Discovery Sport Forum banner

Rejection finally complete - oil dilution

128K views 162 replies 44 participants last post by  Mr Chombee 
#1 ·
It's be a very long and drawn out saga, but our rejection is finally complete. The vehicle was collected yesterday and the financial settlement came through today - 50 weeks after I first made my complaint. Hopefully anyone else struggling against the rejection process can take comfort from my eventual success and not give in!

The basis of my complaint was that the car was "not as described" due to the prominent and incorrect claims in the published sales literature at the time of my purchase, stating the new Ingenium engines were "... more affordable and convenient to own thanks to servicing intervals extended from 16,000 to 21,000 miles/two years".

As we know those claims were withdrawn in all literature from June 2017, and JRLP0100 appeared making it obvious that the description was factually inaccurate. At the time I began my rejection process I'd already had my first oil change light come on around 8,000 miles, and I'd been told by the dealer that my driving style meant I could expect to require oil services at this interval in future.

I still had some outstanding finance on the vehicle as I'd taken it to get a deposit contribution. I had always intended to clear that finance after 6 months, but I decided to hold onto it so as not to take any action that could indicate I accepted the vehicle and also to keep the legal relationship unchanged. I'm very pleased I took that approach in the end, as it left an additional step available to me before going Full Legal.

My initial complaint went in to Black Horse (Land Rover Financial Services), and after some back and forth they eventually refused it in November. This is despite some telephone calls with them during their investigation where they agreed that misrepresentation had occurred (conveniently, all calls are recorded ;)). In their refusal they attempted to claim that this was not their responsibility as they had no representation at the point of sale.

After Christmas I took the complaint to the Financial Services Ombudsman (the advantage of my contract being with the finance company), and in July their investigator issued his findings and recommendations categorically in my favour. These were not binding unless both parties agreed - I did, but unsurprisingly Black Horse did not. That meant the complaint went in the queue for an "acutal" Ombudsman to review and issue a binding decision, which was to happen in September.

At the 11th hour, before an Ombudsman took the case, Black Horse made me an offer to accept the rejection and compensate me close to the level the investigator had recommended. I suspect this was because they knew the Ombudsman's decision would go against them and they didn't want that on their record, but that is just speculation.

I ultimately accepted their offer with only minor adjustments, as it was already substantially better for me than what I had budgeted on accepting when I first raised the complaint.

I found out that the car will go straight from me to auction. If anyone wants a well cared for '17 model year HSE in red with a black roof, it's going through BCA Blackbushe at one of their Monday auctions... It's got GTechniq Crystal Serum applied, unfortunately the 7-year warranty for that is not portable to a new owner though. Seriously, if anyone is tempted, PM me and I'll happily go through the full details of the car.

For anyone who's interested this was our first and last experience of the Land Rover brand. We've moved on to a Volvo XC90 and had great service from the dealer, with a car that feels like it was hewn from a solid block of luxury. I will miss the sure-footed offroad capability of the DS though, particularly in the winter :(

This forum has been a great support over the time I've had the car, from small questions through to help with the bigger problems I've had to deal with. It really shows that the people here are a great bunch, and you all make it a nice place to be. I might come back and hang out occasionally as the Swedes don't seem to have (need?) such a great community.

Thank you all!
 
See less See more
G
#2 ·
Excellent news and really pleased for you.👍

The moral of the story, "perseverance pays in the end, don't let the big boys grind you down thinking that you will eventually go away"

However, don't forget that the LR stance on this will be "Brexit is to blame" :lol:
 
#3 ·
I am delighted to hear that you got the result that you were owed. It just goes to show that perseverance pays dividends in the long term.

It's very sad that probably, you will always remember Land Rover for the downside. I am fortunate to have memories of them when they made solid, dependable reliable vehicles, rather than the stuff made out of plasticine today to appease variou lobbyists and politicians. Both I and others on these forums maintain the stance that the DS COULD have been such a superb vehicle had it been thought out better from an engineering point of view, and not rushed to market, again to appease the aforementioned.

Please do pop back on here from time to time - like many, I will be very interested to hear how life pans out with the XC90, it looks like a very impressive vehicle, and I sincerely do hope that it meets all your expectations, and hopefully exceeds them. Hopefully, as JLR lose sales to Chery, they might realise that they have a major problem with style over substance.

All the very best, and stay in touch.
 
#4 ·
Well done , and great perseverance!
The XC90 is a lovely car enjoy it .
Pop back and please give us a pros and cons in the off topic area , it will help others out too.

Black horse AKA Lloyd's are a disgrace ,but a partner with JLR so to be expected.

Happy Motoring

Go get a bottle of bubbly to celebrate 🍾🍾🥂🥂🥂🥂
 
#5 ·
You'll have no issue with the Volvo come winter. It's a fine car many Swedes enjoy when the winter comes &#x1f44d-1f3fb;

Regards LF Finance... I had no issue with my DS rejection. I didn't even speak to them. My dealer handled the whole thing for me.
 
#7 ·
Well done, interesting reading. This is something that's really annoyed me ever since my first, earlier than expected service and then the discovery of JRLP0100. Just past 2 years ownership, would I be too late to pursue rejection or early finance completion on this basis?
 
#8 ·
This is an outstanding result and my hearty congratulations go to t+c for his persistence and resilience in pushing this through to a satisfactory conclusion.

This result will now be of great significance to many others who also feel that they were misled by the servicing claims into buying a Discovery Sport, only to find themselves being blamed for a problem with premature oil dilution that the company said was due to an incorrect "driving style". The technical evidence and JLR's own service compliance notification published in July 2017 demonstrates that, in most cases, this was misleading because it's actually the result of a known fault which the company had already disclosed in July 2017 with service compliance notification, JLRP00100

It sounds from t+c's account that the respondent's last-minute decision to concede defeat was a calculated move to avoid having the "scheme operator" (financial ombudsman) record a "compulsory jurisdiction" under s.228 of the Financial Services and Markets Act, 2000. This would have left an indelible mark against JLR in the form of written record of the hearing and its jurisdiction which, presumably, could then have been cited in subsequent hearings, or simply submitted in advance by anyone else wishing to make a similar complaint. But all is not lost. The fact is that when push came to shove JLR's financial partners conceded defeat in the face of a determined and well-presented case that they knew they couldn't win. They will do so again, but next time they might not be able to re-use the same defensive delaying tactics.

That's because this episode resulted in the waste of the scheme operator's valuable time and resources. They aren't like the motor ombudsman. This is a legal entity established by an Act of Parliament under the Laws of England and Wales. They have considerable powers which at least match those of lower courts. They don't take kindly to having to list cases for a hearing that then becomes unnecessary because the respondent (clearly engaged in a game of "who-blinks-first-loses" with the complainant) conceded defeat at the last minute because they knew that a "voluntary jurisdiction" under s.227 of the Act wouldn't leave a written record. One hopes that the scheme operator has taken note for the future, so that the next time a defendant tries the same trick it will be picked up and dealt with firmly.

The forum contains all the tools and information needed to reject a Discovery Sport that is failing to make its published service intervals where the owner believed in good faith that they were buying a car that would run for 2 years or 21,000 miles between each service. T+C and I discussed our cases last year and shared information on the best way to go about a rejection of this nature. Following his post above I've included below a section from my own rejection letter which was sent to the supplying dealer on Thursday 26th October 2017, immediately following my receipt of JLR's letter dated 24th October 2017. Please feel free to cut and paste and PM me if you require any further assistance with a rejection.

26th October 2017.

I bought this car mainly because of the claims made on Page 46 of the sales brochure relating to the extended servicing regime as I thought that this would provide me with enhanced affordability and convenience. My experience has been the total opposite of what was claimed. These problems have had nothing to do with the way the car has been driven, a fact which has now been confirmed in writing by Jaguar Land Rover. In addition to the higher costs of servicing and the inconvenience of needing more frequent services, the car uses more than the expected amount of AdBlue while higher than expected amounts of active regeneration are adding a further 4% to 5% to fuel costs.

A three to four-fold increase in servicing costs relating to oil changes and other increased costs of ownership associated with the "higher than expected" active regeneration means that the car is not "as described" within the meaning of Section 11 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

This represents a breach of contract on your part and therefore I am legally entitled to reject the vehicle and to be reimbursed for its full purchase price of £xx,000. As I have repeatedly stated, had I known at the end of May 2017 what I know now about the problems with this vehicle I would not have made the purchase.
View attachment Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.pdf
 

Attachments

#9 ·
NoDiscoSport said:
That's because this episode resulted in the waste of the scheme operator's valuable time and resources. They aren't like the motor ombudsman. This is a legal entity established by an Act of Parliament under the Laws of England and Wales. They have considerable powers which at least match those of lower courts. They don't take kindly to having to list cases for a hearing that then becomes unnecessary because the respondent (clearly engaged in a game of "who-blinks-first-loses" with the complainant) conceded defeat at the last minute because they knew that a "voluntary jurisdiction" under s.227 of the Act wouldn't leave a written record. One hopes that the scheme operator has taken note for the future, so that the next time a defendant tries the same trick it will be picked up and dealt with firmly.
Correction: It's the Financial Services Authority ("The Authority") that wields the ultimate power. The "scheme operator" is the finance provider itself. The ombudsman is the investigator who must be independent of the scheme operator.
 
#10 ·
NoDiscoSport said:
NoDiscoSport said:
That's because this episode resulted in the waste of the scheme operator's valuable time and resources. They aren't like the motor ombudsman. This is a legal entity established by an Act of Parliament under the Laws of England and Wales. They have considerable powers which at least match those of lower courts. They don't take kindly to having to list cases for a hearing that then becomes unnecessary because the respondent (clearly engaged in a game of "who-blinks-first-loses" with the complainant) conceded defeat at the last minute because they knew that a "voluntary jurisdiction" under s.227 of the Act wouldn't leave a written record. One hopes that the scheme operator has taken note for the future, so that the next time a defendant tries the same trick it will be picked up and dealt with firmly.
Correction: It's the Financial Services Authority ("The Authority") that wields the ultimate power. The "scheme operator" is the finance provider itself. The ombudsman is the investigator who must be independent of the scheme operator.


You might want to link this thread to the D5 and Evoque Forum ??
 
#11 ·
townandcountry said:
I found out that the car will go straight from me to auction. If anyone wants a well cared for '17 model year HSE in red with a black roof, it's going through BCA Blackbushe at one of their Monday auctions... It's got GTechniq Crystal Serum applied, unfortunately the 7-year warranty for that is not portable to a new owner though.
Shocking - what a waste of Crystal Serum :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
#12 ·
AndyA said:
Well done, interesting reading. This is something that's really annoyed me ever since my first, earlier than expected service and then the discovery of JRLP0100. Just past 2 years ownership, would I be too late to pursue rejection or early finance completion on this basis?
Hi Andy. No, it's not too late for you nor for the thousands of others who are in the same position. If you were told that the car's service interval was 21,000 miles or two years (or you just read it in the brochure and no-one told you it was untrue) and subsequently it was found to need servicing much more frequently due to diesel dilution, then you have the right of rejection under the CPA 2015. Also, you have protection under the Misrepresentation Act. If you can't find the appropriate resources on the forum using the search function please PM me and I'll point you at the relevant posts.

What townandcountry's case shows is that the car MUST be taken back if it can be shown that it is not "as described". Nothing else is required in similar cases.
 
#13 ·
NoDiscoSport said:
AndyA said:
Well done, interesting reading. This is something that's really annoyed me ever since my first, earlier than expected service and then the discovery of JRLP0100. Just past 2 years ownership, would I be too late to pursue rejection or early finance completion on this basis?
Hi Andy. No, it's not too late for you nor for the thousands of others who are in the same position. If you were told that the car's service interval was 21,000 miles or two years (or you just read it in the brochure and no-one told you it was untrue) and subsequently it was found to need servicing much more frequently due to diesel dilution, then you have the right of rejection under the CPA 2015. Also, you have protection under the Misrepresentation Act. If you can't find the appropriate resources on the forum using the search function please PM me and I'll point you at the relevant posts.

What townandcountry's case shows is that the car MUST be taken back if it can be shown that it is not "as described". Nothing else is required in similar cases.
AndyA, thanks for your PM. I am going to send you private links to the cloud where you'll find the 2017MY brochure and a copy of my successful rejection letter from October 2017. Other resources you can draw on when creating your own rejection letter are:

1) JLRP00100. JLR's admission that there is a known fault can be lifted word for word from this text. Equally powerful would be the fact that this document contains evidence of express intent to remove further complaints from the pool of dissatisfied customers by modifying the sales and marketing literature while leaving the nominal service intervals at 21,000 miles or 2 years. This is one of many reasons why JLR would prefer not to be publicly cross-examined about the true facts of what happened leading up to the oil dilution/service interval problem.

2) The oil service poll on this forum: https://www.discosportforums.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=6469 This supports your claim that the problem is systematic and not just the result of your own poor driving style. 71% of cars needed an oil change before 12,600 miles and the average of 171 cars is about 10,000 miles. For 7 out of 10 cars the average mileage between oil services is only 7,000 miles, resulting in three times the cost of oil changes compared to what people were led to believe when they bought the car.

3) There are over 30 oil reports on the forum which show various levels of oil dilution, low viscosity and high levels of wear metals, especially Iron. In a high proportion of cases the laboratory recommends changing the oil, even though JLR's dealers nonchalantly state everything is OK, or dismiss the service indicator as an irrelevance. https://www.discosportforums.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=6132&start=90#p97346

4) In addition to s.11 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/contents/enacted there is also the Misrepresentation Act 1967 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/7 Generally it's not necessary to bring a case under the 1967 Act (although technically many of us could) because the remedy for a misrepresentation is nearly always rescission, that is to say revocation of the contract and restoration of the status quo - which is what exercising your rights under the CRA 2015 achieves. However, there are some legal precedents which were framed around cases brought under the 1967 legislation (see e.g. Salt v Stratstone 2015). In relation to the legal meaning of a misrepresentation I spoke to an automotive Barrister who told me that a misrepresentation has occurred if:
* Facts have been misrepresented to me either orally or in writing (e.g. a sales brochure).
* I have believed the misrepresentation.
* I have entered into a contract as a result of the misrepresentation.
* I suffered or will suffer a loss as a result of entering the contract.
This is essentially the same yardstick applied by a Court or a financial ombudsman when considering whether there was a breach of responsibility by a vendors in relation to s.11 of the Consumer RIghts Act 2015.

5) Similarity to townandcountry's case. If your case is identical to another one where the ombudsman has already resolved the matter by a voluntary jurisdiction in favour of the claimant, it saves everyone's time and money to do this again. JLR FS accepted the ombudsman's voluntary jurisdiction and that's all that counts. The fact that they tried to drag it out (for a whole year!) by pretending to the claimant that they were getting ready to engage in a full hearing was bullshit. It's clear they had no such intention, they were just seeing if the claimant could be intimidated into backing down. They avoided a compulsory jurisdiction by agreeing to lose at the last minute - if they hadn't there would have been a written jurisdiction following the hearing (see s.228 of the Financial Services and Markets Act, 2000). https://www.discosportforums.co.uk/download/file.php?id=8487 JLR FS clearly thought they would lose that hearing.

6) Similarity to my case. As shown above, JLR might now seriously reconsider the wisdom of forcing people to take them before a financial ombudsman for a hearing identical to one that they had already decided that they would lose. Similarly, in relation to those who paid cash for their vehicles, once JLR realise that they have no legitimate reason for fighting rejections made under s.11of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in cases like mine and townandcountry's, why drag things out and risk a County Court judgment brought by a resourceful and determined customer? This was effectively why I got my money back in full so quickly. I made it abundantly clear that a) I had the winning hand and b) I would take it to Court if required. I used the principle of "disclosure" in the sense that I wrote them a letter with all my evidence clearly laid out for their perusal and invited them to place their bet. They declined to take my odds. Other dealers might be better poker players, but imho that's still all this is: a game of bluff with what they see as small stakes for them but big stakes for the punters. NB: JLR, a bit of advice: You still can't beat a better hand no matter how much you bluff...

So it appears that JLR will always take rejections as far as possible in order to "test the mettle" of the claimant and until now this looks to have been an effective strategy because it's deterred many would-be rejecters due to perceptions that it invokes "unpleasantness" and terminates a friendly rapport with the dealership. On the other hand, as we just saw, they won't allow this issue to go "all the way" due to the the wave of negative publicity that a lost case would generate. Court cases are great for creating news and JLR fully appreciates the risks.

You would have to speak nicely to townandountry and ask to see precisely how he phrased his own rejection but, from what I can gather, his claim was based simply on the fact that 1) he was misled into thinking the car would provide a 21,000 mile or 24 month service interval, 2) he bought the car on that understanding, 3) subsequently the car failed to perform and 4) this left him out of pocket or otherwise interfered with his expectations of more convenient and less expensive motoring. I suspect that he might have quoted this section on page 46 of the DS brochure: "Not only are the new Ingenium engines substantially lighter, more fuel-efficient and more refined than predecessors, they are also ore affordable and convenient to own thanks to servicing intervals extended from 16,000 to 21,000 miles/two years."

Clearly, constructing an argument for rejection which aligns with the accepted legal definition of misrepresentation is very helpful to the lawyers who get to study your claim.

Good Luck.
 
#14 ·
The ultimate appellate court in the case of Salt vs Stratstone clarified that delay does not prevent a court awarding rescission.

The Court of Appeal found that lapse of time on its own could not be a bar to rescission in this case. The claimant had only discovered the misrepresentation during the course of disclosure in the action. Most of the subsequent delay had been due to the litigation process and the defendant's wrongful refusal to accept the return of the car.
One of the burdens of proof for delayed rejection under the CRA 2015 is that the fault existed at the time of purchase. That's pretty much dealt with by JLRP00100.

Pdf for Salt vs Stratstone judgment in June 2015.
View attachment Salt vs Stratstone 2015.pdf
 

Attachments

#16 ·
BFGDSMan said:
Shocking - what a waste of Crystal Serum :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I know! I'm quite miffed about that, although it has kept it in good shape while I've had it. I removed all my other aftermarket accessories before it got handed back, but I thought sanding off the Crystal Serum would just be a step too far...

Volvo's off for the same treatment next week.
 
#18 ·
NoDiscoSport said:
5) Similarity to townandcountry's case. If your case is identical to another one where the ombudsman has already resolved the matter by a voluntary jurisdiction in favour of the claimant, it saves everyone's time and money to do this again. JLR FS accepted the ombudsman's voluntary jurisdiction and that's all that counts. The fact that they tried to drag it out (for a whole year!) by pretending to the claimant that they were getting ready to engage in a full hearing was bullshit. It's clear they had no such intention, they were just seeing if the claimant could be intimidated into backing down. They avoided a compulsory jurisdiction by agreeing to lose at the last minute - if they hadn't there would have been a written jurisdiction following the hearing (see s.228 of the Financial Services and Markets Act, 2000). https://www.discosportforums.co.uk/download/file.php?id=8487 JLR FS clearly thought they would lose that hearing.
I was under the impression that FSO decisions did not create precedent in the same way as legal decisions - it's one reason I decided to accept their offer rather than let this go for a binding decision, because I didn't think it would make any difference to any other affected users.

NoDiscoSport said:
6) Similarity to my case. As shown above, JLR might now seriously reconsider the wisdom of forcing people to take them before a financial ombudsman for a hearing identical to one that they had already decided that they would lose.
I have heard rumours that the FSO has already found against LRFS in a number of cases similar to mine, and might be getting fed up with their "courtroom steps" approach.

In reading through some of the decisions against LRFS I was concerned to find a nugget buried in this one:
Financial Ombudsman Service said:
In response to my provisional decision, LRFS presented some analysis of Mr W's driving record to show he did a large number of short journeys at a low average speed. They maintain there is no fault and the problems are due to driving style.
Without knowing more it's impossible to be sure, but this indicates that LRFS may have undertaken analysis based on data from InControl. I would hope this was done with the full knowledge and consent of the complainant, but it makes me wonder.

NoDiscoSport said:
You would have to speak nicely to townandountry and ask to see precisely how he phrased his own rejection but, from what I can gather, his claim was based simply on the fact that 1) he was misled into thinking the car would provide a 21,000 mile or 24 month service interval, 2) he bought the car on that understanding, 3) subsequently the car failed to perform and 4) this left him out of pocket or otherwise interfered with his expectations of more convenient and less expensive motoring. I suspect that he might have quoted this section on page 46 of the DS brochure: "Not only are the new Ingenium engines substantially lighter, more fuel-efficient and more refined than predecessors, they are also ore affordable and convenient to own thanks to servicing intervals extended from 16,000 to 21,000 miles/two years."
NDS has guessed correctly on points 1-4, and also the page I quoted. I made the point that this was a "prominent" claim in their advertising material, making up around 25% of the descriptive text on that page. I also have 2 hard copies of the brochure, and voice recording tapes where LRFS acknowledge it was wrong :)

I'm happy to provide suitably redacted copies of my letters to LRFS and the Ombudsman, PM if you'd like them.
 
#20 ·
NoDiscoSport said:
Have you opened the fizz yet, TC?
I was just thinking about nipping to Camberley on Monday to pick up a bargain. There are 25 Discovery Sports listed for disposal and 18 are annotated "Black Horse".
Capture.PNG
Where do you get that list? Mine should be there - if you want details I'm happy to chat.

Never mind, found the link. Mine's not listed - I thought they'd have it prepped and up there, it's been a week since they collected. Do you know how long it usually takes to turn them around?
 
#21 ·
Roger that jurisdiction link, TC. Was that a voluntary or compulsory jurisdiction, I wonder? It smacks of desperation when they have to lift confidential data from the car to try and prove their misleading point about driving style. Just before I had the breakdown in Swanage they asked me if they could fit a device to the car to monitor its performance. Naturally I told them no way - here's the original post. Chippy is making a poignant remark regarding a previous post in which I described how Mr. Andrew West, JLR Customer Services Director no less, had said to me during a one-to-one telephone conversation, "Can I just ask you what sort of journeys you do in your car?"

VeryDiscoSport said:
Chippy said:
I think my answer to this question VDS might have been "Can I just ask you why the salesman did not ask me the same question before I handed over my money"?
What I actually said at the time was, "No, and don't even think about asking me that question again."
To be fair to him he never did mention it again. But someone on the executive staff raised it again later the same week.

JLR: "I know what your answer is probably going to be but the engineers have asked if we could fit a monitoring device to your car...."

ME: "No way. You aren't interested in monitoring the car. You want to monitor me. Isn't that correct?"
......pause......(this is the bit where there's bound to be an awkward silence - but remember it's theirs to fill)
JLR: "Well yes, you are right. But we have to look at all the possibilities."
Of course the journey log is irrelevant to any rejection hearing for service intervals. But it's good to know about so we can make people aware that they are still trying to pass the buck back to the owner.
Btw, two weeks after that post I was the one savouring the champagne!
PS, I've no idea how long it takes a reject to be disposed of. I think they must have chopped mine up for spares, it simply disappeared from the DVLA database one day.
 
#22 ·
Hi,
I am a new member to this forum but have been reading the various posts since I took ownership of my Sept 2016 2.0 Diesel HSE Dynamic Lux and have found some very useful as I too have experienced many faults. I have now took the next step to join as a member as I'm worried about oil service intervals and oil dilution and would appreciate your guidance and support in this issue.

My car had its 1st 21000 mile service last week (2 year ownership) and when I took the car into the dealer there weren't any service alarms showing on the dashboard and infact I was somewhat astonished as the next required service oil change wasn't needed for another 13000 miles, if the dashboard computer was to be believed which would have the mileage at 34000 miles....Anyway I took the car in and it had its oil and filters changed etc as part of the 5 year service plan.

After collection and only another 100 miles covered (now total mileage is 21403) I had a look at the 'next service' page on my dashboard and to my disbelief it is telling me in 4050 miles I need a oil service.....

Now going back to when I purchased the car (Sept 2016) there was a early oil service message at 6000 miles and the dealer looked into this for me and reported that they took a sample of oil and all was fine so they 'reset' the service indicator telling me it was a software problem. This is now my main concern as I'm thinking that I've been running this car with the high oil dilution issues (which I'm now aware of and wasn't back then) and I didn't insist on getting the oil changed at the 6000 miles. My driving style hasn't changed over the 2 years of ownership so why after just 100 miles since a oil change is the dashboard computer saying oil service required in 4050 miles when prior to the service supposedly no oil service was required even at 21300 miles.

In summary I'm annoyed I've purchased a car with this issue and worried about the long term reliability of the engine. I have 1 more year within warranty and now starting to consider my options. I bought this car in good faith thinking I would be getting 21000 miles/2 years between services and as I've recently learned this is not the case. Do you think I could go back to the LR dealer who I bought the car from back in 2016 or do you think my only option is to sell.

Help, advice and guidance on this matter greatly appreciated
 
#23 ·
townandcountry said:
NoDiscoSport said:
5) Similarity to townandcountry's case. If your case is identical to another one where the ombudsman has already resolved the matter by a voluntary jurisdiction in favour of the claimant, it saves everyone's time and money to do this again. JLR FS accepted the ombudsman's voluntary jurisdiction and that's all that counts. The fact that they tried to drag it out (for a whole year!) by pretending to the claimant that they were getting ready to engage in a full hearing was bullshit. It's clear they had no such intention, they were just seeing if the claimant could be intimidated into backing down. They avoided a compulsory jurisdiction by agreeing to lose at the last minute - if they hadn't there would have been a written jurisdiction following the hearing (see s.228 of the Financial Services and Markets Act, 2000). https://www.discosportforums.co.uk/download/file.php?id=8487 JLR FS clearly thought they would lose that hearing.
I was under the impression that FSO decisions did not create precedent in the same way as legal decisions - it's one reason I decided to accept their offer rather than let this go for a binding decision, because I didn't think it would make any difference to any other affected users.

NoDiscoSport said:
6) Similarity to my case. As shown above, JLR might now seriously reconsider the wisdom of forcing people to take them before a financial ombudsman for a hearing identical to one that they had already decided that they would lose.
I have heard rumours that the FSO has already found against LRFS in a number of cases similar to mine, and might be getting fed up with their "courtroom steps" approach.

In reading through some of the decisions against LRFS I was concerned to find a nugget buried in this one:
Financial Ombudsman Service said:
In response to my provisional decision, LRFS presented some analysis of Mr W's driving record to show he did a large number of short journeys at a low average speed. They maintain there is no fault and the problems are due to driving style.
Without knowing more it's impossible to be sure, but this indicates that LRFS may have undertaken analysis based on data from InControl. I would hope this was done with the full knowledge and consent of the complainant, but it makes me wonder.

NoDiscoSport said:
You would have to speak nicely to townandountry and ask to see precisely how he phrased his own rejection but, from what I can gather, his claim was based simply on the fact that 1) he was misled into thinking the car would provide a 21,000 mile or 24 month service interval, 2) he bought the car on that understanding, 3) subsequently the car failed to perform and 4) this left him out of pocket or otherwise interfered with his expectations of more convenient and less expensive motoring. I suspect that he might have quoted this section on page 46 of the DS brochure: "Not only are the new Ingenium engines substantially lighter, more fuel-efficient and more refined than predecessors, they are also ore affordable and convenient to own thanks to servicing intervals extended from 16,000 to 21,000 miles/two years."
NDS has guessed correctly on points 1-4, and also the page I quoted. I made the point that this was a "prominent" claim in their advertising material, making up around 25% of the descriptive text on that page. I also have 2 hard copies of the brochure, and voice recording tapes where LRFS acknowledge it was wrong :)

I'm happy to provide suitably redacted copies of my letters to LRFS and the Ombudsman, PM if you'd like them.
The vehicle in the report you mention as "this one" above , is the one I helped through rejection. And yes they read all the information on the vehicle and journey patterns held on the in control system .
If you read through what you have signed in acceptance of T&C for In Control Touch , you have given authorisation to use this data by JLR and their partners ( their partners include Black Horse).

It took well over 6 months , during this time the family had no vehicle , they had a young family and were being forced to use two vehicles to do family outings due to lack of seven seats.
The dealership " lost the DPF" so that the FB annotation could not be checked, denied faults existed ( later proven with AA record) , bought back the car at a poor price by wearing down to owner to a point of exasperation. I started helping after the poor buy back value ,which the owners accepted after being told rejection was refused.

In the end LRFS even contested the final descision , but after sticking to their guns the owner did get back most of their money .

The "independent report ";looked" like a child had written it .
The " independent report " was written by another dealer in the same ownership network.
The light only coming on for 2.1 seconds , came from this case ,admitted as a fault by CRC.

The Ombudsman Richard was excellent

In Summary Black Horse just say no , referring all cases to the FOS where dealers are lying to cover defects , hoping you'll just give up.

One point in the above case that stood out, the vehicle went to auction , it sold, the DPF lights came back on , the DPF was replaced under warranty for the next owner. This was uncovered as the owner still had access to the ICT app for the car , they went and spoke to the next owner from auction which was a second hand 4x4 car dealer.

If you do one thing when you take your car to the dealer get a written report of what they did to your car and make sure this includes all work.

I did this for the jag last week , I asked for paperwork , was told it was to be " in the post" , it didn't arrive so I marked down their follow up questionnaire, it duly arrived in the post stating all work done.
 
#24 ·
Disco17 said:
Now going back to when I purchased the car (Sept 2016) there was a early oil service message at 6000 miles and the dealer looked into this for me and reported that they took a sample of oil and all was fine so they 'reset' the service indicator telling me it was a software problem. This is now my main concern as I'm thinking that I've been running this car with the high oil dilution issues (which I'm now aware of and wasn't back then) and I didn't insist on getting the oil changed at the 6000 miles. My driving style hasn't changed over the 2 years of ownership so why after just 100 miles since a oil change is the dashboard computer saying oil service required in 4050 miles when prior to the service supposedly no oil service was required even at 21300 miles.

In summary I'm annoyed I've purchased a car with this issue and worried about the long term reliability of the engine. I have 1 more year within warranty and now starting to consider my options. I bought this car in good faith thinking I would be getting 21000 miles/2 years between services and as I've recently learned this is not the case. Do you think I could go back to the LR dealer who I bought the car from back in 2016 or do you think my only option is to sell.

Help, advice and guidance on this matter greatly appreciated
What happened here was that at 6,000 miles the dealer misled you, either casually by incompetence, or deliberately with foreknowledge. You're not the first and certainly won't be the last. When they said they took a sample of oil and it was "fine", they should have said, "we looked at the black stuff on the end of the dip-stick and our expert mechanic said it looked like oil".

You probably had extremely high oil dilution at 21,000 miles. Unless you changed your driving style between 6,000 miles and 21,000 miles, your evidence points to something well over 10% (I'm getting that figure from other Millers oil samples I've collated and conversations I had last year with someone who actually carries out oil tests) - it doesn't rise linearly at the same rate as the 1% per 1,000 miles seen up to 6,000 miles but only a laboratory oil test would have been able to show what the true level was. The evaporation rate associated with bio-diesel and the mixing of soot into the oil both have the effect of slowing down the loss of viscosity - but bio-diesel residue and soot both have the potential to increase the damage being caused to the finely-machined surfaces inside the engine.

Has there been any actual damage to your engine as a result of this? No-one can say without stripping it down and having a look. If you read JLRP00100, it was stated there on behalf of JLR Engineering by Stuart Woodcock that continued use of a vehicle with high oil dilution will eventually cause engine failure.

The simplest thing to do might be to reject the car under s.11 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and let this be someone else's problem. What I asked myself last October was this,
1) "Am I prepared to risk having to pay thousands of pounds to repair something that might happen after I've lost the protection of the 3 year warranty?"
2) "Am I prepared to keep picking up the bills for additional oil changes that weren't mentioned when I bought the car?"

If you were to reject under s.11 then, on the evidence you have provided, supported by other facts and circumstantial evidence that can be collected from this web-site's resources, I think there is every chance that you would be successful. But this doesn't mean that JLR or your dealer will make it easy, as you will have gathered from reading the posts form the pas week.
 
#25 ·
Disco17 said:
My car had its 1st 21000 mile service last week (2 year ownership) and when I took the car into the dealer there weren't any service alarms showing on the dashboard and infact I was somewhat astonished as the next required service oil change wasn't needed for another 13000 miles, if the dashboard computer was to be believed which would have the mileage at 34000 miles....Anyway I took the car in and it had its oil and filters changed etc as part of the 5 year service plan.

After collection and only another 100 miles covered (now total mileage is 21403) I had a look at the 'next service' page on my dashboard and to my disbelief it is telling me in 4050 miles I need a oil service.....
I used to see similar. There were some software updates that probably got applied during your last service, which do something with the service counters to separate out oil service details and resets. I can't remember the exact details but they've been discussed extensively on the forum so I'm sure a search will turn them up.

Now going back to when I purchased the car (Sept 2016) there was a early oil service message at 6000 miles and the dealer looked into this for me and reported that they took a sample of oil and all was fine so they 'reset' the service indicator telling me it was a software problem.
Again, I had exactly the same thing - although the service dealer I spoke to did it over the phone and didn't bother to take a sample. This was in September 2017, so JLRP0100 had been in circulation for quite a while and they should have had no excuse for this. Once I realised a few weeks later I called a different dealer who said "Yes, that is important. Please bring it in as a matter of urgency."

This is now my main concern as I'm thinking that I've been running this car with the high oil dilution issues (which I'm now aware of and wasn't back then) and I didn't insist on getting the oil changed at the 6000 miles. My driving style hasn't changed over the 2 years of ownership so why after just 100 miles since a oil change is the dashboard computer saying oil service required in 4050 miles when prior to the service supposedly no oil service was required even at 21300 miles.

In summary I'm annoyed I've purchased a car with this issue and worried about the long term reliability of the engine. I have 1 more year within warranty and now starting to consider my options. I bought this car in good faith thinking I would be getting 21000 miles/2 years between services and as I've recently learned this is not the case. Do you think I could go back to the LR dealer who I bought the car from back in 2016 or do you think my only option is to sell.
Although the basis of my rejection was "not as described" because it couldn't reach the 21,000 mile intervals, I have to say I've been watching the oil and service threads on here and feeling quite relieved that I won't have to worry about keeping the car past the end of its warranty. When we purchased we were very clear we were looking for a car to run for 7 to 10 years - I was initially worried about the inconvenience of servicing it so regularly over that period, but now I suspect it wouldn't have mattered because it would never have made it that far!

Help, advice and guidance on this matter greatly appreciated
It sounds like you would meet the criteria for rejection on the same basis that I did:
  • You purchased the vehicle new in good faith based on the information given to you - including the brochure making prominent claims of 21,000 mile service intervals
  • Those service intervals were a substantial factor in your decision to purchase the vehicle
  • The vehicle cannot reach those intervals, therefore it is "Not as described" under the Consumer Rights Act
  • There is not a fault in your particular vehicle that can be repaired
  • JLR have since made it clear that "Driving Style" is decisive in determining the actual attainable service intervals, and therefore any replacement vehicle would have the same behaviour for you
  • As such the remedies open to you are to reject the vehicle (your statutory right), or to voluntarily accept compensation for the additional costs and inconvenience you expect to incur.

As you are not claiming a fault the 6 month timeframe does not apply. I think it might be relevant that you act promptly now you have discovered the vehicle is not what you thought you had purchased, but I don't know if this is required under law.

The outline of the process I followed is:
  • Work out what settlement you want to achieve. You have "enjoyed" use of the vehicle up to this time without being aware of the issue, so you should expect to have a deduction for that use. I've seen figures from zero up to 40p per mile. I had finance outstanding so I also expected to pay the interest for the period before I complained, but nothing from that point on. Price paid minus expected deductions gives you a starting point.
  • Send a letter to the party who you have the legal relationship with - if you took finance of any kind then this is likely to be the finance company, otherwise it is more likely to be the dealer. State that you have discovered the vehicle is not as described, provide details and evidence, and state that you wish to exercise your statutory right to reject the vehicle and claim a refund. Copy this letter to JLR, and raise a complaint with the Customer Response Centre. Make sure they give you an "8000" number for the complaint, which indicates it's more serious.
  • I didn't give any indication of my acceptable settlement on the letter. I didn't want to start a bargaining process.
  • From this day you're into "damages" territory for the other party to provide you with a replacement vehicle. This is more relevant in the case of a fault that makes the car unsafe or unusable. In my case I stated that the cost to all parties would be lower if I continued to use the vehicle in lieu of them providing an alternative, and so I intended to do that in order to minimise the amount of any damages.
  • If your claim to reject is refused (quite likely), and you're not getting anywhere fighting your own case against the dealer/JLR/finance, then you have to escalate. If you are claiming against the finance company then you probably have recourse to the Financial Ombudsman Service - the final decision letter should have advised you of this. If you're claiming against the dealer then I think you're into a legal case under the Consumer Rights Act and possibly also the Misrepresentation Act.

At all times be clear and consistent about your claim. Don't get sidetracked into meaningless discussions about irrelevancies such as driving style - these were not discussed at the time of your purchase and are therefore not a consideration.

If you are making your claim against the dealer they will be left with the car on their lot and the loss on their books. JLR offer assisted buyback to dealers in some cases, so you will find the dealer's approach to your claim will depend entirely on how much support JLR are offering them. Make sure you push the claim with JLR to get the best support for the dealer.

When I took my case to the ombudsman they also asked me to discuss what I would have done if I had known the car would require servicing every 8,000 miles before purchase. I was able to say I would not have made the purchase and support that claim with a list of alternative vehicles we had been considering that have much longer service intervals.

Sorry about your situation - I hope you get a good result whatever you decide.
 
#26 ·
Some excellent advice above there from three very experienced contributors.

Mods, would well be worth adding these very important points to a separate locked thread and making a sticky, for the benefit of those wishing to reject.
 
Top