Member Since: 14 Jun 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 21
MacLeod 313 wrote:
I tried going your route, but didnt want to risk legal as I value my home. SO good luck, and if you wanna carry on trying to take a Multi-national, government supported worldwide manufacturer, then start practising one phrase..........................................
BIG ISSUE, BIG ISSUE
HI - Thanks for the advice. I cannot go into the finer details (Yet) but my contract is with the finance company and only the finance company - the dealer and the Land rover are not part of the issue as it is an un-regulated finance agreement. They have breached the contract by supplying a defective vehicle. I have received an offer - but have rejected it. They are willing to cancel the agreement but not with enough compensation.
As regards to legal costs. I have these fully covered by my home legal expenses policy (it's well worth the £ 40 or so a year they add to your home insurance policy). They will only cover cases where you have a chance of winning. I have had barrister review this, He is a specialist in consumer law.
The problem is most people don't know there statutory and common law legal rights. The big boys work on the theory that 99% of people won't or cannot afford to take it to court.
I have been to court in the past and I know what is right and what is wrong. Someone should stand up against these defective vehicles (irrespective of make)
You have the right to reject a defective product within the first six months. If people have problems with their car they state this before the six months is up. You'll be amazed at what results you get after that.
If you don't believe me check this out with trading standards at consumerdirect.gov.uk
Last edited by wwf on 12th Jul 2009 7:36 pm. Edited 1 time in total
12th Jul 2009 7:29 pm
wwf
Member Since: 14 Jun 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 21
Winger wrote:
90BHP wrote:
You didn't take it back for them to fix it after it broke again
Legally, this is the achilles heel in this case. As far as I can tell, the dealer has made efforts to resolve, or class as normal, all the issues. Fortunately, the UK legal system does not operate in the shadow of the US system...........
Hi Winger.
They recovered it after the last failure and it was rejected whilst awaiting to be repaired. ( it is still with them)
The issue here is the finance agreement does not give them the right to repair or replace. They are contracted to supply a satisfactory vehilcle. they didn't, thereby breaching the contract.
This is simple (or not so simple) contract law. Common Law to be precise.
There are numerous bits of case law in the UK for cases of this type.
12th Jul 2009 7:34 pm
Winger Site Moderator
Member Since: 15 Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 3428
Your previous post makes the issue clearer.
So, this is a finance company breach of contract issue - and could have been the case with any vehicle. Without knowing what the agreement says, there isn't a great deal more than anyone here can add, and the D3 expert assistance seems rather superfluous.
As far as the vehicle is concerned, given a decent dealer I am sure the problem could be resolved; after all, the D3 is only a combination of parts - all of which can be replaced.
12th Jul 2009 7:42 pm
wwf
Member Since: 14 Jun 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 21
The D3 expert is vital. It establishes if the vehicle is / was defective at the time of supply. If proved then the contract is fundementally breached. ( I have now found an court recognised expert )
As regards to the dealer. At what stage do you say - I have had enough of constantly taking a car to a dealer to fix for ongoing and new differing problems.
12th Jul 2009 9:47 pm
andih
Member Since: 09 Jun 2008
Location: grantham lincs
Posts: 37
Dont mention finance companies.
last july i brought my exwife, as she is now, a 52plate freelander from a 'retailer' in south kent, near sittingbourne. the finance is a h.p agreement,.
the day she picked it up, sunroof didnt work, aircon didnt work, elec mirrors didnt work, 2 punctures, rear windows didnt work, and handbrake didnt work. it had been mot'd the day before she picked it up.
but she didnt try everything till she got home 40 miles away.
rang the garage and they said, that if she got it back they would fix it, but not the aircon.
but had to make an appointment with the owner to view the car.
within 2 weeks the auto box started sticking and refusing to go any higher than 2nd.
they said dont drive it, but to get it to them. how 40miles on a dual carriageway (the A2 is a busy road out of Dover!!!!!) and the gearbox was bust after less than 1000 miles.
so time went on and we were fobbed off time and time again till past the 3 month warrranty. then told surprise surprise. warranty was gone. then i found out that the contract was with finance company, hello bank of scotland!!!!
so i simply told them to take the car as i refused to pay for a car that could not be
the bofs spent from december till ahem now being very helpfull in trying to get nowhere with the garage. as they refused to reply and/or just washed hands on car.
the point im comming to is that we had a report from landrover dealer stating that the fault was very much in evidence befor the car was sold due to the problem being a long term problem and that the gearbox had lorry hydraulic oil in the box.
once we got trading standards involved, they told us that the responsiblity was with the finance comp. not the garage, and now low and behold, they have lost all the documentation that they had when dealing with the garage
they have been told i want the car taking and all monies returning and compensating, or the car fixing (was unfit for purpose at point of sale) and compensating.
so at mo, i risk being taken for reposssesion etc and all becasue the BofS relinquish their responsibilty. now thats frustrating.
but what is worse is that they have admitted the contract is with them, becasue under an hp agreement, the sale is with the finance com0p, not the garage, therefore the finance comp supplied a vehicole unfit for purpose. I GIVE UP. even tho on pricipal i refuse to pay for a car that was broke before we got it. end off.2008 D3 SE auto, Java black
Previous ‘ermy' 2007 D3 tdv6 xs java black,
formerly 'eeyore' 1992 D1 200tdi heavily mod
'cherry' 2000 D2 td5 slightly mod. my lil baby for 4 yrs
its nice to be important, but more important to be nice
18th Jul 2009 12:17 pm
robsmith
Member Since: 02 Sep 2007
Location: Staffordshire
Posts: 2393
There are two contracts in place when you purchase a car on a finance deal.
The first is your contract with the supplier of the car. You have the right to expect the vehicle to be in "good order", as per the sale of goods acts and normal consumer protection law.
The second is with the finance company, who supply the money to you to buy the car from the supplier. This money is tied to a specific vehicle, and they retain the right to reclaim the title to that vehicle until you have paid them all the money you owe them under the terms of the second contract.
Unless you go to a finance company and say to them "I want to buy a particular type of car, please find one and I'll buy it from you" they are not your first port of call, as they did not supply you with the car, only the money for the car. The latter is the situation with many company leased cars, where you get a form and tick the boxes to say "I want a red Focus diesel", and they find and supply you with a red Focus diesel.
In your situation you found the car you wanted, then found the finance for it, so your first line of attack is on the supplier of the car, not the supplier of the finance. The finance company have an interest in the car because they want to be assured that they will get their money back in the event of you defaulting, and ing them off can actually harm your case. The supplier of the car may of course try to wash their hands of it, but in law they are contracted to supply you with a car in a reasonable condition, NOT a perfect car. Defects should be covered by a warranty, but it can be very hard work to get any money out of that particular bunch of sharks, and first contact with them normally has to be through the supplier. (In recent years I've had help for one warranty company and absolutely brilliant help from another, just because the dealer cared about his customers).Rob Smith
Silver rools OK
18th Jul 2009 4:19 pm
wwf
Member Since: 14 Jun 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 21
Hi Robsmith
Thank you for your comment
You bring up two points. Firstly about the contract and the dealer. I accept your argument that the finance company were not part of the vehicle sourcing. BUT my contract IS ONLY with the finance company. The law around this area is, in summary - I have an un-regulated agreement which is outside of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, as the amount of finance was over £ 25,000 (this area of law has now changed, in April 2008), Until that date the only recourse available was with the finance company and not with the dealer or manufacturer. Under the CCA 1974 they are all jointly liable.
Finance agreements are covered by the Supply of goods (implied terms) act 1973
You next point is to do with warranty. This was a brand new car. The warranty, as has been tested in the court of appeal, does not get the manufacturer, dealer or finance company of the hook as far as Section 10 of the Supply of goods implied terms act 1973 or section 14 of the sale of goods act.
If your vehicle had a defect and it was within the first six months or ownership, you can reject the vehicle. They will have to return all your money. That is the law under statute. After six months you have all sorts of other issues. Like proving the vehicle was defective.
Lesson. Any vehicle shows any sign of a serious problem, State you are considering your options about rejecting the vehicle. DO NOT GET fobbed off with (we'll sort this out for you sir, don't worry) If you're not happy say so verbally and in writing to all parties involved. Especially if you're near six months ownership. (used cars are slightly different in the nature of defects you can reject a car on)
My solicitor and barrister have now drafted the particulars of claim and these are being presented to court to issue the summons (to the finance company) this afternoon.
When this is all over I will make all the papers available to anyone interested.
(1)Except as provided by this section and section 11 below and subject to the provisions of any other enactment, including any enactment of the Parliament of Northern Ireland or the Northern Ireland Assembly, there is no implied [F2term] as to the quality or fitness for any particular purpose of goods bailed or (in Scotland) hired under a hire-purchase agreement.
[F3(2)Where the creditor bails or hires goods under a hire purchase agreement in the course of a business, there is an implied term that the goods supplied under the agreement are of satisfactory quality.
(2A)For the purposes of this Act, goods are of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking account of any description of the goods, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances.
(2B)For the purposes of this Act, the quality of goods includes their state and condition and the following (among others) are in appropriate cases aspects of the quality of goods—
(a)fitness for all the purposes for which goods of the kind in question are commonly supplied,
(b)appearance and finish,
(c)freedom from minor defects,
(d)safety, and
(e)durability.
(2C)The term implied by subsection (2) above does not extend to any matter making the quality of goods unsatisfactory—
(a)which is specifically drawn to the attention of the person to whom the goods are bailed or hired before the agreement is made,
(b)where that person examines the goods before the agreement is made, which that examination ought to reveal, or
(c)where the goods are bailed or hired by reference to a sample, which would have been apparent on a reasonable examination of the sample]
I need a comfier chair.I know it's not considered "kind" to say no these days, but no. Just no, ok? And if it's not ok, still no.
29th Jul 2009 4:47 pm
DG Site Moderator
Member Since: 12 Dec 2005
Location: The Gaff
Posts: 50952
I have to say wwf that you talk as though you are the first person to make such a claim against a manufacturer.
The 'facts' as you have displayed them here do not appear to indicate the normal course of process when rejecting a vehicle. There are you will appreciate hundreds of documented cases and relative advice on what you have to do to ensure your diligence in the process. I do not see any here.
Having said all of that ...you appear very confident and good luck to you
I just hope you aren't paying your briefs too much 21 year LR veteran > D2 GS 2003 > D3 S 2006 > D3 HSE 2009 > D4 HSE 2013 > D4 HSE 2015 > D5 HSE 2018 > DS HSE R-Dynamic P300e 2021
29th Jul 2009 8:04 pm
wwf
Member Since: 14 Jun 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 21
Hi DG.
I don't mean to sound as though I am the first - sorry if has come across that way. I have not found a lot of documented info on this area (there a a few subjects in case law I have seen and have copies of) although no records of normal county court actions. They appear not to be recorded, only appeal cases appear to get this treatment. They are a number of people I have come across that do not appear to know their rights. Also their are a number of misconceptions surrounding the finance agreements especially un-regulated ones.
I agree the issues surrounding my case are different - due to the finance agreement and the fact I was not aware of my rights until I contacted a solicitor and consumer direct.
Thanks for the best wishes.
At the moment my costs are covered by insurance.
30th Jul 2009 3:07 pm
wwf
Member Since: 14 Jun 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 21
UPDATE:-
June 2010
Several exchanges of letters, over many many weeks with Land Rover (distinct lack of) Customer Service, during those exchanges offers were made by both sides to settle /terminate the agreement, led to nowhere. The offers by Land rover fell well short of what would have been acceptable in the circumstances.
County court proceedings in the Kingston County Court, these proceeding were issued to the finance company FCE Bank PLC and only them as this was an unregulated HP agreement over £ 30,000. (The rules changed for agreement dated after April 2008).
After some lengthy discussions between my solicitor and their solicitors we were getting nowhere. The FCE Bank then appointed their own Expert and after that report ( I have never seen this, we never got to document exchanges )they came back with an offer to settle without going to court for a full hearing.
We have now come to a settlement that has been approved by the court, with a TOMLIN order with me having the agreement terminated as at the date I returned the vehicle and a refund of my additions to the vehicle and an element of compensation. They will also have to pay my legal costs. I hasten to add these were covered by home legal expenses policy (well worth the premium of circa £ 35.)
If anyone has a problem with a vehicle that is new then you must must take action and register your concerns with the dealer, and any finance company straight away.
I have lots of documentation and case law and a very good expert if anyone’s is having any issues or concerns and feels that what they have got is not what you believe you should have..
Every case is different but if you have a faulty new car then it’s more than likely the 2nd most expensive item you have ever bought so why settle for anything other than perfect, LR’s are not cheap cars and hold themselves to be a quality company (shame about their after sales customer care.Was an owner of a D3 until I sent it back.
Last edited by wwf on 26th Jun 2010 1:11 pm. Edited 1 time in total
26th Jun 2010 12:36 pm
countrywide
Member Since: 16 Sep 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 6019
I rejected a new car once , it was really easy as even the dealer said it was rubbish.
Got a new one 12 weeks later and they lent me a car for the duration. Actually worked better for me as the new one fell into the next year so when we sold it, it was a newer model.
26th Jun 2010 1:00 pm
phil2174
Member Since: 06 Jun 2010
Location: plymouth
Posts: 59
WELL DONE, I must admit it took b*lls to do what you did. Good to see you got a result you are happy with. Maybe if more people ( myself included ) took this course of action more manufacturers and stealers would offer better products/services
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
ing them off can actually harm your case. The supplier of the car may of course try to wash their hands of it, but in law they are contracted to supply you with a car in a reasonable condition, NOT a perfect car. Defects should be covered by a warranty, but it can be very hard work to get any money out of that particular bunch of sharks, and first contact with them normally has to be through the supplier. (In recent years I've had 
