You're quite right Bankfodder. It would be a great help if we knew what vehicle it was, how old and how many miles. None of this is stated. If the car is relatively new and a diesel especially within the new EU6 emissions regulations you will get funny smells from the usual. Totally miffed with the diagnosis. I reckon on the balance of probability the car might actually be performing as it should.

Actually if you have charged the battery overnight and it only reads 12.55 after charging then the battery is faulty. The minimum it should read after charging ( and a surface charge reading, which you do by turning on headlights on full beam for 3 seconds usually) is 13.6 Volts.

On balance I think the battery is faulty. The starter motor relies on volts plus amps with the driving force being the volts so if the volts are low and you have a set resistance in the starter you'll get a higher amp which will blow the fuse.

I was caught out on a Saxo by this 10 years ago.

windscreen wipers controlled by ecu….

Perhaps the laughter could backfire on you DX. It depends on the definition of ECU and since the early 2000's most cars have wipers controlled by an ECU. ECU is an electronic control unit. If the OP could indicate what age and what the car is it might be possible to identify what is going on. From that it should be possible to determine if the fault lies in the BCM ( which is also an ECU) the CJB ( not an ECU) or something more basic, such as a CAN or LAN line or even with a LIN line fault which is usually linked to a connector fault.

If you think an ECU is an engine control unit then you're about 15 years out of date as this is now a PCM.

If the OP could state what age and car it is, it would be possible to guide the OP to the correct way to sort the problem and then it would be possible to determine what sort of recompense may or not be available to pursue.

Wherever possible OP's should also include DTC's recorded as this can guide the correct sort of advice.

you dont say what the car is, how old it is and how many miles on the clock. £18.5k is a lot of money but it is relative so a car that was £100k new and has been thrashed it isnt a lot and faults to be expected. More detail on what is wrong would also be helpful, certain things can just go like clutch but others will give a warning they are on the way out and a dealer should know the signs.

Quite right ericsbrother. As usual the site team steam in. It could be a Range Rover Evoque, Sport or Range Rover. Doubt it would be a Velar at this price. OP needs to state exactly which Range Rover it is, age and mileage and service history. I know the Evoque has had problem with the Haldex. If the car has a full service history they might get some recourse through the dealer network if approached in the correct way. The rear drive unit also suffers from contamination with left over machinings and water ingress.

An independant dealer won't know this unless they subscribe to the Land Rover Technical Bulletin scheme. I would suggest the best course of action is for the OP to state exactly what the car is and for the site team to ask the same said questions before steaming in with the tiresome legal advice where proper experts can give an opinion as to the fault and let the OP get his car fixed. This approach has been very successful in the past especially with VW 3 cylinder heads.

It totally negates having to go through the courts.

People need to bear in mind that a car is bought for a reason and even new ones go wrong but to steam in with what some site members post will just get the vendors back up which is not helpful to the OP in sorting out the issue though is correct in legal rights but not law.

No doubt this post will be censured or deleted as usual.

You need to be clear here, Jaguar don't own the dealership. It seems the dispute is with the dealership, which the contract is with. I'd be interested about the discount though as something makes me think there is something wrong here. Reading all the posts suggests it's not Jaguar whose at fault but the dealership which is where the complaint should lye.

Jaguar seems to be supporting the dealer by saying they've done the right things but have not offered a solution as of yet???

I agree with all three points and regardless of what happens next I'm unlike to enable the collision detection again, possibly explains why its disabled by default.

 

But in principle why are customers buying products that are potentially unsafe and are then not using or disabling them?

I really don't know, some of these systems are brilliant such as lane departure, parking aid sensors but AEB I just don't get like I don't get auto dip. Frequently calibrated incorrectly and for the wrong markets. It's not enhancing the driving experience but taking control of human intervention. Good technology introductions such as Sat Nav, ABS, EBS Adaptive dampers, SOS are all good features along with many others but those which take away driver interaction cannot be good for anyone.

A job card is not a legal requirement

Actually it is as neither you or the garage have a legally binding contract otherwise which is why it's a 50/50 settlement.

"When choosing a garage, if you have an option, go on recommendation or use a garage that is a member of a trade association - this garage was not recommended or a member of a trade association so that left me high and dry".

Either way, it wouldn't have resulted in any other outcome. Get a job card signed and it's then clear cut!!

no the sensors aren't adjustable, they're calibrated during original manufacture.

It's a radar based system.

dirt on the sensors can cause a problem.

I think JLR cars follow the same procedure as its German rivals for a service calibration but it's not an easy process.

Personally when I'm using cars equipped with this I turn it off as

1. I think the technology is not mature enough and

2. I'd rather rely on my driving ability plus

3 if you're in a situation to use it you've probably done something to get you in that situation!

Not necessarily. I did point out this was a 50/50 case but you've done the right thing.

Possibly a lesson learnt here for everyone in that when you take your car to a garage ensure you sign a job card as to what you want and what is required. It's a legal requirement! It also puts an end to any dispute as the instructions are clear cut!

Probably hasn't read the owners manual or understands the how the system works. These systems need to be kept clean all the times so if the OP hasn't washed the car it will flag up errors. Then the car goes into a dealer who does a courtesy wash and all is then well so the dealer can't find out what's wrong. Seen this so many times on BMW and Mercs!!!

True bankfodder but if he sold 1 ice cream van a month then then he would be classed as a trader in ice cream vans wouldn't he.

Well here's a start.

https://www.autotrader.co.uk/sell-my-car/frequently-asked-questions/trade-seller

And here's another perhaps a bit more informative.

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=23&t=1085769

Whilst neither is official it does suggest that over 6 cars in a year and the sellar would be considered a trader.

And here as well:

http://www.tradingstandardswales.org.uk/prosecutions/2015JanMerthyr.cfm

Now this article is interesting as it implies a sale of approximately once a month is considered a trader as I originally pointed out and is a report on an official trading standards case.

I think from a legal point of view is that if the same said person can be proved to have sold more than 6 vehicles over 6 months then they are deemed to be a trader. I can't remember the exact numbers that trigger it.

That's a very sensible and accurate answer to my point.

For example, If a major retailer sold for example a TV, would you expect a replacement TV whilst it's repaired?

Under warranty terms and conditions there is a right to repair but no entitlement to temporary replacement goods.

If you read Heliosuk's post properly you will see that he is differentiating between manufacturer's warranty which is governed by European legislation which PERMITS non dealership servicing to the manufacturer's criteria and does not invalidate the warranty.

 

After the expiration of that 12 month MANDATORY warranty, any further period, even offered by the franchise, is based on an insurance policy, the underwriter of which can set its own conditions.

 

This is seperate to the CRA rights which we all agree override ANY warranty whether Manufacturer or extended and is pursued against the selling dealer, not the manufacturer.

Perhaps based on this the ill informed Bankfodder might like to reconsider his ill informed decision to censure me for this post and consider his contributions to this part of the forum as obviously is extremely weak in this area. Automotive is a very subjective area of the law which I unfortunately have to deal with and intervene world wide on a regular basis at the highest levels. Higher even than basic consumer law come to that but I doubt he will.

In fact, whilst my posts are factual, his are not and are frankly libellous.

Errrr, no. By definition courtesy car means courtesy, and on a used 3 year old car? Even with a new car you wouldn't entitled to one.

Courtesy cars are what the name implies, courtesy.

Of course there are some areas of this forum who would advocate suing them.

No no no.

As usual people who don't know what they are talking about are giving miss leading advice.

Manufacturers warrant the car for 12 months from new, after that any warranty is down to an insurance policy which has very strict stipulations as to the servicing requirements.

It is wrong to give advice that you can use anyone for servicing after the manufacturers warranty has expired.

The first year is very different from subsequent years

I'd appreciate it if the [removed] attitude of some of the site team would read up on this so they would actually calm down and realise that their comments can lead to grave disappointment. !!!!

Very unlikely to be honest, your case isn't exactly watertight in a lot of aspects. What action do you expect trading standards to take and why?

And the question in a nutshell is???

Couldn't agree more with some of the later posts. There are posters on here that give good and sound advice and are experts in their field.

Frankly, and as usual on this site, people who don't know the in's and outs are getting involved and those that do get their posts clipped, edited or deleted. No doubt this one will be too. however, whilst you have a point with a fault your attitude is not going to help you. Frankly given the nature of the fault, it's not a major issue and does not prevent the use of the car.

Can't see why you're being so aggressive as you obviously know nothing about cars.

It would help immensely if OP's stated what car and mileage!! From your description it could be a lawn mower.

Totally agree Oddjob, Bank fodder owns this site and controls it and if he or any or any other members of his site team disagree with opinion voiced then it tends to be moved or deleted. But then hey ho, who are we , or what position are we in to question a dictatorship? It would be nice to know how much he earns out of it too!

Both you and I have pointed out we agree the OP is entitled to the deposit back (something he seems to have missed) but what we are both pointing out is that a failure to disclose a material known fact on a pre executed contract allows parties to withdraw from that contract and at point of execution!

To be honest, the reason this site is getting quieter is:

1. Because of the above

2. The lack of credibility in some of the responses. Especially from the site team.

3. The lack of detail in the original question asked.

And the dealers response could be:

Yes we admit that happened but subsequent due diligence checks prior to execution of the contract showed up material facts which had been deliberately withheld. We contend that this was done with intent to defraud.

How do you intend to get out of that?

At last, people are beginning to see the point. Yes I believe you should be entitled to the deposit back which I have previously stated but what were the terms and conditions of the trade in. The OP has admitted he omitted the fact it was a Cat D write off which has a material fact on the contract. I think this is another case where the issue is being egged on which will lead to tears.

For the £500 involved I'd be walking away and putting down to experience at the moment. It just isn't worth the risk! Morally I think the dealer should reimburse as I have previously stated but then again, morally you should have disclosed the status of the car at the time. At the time of contract you knowingly did not disclose a material fact and there is no escaping that irrespective of what bankfodder says.