Thread: ultra reliable Defa

Well, I always knew my Defender was ultra reliable in comparison.


Tribunal orders $283,000 refund on lemon Range Rover Autobiography
John Rolfe, News Corp Australia Network
an hour ago
Subscriber only
EXCLUSIVE

IN what is likely an Australian record, a consumer tribunal has awarded a $283,000 refund on this couple’s dud new car.

Now they are trying to reclaim legal costs — a whopping $134,000.

And their treatment is being assessed by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission team investigating new car retailing.

Needing a vehicle to tow her horse float, in September 2015 Sally Morphy of Barrabool near Geelong agreed to buy for $235,000 a Range Rover Autobiography from a Queensland dealership.


Sally and James Morphy with the lemon Range Rover. Picture: Andrew Henshaw
She got the car in April 2016. That month the coolant warning light came on. She took it to the local dealership which topped up the coolant. In June the gearbox light came on. The local dealer couldn’t explain this. In July the coolant light came on again. The dealer topped up the coolant once more. The same thing happened in September and replaced the sensor on the warning light.

In October the car failed to start.

In November the coolant reservoir was found nearly empty. Mrs Morphy asked a different dealership look at the car. It found no fault. She had a solicitor write to the first dealership to say she wouldn’t have bought the car if she had known of its defects.

Mrs Morphy had an expert engineer inspect the car in March and April 2016. He found there was a risk of “sudden and catastrophic engine failure”. Tribunal member Blair Ussher agreed, saying in written reasons published last month that “the repetitive and undiagnosed failures made the car unreliable … and the prospect of the defect leading to a sudden and catastrophic engine failure rendered the motor car unfit for its basic purpose, that is to be driven on or off roads, let alone for any purpose such goods are commonly put to.”


Excerpt from the VCAT decision in the Range Rover case. Source: VCAT
He also found that the car was unsafe and not durable, as required under consumer law.

He ordered Jaguar Land Rover Australia (JLRA), which is owned by India’s Tata Motors, to refund Mrs Morphy of $283,191 which included the expert’s bill, use of a replacement car and interest. Legal costs have yet to be determined.

“I haven’t heard of a larger car refund in Australia,” said consumer law expert Josh Simons of the firm Thomson Geer.

“We certainly haven’t heard of a larger car refund,” Consumer Action Legal Centre spokesman Mick Bellairs said.

Mrs Morphy said she hoped the decision would act as a precedent.

“We were in a position to be able to argue with them,” she said. “You certainly wouldn’t want this to happen to any other person.”

Husband James Morphy, who until recently owned a large Holden dealership, said: “The behaviour of Jaguar Land Rover has been beyond appalling.”


The Morphys’ next battle is over legal costs. Picture: Andrew Henshaw
A JLRA spokesman said in the costs hearing its “efforts to resolve Mrs Morphy’s concerns will be conveyed. Until the conclusion of the proceedings, JLRA is unable to comment further.”

The Queensland dealership the car was bought from said it didn’t own the yard at the time.

An ACCC spokesman said it “would expect Jaguar Land Rover Australia to undertake a review of it systems in light of this judgement”.

WHY the couple won:

* the car was unsafe and not durable, in breach of consumer law

* it was also not ‘fit for purpose’ — another legal must

* they formally rejected the car in writing in a reasonable time

* they got expert evidence and presented it to the tribunal

Follow this reporter’s work on Facebook or Twitter

Originally published as Owner wins $283,000 refund for dud Range Rover

COMMENTS

Lucky they had a spare $134,000 to fight the case.
Odd that they live in Geelong & purchased from a dealer in QLD.
Strange that the dealer said they didn't own the vehicle at the time or does that just mean it's on finance to the dealer until it's sold so not 'effectively' theirs ???

Colin