JLR ordered to pay back $283K to buyer of L405

[p38arover]

A lemon Autobiography.

Couple puts lemon squeeze on car dealer - bay 93.9 Geelong (https://www.bay939.com.au/news/local-news/98809-couple-puts-lemon-squeeze-on-car-dealer)

If you want to search YouTube, John Cadogen has also posted a video about this.

The buyers are after legal fees and costs, too.

[4bee]

Maybe they copped one of these?[biggrin]

Luxury cars crushed as transporter hits low bridge in Perth - BBC News (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-45964816)

[BobD]

Pretty sad end to some nice cars!

Re the original post, the dealers that she took the car to seem to be seriously bad. Low coolant on a brand new car does not simply require a top up! They must have had rocks in their heads. Any mechanic would know that they need to find the leak and fix it, even on a Great Wall, let alone a Range Rover. I would throw the book at them if I was LRA.

Even for John Cadogan his scathing attack on the car was over the top and ridiculous. We all know that Vogues are incredibly over priced, even compared with a Sport, but his attack was pretty unwarranted and disgusting, even for one of his gutter talking videos, which are sort of funny for a short while.

My L405 had a very slight coolant leak when I bought it at 42,000km last year. You could see a drop of pink evaporated liquid on the front diff but that did not change the coolant level over a couple of months. I ended up getting it fixed under the used car warranty after two different inspections and reports ordered by the warranty provider. One of the plastic pipes connecting to the block under the EGR's was dripping at probably one drip per day, which was very hard to spot apart from the pink on the diff. It was a fairly expensive job to fix it so the statutory warranty worked well for me. I suppose that kind of backs up Cadogan's claims but a little bit of the correct maintenance will fix any problems well before they reach the state that that car appeared to get to.

[Graeme]

Re the original post, the dealers that she took the car to seem to be seriously bad. Low coolant on a brand new car does not simply require a top up!My then local LR dealer did likewise with my 1st TD5 D2, claiming that all cars use coolant. The acoustic cover couldn't be removed without risking breakage due to a spinning nut so the dealers refused to look into the loss. Eventually the head was destroyed from overheating when I couldn't keep the water topped-up on a 4 hour trip.

[4bee]

Bloody Hell! So the spinning nut was not a by-product of shonky manufacturing & fasteners that were used? Yeah right:bat:

[Graeme]

They claimed they had no reason to remove the cover so if they broke it then they would have to pay for it. I subsequently took an angle grinder to the offending bolt to discover a leak near the water outlet, but after end of warranty so my loss.
The dealership owner was a mongrel, ringing to abuse me for buying a replacement vehicle from a far away dealer stating that what I was doing was illegal. He got an earfull!

[DazzaTD5]

what a load of bull**** ....
*A 230K plus car.
*100K in legal costs bluh bluh..

Did the queen of sheeba miss her manicure appointment when the Range Rover wouldnt start? or did she simply have to take one of the other poor cars .... the Audi or Merc ??

*A actual story with a win would be the thousands of **** box Ford Focus owners that have had transmission failures getting paid out by Ford.
*Or the countless owners of oil drinking Holden Colorados getting some form of redemption from Holden.
*In fact any owner of **** box Holden getting anything besides endless mechanical failures.

[4bee]

They claimed they had no reason to remove the cover so if they broke it then they would have to pay for it. I subsequently took an angle grinder to the offending bolt to discover a leak near the water outlet, but after end of warranty so my loss.
The dealership owner was a mongrel, ringing to abuse me for buying a replacement vehicle from a far away dealer stating that what I was doing was illegal. He got an earfull!


far away dealer stating that what I was doing was illegal. He got an earfull!


Interesting!

And the reason for that was............................................... ..................?

The statement, not the earfull.

[Graeme]

He carried on about dealers having selling rights in their local areas to the exclusion of dealers outside the area, which if was true was an illegal arrangement, not my purchasing from outside the area.

[4bee]

How many times have we heard that crap, Avon, Tupperware etc.

It's a private arrangement but I doubt it is legal. Should have asked the ACCC for clarification.[smilebigeye]


I knew some people here that drove to Port Lincoln just to get a better price on a vehicle. Would I do it? Not likely.

[Meccles]

I see that JLR lost a court case a few days ago and were ordered to refund purchase price of RR plus interest - $283000. Women is now going after her legal fees which were 130 k. But JLR didn’t come out of the case well.
And it’s set a precedent. Worth looking at in how she kept records etc etc.

[Vern]

I think we need a few more threads about this, just like the new defender threads[emoji6]

[weeds]

There would be a whole lot more across the makes but I believe out of court settlement restrict the claimant disclosing anything

[RobMichelle]

Yes, you normally have to sign a piece of paper stating you will not do or say anything toward the company involved or you are liable to be sued for any loss osf sales.
That was my case in truck dispute.

[SBD4]

Yes, John Cadogan (autoexpert) did a piece on that a few days ago. part of what he has to say is correct in that it's great that someone who had the resources to pursue the case did so and thus set a precedent but, his infantile and foul attempts at humour along with his very wide tar brush painting the entire brand as unreliable and useless overshadows any credibility he might have had for the good points he was trying to make. Even his references to the apparent heroine is offensive. At least he left out his usual faux french pronunciations this time.

Sorry about the rant but it's all just a bit too gratuitous.

I can't link to it because it's not appropriate but if you're interested, search youtube for "The Truth About Range Rover Ownership".

[rangieman]

I think we need a few more threads about this, just like the new defender threads[emoji6]
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo:wallbash:

[Vern]

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo:wallbash:So chris, whats your thoughts on the new supposed defender?,[emoji848][emoji6]

[rangieman]

So chris, whats your thoughts on the new supposed defender?,[emoji848][emoji6]
Dont care !
Should i care :wallbash:
Not fazed but am amused at those that seem very concerned before it is even released :Rolling:
Was that hook line and sinker enough mate [bigwhistle]
It was hard to hold back i must admit [wink11]

[Meccles]

I think the point here is that now this is a public case, and a win for the consumer, it puts us as consumers in a stronger position if we have problems. I’m restricted by a confidentiality clause but this isn’t. If we buy consumer goods from anyone then this gives pretty clear guidance on your rights. Hard for any dealer or make of any brand to argue otherwise.

[BobD]

[QUOTE=SBD4;2852169] At least he left out his usual faux french pronunciations this time.

It was mentioned in the first post and I commented in the third post on this thread. I thought his foul rant was full of faux French pronunciations. He is always scathing of Range Rover and Range Rover owners but as we both said, even for him this was bad and had zero credibility in my book.

[RANDLOVER]

I say good on the "duchess" a.k.a. Sally, and I hope she is awarded costs in the next court case. Aus really needs a lemon law, and perhaps govt's of all ilks will be more likely to consider it, now that the whole car manufacturing (as opposed to components) industry has been off shored. However, I'm unfamiliar with the size of political donations made to the major parties by dealerships and/or lobbyists, if any, although a replacement/refund should be for the manufacturers account. That being said, I don't recall donations by foreign entities being outlawed yet.

[drivesafe]

Well this just goes to show, things have not changed.

I and my family have had 11 years of hell thanks to LRA and it is because my wife and I bought a new Range Rover that turned out to be unroadworthy from the day I drove it out of the showroom and as has been demonstrated in this thread, the only way I to, could have FORCED LRA to honour the warranty I paid for, was to take them to court and I was advised at the time, this would be at a cost of at least $100,000, some thing that I did not have, and LRA knew that.

While I am in the process of compiling a submission to the ACCC, this will not help me in any way, but it may bring attention to the way LRA treats it’s customer.

I am sure many of the manufacturers/importers behave like LRA, but LRA is by far one of, if not, the worst to try to deal with when things go wrong with your Land Rover.

LR in the UK, contacted LRA and asked them to fix my RR, but LRA just continued to refuse to do anything.

But this is not just about each single incident because LRA even rufuses to carry out safety recalls that are carried out in North America, Europe and the UK.

And there is nothing more dangerous than the way a Land Rover alternator can fail, causing a catastrophic vehicle failure.

At this very time in the USA, Ford has a recall of 1.5 million cars because of a software issue that causes the motor to stop, while the vehicle is being driven, and you can’t restart the motor. This is exactly what happens with a large number of Land Rovers when the alternator fails.

It’s long overdue for LRA to be held responsible for their vehicles.

[3toes]

Land Rover in the U.K. does not have a reputation for being customer centric if you have a problem once you have driven off the show room floor. Their response is the same as most other manufacturers here. If you have a problem and cannot sort through the dealer then go to manufacturer they just tell dealer to sort at the dealers cost. So you can imagine how keen they are to assist.

Have never seen a UK dealer who supported their customers like Subaru in Australia. Do know of importers here who use Subaru Australia as where they want their dealers to be but not prepared to put in the resources it requires so it never happens

[fredd63]

Then land rover in korea has been ordered to recall/fix 16,000 vehicles, mainly due to crankshaft failures in diesels.

Jaguar Land Rover to recall over 16,000 trucks (http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/news/2018/10/05/0200000000AEN20181005006600320.html)

How long before there is a class action in Oz, UK , USA, or china?

fred

[Zeros]

Defender adapter shaft failures? ...how many?

[scarry]

Defender adapter shaft failures? ...how many?

Every Defender built after '07,thats how many,definitely not a well engineered fit for purpose design.[tonguewink]

But as its not really a safety issue,i suppose they don't give a rats...

In fact the actual design shows they didn't really care either.

[rangieman]

Every Defender built after '07,thats how many,definitely not a well engineered fit for purpose design.[tonguewink]

But as its not really a safety issue,i suppose they don't give a rats...

In fact the actual design shows they didn't really care either.
Could very well be a safety issue if you loose drive on a road with out a emergency stopping lane with a B double bearing down on you doing a 100 ks behind you[bighmmm]

[4bee]

Could very well be a safety issue if you loose drive on a road with out a emergency stopping lane with a B double bearing down on you doing a 100 ks behind you[bighmmm]

That horrific scenario doesn't even bear thinking about, but I made up my mind not long after taking delivery of my D1 facelift that I would never buy another of their vehicles & that was purely based on Dealer attitudes & ripoff Servicing & Parts charges.


Since then I bought a '66 S2A. I know I know, you don't have to say it.[happycry]


My next vehicle will be a Suby.

[SeanMurr123]

This is pretty typical one sided journalism as usual.

If they reached out to JLRAU they would have learned that the couple were offered a refund of the car months ago but they turned it down because they wanted a refund of the car they bought plus a free Range Rover Sport!

So what they won at this tribunal was only what was already offered to them.

They are still pursuing legal costs plus the cost of purchasing a car for the woman because she needed to tow her horses around. They own a Holden Dealership so are hardly regular battlers.

If they win the next part of the case it will be more of a story. I really hope they don't because they seem like the bad guys in this story to me. I doubt they will win though as there are some people coming forward exposing the shady practises of this couple in the past.

[drivesafe]

If this is the case Sean, then I hope they have a hard time of it but it is still nice to see a shady company like LRA getting a bit of their own medicine for a change.

[2nd Rower]

Having previously been at VCAT (with Jaguar Land Rover Australia) its an interesting process... My understanding/opinion from my process is the following:

Although not court, the process is still very legalistic. The onus of proof of defect is on the owner, and in many cases (no different to court) you will need an 'expert witness' to confirm/support your claim so its not your word/opinion against the other. Particularly if you are trying to prove the entire car is 'not fit for purpose', as a manufacturer will likely prefer to continue investigate and fix an issue under warranty provisions.

This is obviously where an engineers report is required, written in the particular style for a legal claim process. These individuals can obviously be expensive, particularly if they also have to find the fault symptoms or root cause as part via a detailed whole car engineering examination (lots of physical measurements and checks against factory specs/tolerances, not just listening for 'noises' or 'vibrations' per se) as well as then writing the very detailed report.

Depending of the quantum of claim you can represent yourself, and then the defendant also is unlikely to be allowed lawyers in the hearing IIRC. Above a certain quantum its likely you'd want lawyers and then they would too... Like a court process costs can be awarded, so if they offer a settlement, and you are not awarded more than the settlement you may be up for some of their legal costs too. Although when I went my process started with a mediation type process at VCAT between the parties

Its been some years, and this is my dusty recollection from my personal experience, would recommend anyone wanting to go to VCAT do their own research prior as things and the process may likely have changed in 8 or 9 years....

[Arapiles]

Having previously been at VCAT (with Jaguar Land Rover Australia) its an interesting process... My understanding/opinion from my process is the following:

Although not court, the process is still very legalistic. ..

Yes, despite the tribunals having been set up to be non-legalistic they have become mini-courts - a couple of years ago I and some neighbours objected to a planning approval given to a local restaurant and when we went to VCAT found ourselves facing a barrister hired by the council ... not exactly informal.

[4bee]

I bet the Council said something like......... "But we didn't know the bloke was a Barrister, but since he is here now can we just get on?"[bighmmm]

[Laurie]

This decision especially after the Ford decision is a major game changer for JLR Australia's warranty claims [thumbsupbig]

We’re for Sydney | Daily Telegraph (https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/motoring/car-manufacturers-on-notice-after-landmark-ruling-against-jaguar-land-rover-australia/news-story/36811699a409339cb3042b3c3784dea1)


This couple’s successful battle for justice over their dud car is changing the way automakers treat customers.

Jaguar Land Rover Australia (JLRA) has not only had to refund Sally and James Morphy the $280,000 they paid for the top of the line Range Rover Autobiography, it has been made to cover the Geelong couple’s legal expenses of $140,000 following a lengthy consumer tribunal battle.

JLRA has also been forced to pay the dealer’s litigation costs of $150,000.


Then there’s the estimated $100,000 outlaid for its own failed defence.

All up that’s a $670,000 bill for this lemon, which an expert’s report said risked “sudden and catastrophic engine failure” because 10 litres of coolant had leaked into the oil.


James and Sally Morphy of Barrabool in Victoria with the 2016 Range Rover they purchased for $260,000 and which has had serious mechanical problems. Picture: Andrew Henshaw
The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) found the vehicle unfit for even the most basic functions, let alone towing a horse float, which was what it was bought for.

The Geelong couple’s case is now being used by other car manufacturers as an example of how not to treat owners.

It recently featured in a presentation to 800 Volkswagen executives and dealers at a “customer experience” conference in Brisbane.

VW marketing director Jason Bradshaw said the case was “cited to reinforce the importance of getting it right (because) there are real examples of dealerships and brands getting it wrong.”

Consumer law expert Gene Schirripa of Snedden Hall & Gallop in Canberra said car companies could not afford to ignore the ruling


The Morphy case referenced at the Volkswagen Customer Experience conference in Brisbane in February 2019. Picture: Supplied
“Because this was such a landmark decision in terms of the Australian Consumer Law as it applies to motor vehicles and because JLRA is a major player I think you will see behavioural shift in terms of the other manufacturers,” Mr Schirripa said.

The firm Mills Oakley, which represented the dealer in the Morphy case, has since been contacted by at least three consumers alleging “major failures” and seeking to rely on the ruling to receive a full refund from the manufacturer, not the dealership.

“If this pattern reflects a broader trend, it certainly suggests that manufacturers may be more likely to engage with consumers who make the allegation of ‘major failure’ with their vehicles so as to avoid the risk that the vehicle can be rejected and then the manufacturer being held liable for the costs of a replacement vehicle and legal costs,” said partner James Tobin.

In October last year VCAT member Blair Ussher found that “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”.


James and Sally Morphy are calling for a strengthening of the consumer protection law. Picture: Andrew Henshaw
Then in a separate costs ruling in January this year he again ruled for the couple, mainly because in the original case they had “won entirely” and JLRA had “lost entirely”.

“I consider that this disparity is sufficient to support a costs award in (the Morphys’) favour,” Mr Ussher said.

In a rewrite of history, a JLRA spokesman said it had provided the refund “without challenge”, demonstrating the company’s “desire to comply at all times with Australian consumer law and operate at the highest standards morally and ethically”.

Following a 2017 investigation, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) described the new car retailing industry’s attitude to its obligations under consumer law as “deeply concerning”.

The Morphys are now driving a Porsche Cayenne.

LAND ROVER OWNER: ‘I’M NOT SIGNING A GAG ORDER’
A Land Rover owner has refused to sign a “gag order” the automaker attempted to impose after it finally agreed to a $70,000 refund.

The ACCC has repeatedly said nondisclosure agreements are not on, but that hasn’t stopped recalcitrants within the industry from trying to silence unhappy customers such as Dee Caldicott.

The engine of his Discovery Sport had to be removed after doing just 18,000km.

An expert’s report found “very high” amounts of metal in the oil, indicating “severe” engine wear.

Despite requesting a no-cost replacement or full refund, at one point the Mackay man faced having to fork out $30,000 towards another vehicle.

He refused and eventually won a full refund from Jaguar Land Rover Australia (JLRA) after mediation at the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

“Then they tried to impose a gag order,” Mr Caldicott said.

“I said ‘I’m not doing it’.


The lemon Land Rover Discovery Sport owned by Dee Caldicott of Mackay. Picture: Supplied
“I told them I’d take them to the District Court if they didn’t pay on time.”

Payment was made two hours before the deadline.

A JLRA spokesman said it couldn’t be “drawn to comment on the specifics … other than to say a refund is at times accompanied with an agreement that slanderous and defamatory commentary cease now that an amicable agreement has been reached. This is not a gag order.”

During mediation Mr Caldicott presented a document he had found on an internet forum that purported to be a memo by a top executive of the parent company Jaguar Land Rover about a “balancer shaft whine” affecting hundreds of thousands of vehicles and requiring “remedial action with the least amount of delay”.

The JLRA spokesman confirmed the authenticity of the memo but said it was referred to a “customer comfort improvement on a limited number of vehicles.

“There are no consequences should the improved parts not be installed other than the possibility that a customer may perceive a whining sound from the engine under particular loads and conditions,” the spokesman said.

“There have been no product failures reported in conjunction with the replacement or recommended replacement of this part.”


Let's hope those who were cast aside by JLR Warranty can now seek recourse in the Courts with this legal precedent!!

Laurie

[drivesafe]

Thanks for posting that up Laurie.

While the consumer protection laws are there, you have to be able to afford the legal costs of having them applied.

My 2007 RRV was literally unroadworthy as I drove it out of the showroom, but as I would find out, I needed to be able to cover up $100,000 in legal expenses, just to force LRA to honour the warranty I paid for when I bought my RRV new.

The cost did not guarantee that if I won, I would get my legal costs back. I my case, the vehicle was just not worth the risk.

[DoubleChevron]

I can't read the linked article without subscribing. What interests me more than anything is the media has NOT picked this up from what I can tell. There appears to be nothing in any of the major papers.

[Rolly]

This raises a number of issues. Was this behavior endorsed by JLR or was it a reflection of the Ethos of that dealership?
All dealings I've had with JLR regarding Warranty issues have been well handled with a satisfactory outcome, having said that I wonder how it would have been handled if the entire engine had the issues these people experienced.
Thankfully precedent now exists and consumer rights have been upheld.

[cripesamighty]

From what I have been told by people who have worked for both JLR(UK) and JLR(Aus), they are chalk and cheese as far as company ethos goes. We are sadly underdone here in Australia.

[drivesafe]

From what I have been told by people who have worked for both JLR(UK) and JLR(Aus), they are chalk and cheese as far as company ethos goes. We are sadly underdone here in Australia.
I totally agree with that.


When Land Rover in the UK found out about the condition of my RRV, they contacted LRA and asked them to fix my RRV.


LRA refused to do anything and just sent me a loverly e-mail, virtually telling me bad luck for buying a Land Rover.

[Rick Fischer]

See press clipping from other week's Oz below, re JLRA getting done over with consumer law in Court. Couldn't happen to nicer people. [thumbsupbig][bigrolf][biggrin]

Cheers and apologies, couldn't get it up right after loading???? (Was to start)

Rick F


. 154173

[DazzaTD5]

I'm sure there is a thread on this.

[p38arover]

Threads merged.