Rejection Advice

All Discovery Sport related discussions
Chippy
Posts: 6003
Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2015 7:29 pm
Location: Southern Germany
Has thanked: 24 times
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: Rejection Advice

Post by Chippy » Sat Jan 20, 2018 10:56 am

It seems as though you’ve got a satisfactory solution her Cooknwings. It’s always good to persevere. I’m sure that you’ll enjoy the petrol DS when you get it.
Gone: 2 x DS TD4. Rejected B pillar ticking.
Evoque TD4. Increasing problems.
Arrived: MB GLC 250d.


User avatar
NoDiscoSport
Posts: 500
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2018 12:57 am
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 42 times

Re: Rejection Advice

Post by NoDiscoSport » Sat Jan 20, 2018 11:42 am

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
Last edited by NoDiscoSport on Sat Jan 20, 2018 11:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
17MY DS150PS 6 speed manual. Rejected as "not of satisfactory quality", "not as described", Consumer Rights Act 2015.


User avatar
NoDiscoSport
Posts: 500
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2018 12:57 am
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 42 times

Re: Rejection Advice

Post by NoDiscoSport » Sat Jan 20, 2018 11:49 am

cooknwings wrote:
Sat Jan 20, 2018 10:49 am

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.
17MY DS150PS 6 speed manual. Rejected as "not of satisfactory quality", "not as described", Consumer Rights Act 2015.


billdun
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Rejection Advice

Post by billdun » Sat Jan 20, 2018 4:06 pm

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/publicati ... -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
MY17 SE Tech 150


billdun
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Rejection Advice

Post by billdun » Sat Jan 20, 2018 4:27 pm

Oh and I seem to exactly fit all of NDS's bullet points.
Bill
MY17 SE Tech 150


Barnsh
Posts: 6299
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 5:20 pm
Location: South East
Has thanked: 52 times
Been thanked: 70 times

Re: Rejection Advice

Post by Barnsh » Sat Jan 20, 2018 8:32 pm

billdun wrote:
Sat Jan 20, 2018 4:06 pm
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/publicati ... -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.
My18 FPace, BRG, R Sport, Auto. 18 way mem Seats, ActiveLED, PrivGlass, ICTP, blis, cooled gloves, spare.
MY17 HSE 180 gone
My16.5 DS 180 b pillar tick ~ rejected :oops:
My16 DS 180 ~ rejected :oops:


Gilfishman
Posts: 94
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2017 5:12 pm
Location: S.wales

Re: Rejection Advice

Post by Gilfishman » Sun Jan 21, 2018 12:32 pm

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.


billdun
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Rejection Advice

Post by billdun » Tue Feb 27, 2018 5:34 pm

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
MY17 SE Tech 150


billdun
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Rejection Advice

Post by billdun » Tue Feb 27, 2018 5:38 pm

Oh and by the way CRC do monitor this forum.
MY17 SE Tech 150


Barnsh
Posts: 6299
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 5:20 pm
Location: South East
Has thanked: 52 times
Been thanked: 70 times

Re: Rejection Advice

Post by Barnsh » Tue Feb 27, 2018 7:50 pm

billdun wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 5:34 pm
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.
My18 FPace, BRG, R Sport, Auto. 18 way mem Seats, ActiveLED, PrivGlass, ICTP, blis, cooled gloves, spare.
MY17 HSE 180 gone
My16.5 DS 180 b pillar tick ~ rejected :oops:
My16 DS 180 ~ rejected :oops:


Post Reply

Return to “Main Discovery Sport chat”