thing to do is decide whether you are going to keep the car.

I sincerely believe that the problem of post-injection/excess dilution/early service cannot be cured, merely mitigated, within the manufacturer's current allocation of resources. If you can live with the consequences of this issue, go to your dealer and get the oil changes for as long as JLR will keep paying for them and worry about secondary problems and faults only when and if they occur. There's no reason to engage CRC.

On the hand if, having weighed all the evidence, you decide that the car could represent a financial black hole because of known and probable future costs, the next question is, "Was I induced to buy this vehicle based on a misrepresentation?" How would I know? According to a well-known automotive barrister I spoke to, I have been the victim of a misrepresentation if:

* Facts have been misrepresented to me either orally or in writing (the brochure suffices).
* I have believed the misrepresentation.
* I have made a purchase as a result of the misrepresentation (it being a factor in my decision is sufficient).
* I have suffered or will suffer a loss as a result of making the purchase.

If there hasn't been a misrepresentation and I entered the contract to buy the car fully aware that it would need an oil change every 8,000 miles due to diesel dilution I don't see very many grounds for rejection, more fool me. But if I read the brochure and thought, "ooh, this sounds good" and no-one corrected my assumptions that this information was true, and subsequently I find out I have been sold a pup, then I have a solid foundation on which to present my rejection.

If you get to this point and think, "no, I've had enough and want to be rid of it", I suggest that the first step is to report the matter to CRC as a "fault" in order to obtain a Case Number. They'll take you over the hurdles of going to the dealer to have it "checked out", which might get you an oil change but otherwise this is a pointless exercise because the core problem can't be fixed. While this is ongoing you should be drafting a strong letter of rejection to the dealer describing exactly what happened and stating the reasons for the rejection. If there is an element of misrepresentation, present this clearly, making sure you include the above points in the narrative - no need to bullet it, though - a lawyer will see clearly enough the legal points if they are there. The free oil changes are, I believe, an attempt to remove loss to the owner from the scenario.

If you are still reading and think, "yup , that's me" you probably have solid grounds for a rejection on the basis that the car was "not as described". But I wanted to go further, showing that I understood at a technical level why the phenomenon was occurring (see 2000+ posts elsewhere). I used lots of quotes from the SCN, pictures of XF DPFs, actual parts diagrams for the DS, oil report data and, crucially, three vital comments made in the letter from the Executive Office:

1 - Passive regeneration doesn't occur in normal driving due to insufficient heat.
2 - The car has to invoke active regeneration to get rid of the soot in the SCRF because passive regen doesn't work.
3 - I have to drive it in a particular way and MUST do journeys of over an hour in my driving mix.

So I also said that the car was "faulty", i.e. it didn't work as it was described in the technical documentation for the DPF (the May 2015 document) and that I was therefore rejecting it as being "not of satisfactory quality" under Section 9 of the CPA 2015. For what it's worth I think "not fit for purpose" wouldn't work except in a small number of special cases because this strays into the territory of "generic" DPF issues which are more easy to wriggle out of for the vendor.

The benefit of the Case No. is that the dealer will almost certainly refer a strong rejection back to JLR because they will expect them to make a financial contribution to the dealer to limit their financial exposure. The fault is, after all, theirs and not the dealers. They'll have to copy your letter to the executive office and they'll pair it with the original complaint to CRC which presumably makes this part of the process run that bit more smoothly.

Anyone who is in difficulty and wants a hand with a rejection can PM me. It is worth stating again that I got back every penny that I had paid, with no deduction for 6,700 miles of use over 167 days, or any payment for a month's use of a JLR loan vehicle. I remain convinced that they saw what I had to say and thought, "OK, we've got a live one here. Give him his money and get rid of him". I am sure they did not want a fight in public.

Good Luck.
Nods
 
#13 ·
cooknwings said:
JLR were adamant that there was no problem with the oil but then changed their tune and agreed with roughly a £12,000 input via the dealer to the "assisted buyback". The dealership have been very good throughout. The oil analysis can only have helped move the issue forward. Just about to move sideways into a new 240bhp Petrol version. They have said I can continue to use the present one until the new one arrives.

Get an oil analysis and good luck!
This matches my experience. Get the dealer on your side early and create a shared understanding that the issue starts and ends with what JLR has done.

If you are just rejecting and not buying again I think there's something call the CAP or "customer assurance program", which works basically the same way by subbing the dealer for any losses incurred as a result of the rejection.
 
#14 ·
Thanks for the advice and support. It's all too easy to fall prey to the constant stream of alternative reality emanating from JLR/dealers and start to doubt your own reasoning. Sadly my dealer got off to bad start by initially promising to take the matter up with JLR CRC and get back to me asap. Six weeks later I had to remind them that I hadn't gone away. It hasn't got any better since then.
Barnsh, thanks for the links. I hadn't seen the 1967 legislation but Trading Standards pointed me to https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/misleading-and-aggressive-selling-new-rights-for-consumers which appears to be a partial update of the earlier law and has some interesting examples of application.
I keep asking myself is it unreasonable to expect to receive what you were lead to believe you had paid for? In this case it would appear that it is.
Thanks again
Bill
 
#16 ·
billdun said:
Thanks for the advice and support. It's all too easy to fall prey to the constant stream of alternative reality emanating from JLR/dealers and start to doubt your own reasoning. Sadly my dealer got off to bad start by initially promising to take the matter up with JLR CRC and get back to me asap. Six weeks later I had to remind them that I hadn't gone away. It hasn't got any better since then.
Barnsh, thanks for the links. I hadn't seen the 1967 legislation but Trading Standards pointed me to https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/misleading-and-aggressive-selling-new-rights-for-consumers which appears to be a partial update of the earlier law and has some interesting examples of application.
I keep asking myself is it unreasonable to expect to receive what you were lead to believe you had paid for? In this case it would appear that it is.
Thanks again
Bill
Thanks for the link , it seems your one says it superceeds some of my 1967 Act.
This can only be good news.
The moral of fighting JLR and dealers is do not give up , they hope they can wear you down and thus you go away.
 
#17 ·
I'm poss thinking of rejecting mind,....fed up now to the back teeth,....it also don't help that my local main dealer are totally useless.
It's back in again in February and they want it for two days,,,dab gone,rattle / vibration is back after fix as soon as the weather went colder,sqeek when starting,rattle near/ under front passenger side.
If I can get rid,....will not look at a LR again,... 50% because of the poor after sale service and quality of build.
 
#18 ·
Well as of this morning I am no longer a DS owner, my dealer eventually came up with an acceptable offer to buy the car back from me.
While in many respects a fine car, it went back with the usual outside temp fault, a wayward climate control system and a loud rattle from loose trim somewhere in the back. But of course the main reason it went back was because of probably the most egregious example of the oil dilution issue reported on this forum. It looked like the oil change interval was going to settle down at 4000 - 4500 miles despite, as I've said before, the car not being used for school runs or city driving.
I had narrowed the replacement down to a Volvo XC60 but after seeing the XC40 at the launch event and test driving one the next day I decided to go for the latter for delivery in two weeks.
I will stick around this forum if for no other reason than to see how the fuel in oil issue pans out. If in a year or two's time owners are reporting 100k miles with no mechanical issues I might have cause to question my decision but as It stands just now I wasn't prepared to take the risk.
Thanks to everyone who offered advice and support - much appreciated.
Bill
 
#20 ·
billdun said:
Well as of this morning I am no longer a DS owner, my dealer eventually came up with an acceptable offer to buy the car back from me.
While in many respects a fine car, it went back with the usual outside temp fault, a wayward climate control system and a loud rattle from loose trim somewhere in the back. But of course the main reason it went back was because of probably the most egregious example of the oil dilution issue reported on this forum. It looked like the oil change interval was going to settle down at 4000 - 4500 miles despite, as I've said before, the car not being used for school runs or city driving.
I had narrowed the replacement down to a Volvo XC60 but after seeing the XC40 at the launch event and test driving one the next day I decided to go for the latter for delivery in two weeks.
I will stick around this forum if for no other reason than to see how the fuel in oil issue pans out. If in a year or two's time owners are reporting 100k miles with no mechanical issues I might have cause to question my decision but as It stands just now I wasn't prepared to take the risk.
Thanks to everyone who offered advice and support - much appreciated.
Bill
Good result Bill, and please do stick around you are more than welcome.
Please also give is a write up in the off topic section about the XC40 when you've run it for a bit , we like comparisons to the DS and seem to be building quite a list of them.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top