Jaguar Won't Take Responsibility for Design Fault

[king12345]

All well and good Bankfodder, but you can't scream CRA at a dealer who sold you a car 6 months ago and expect them to jump at your orders.

 

I am well against rogue traders, but in this instance we need to look at the dealer side as well.

They will inevitably deny that there's an inherent fault, that's why I suggested to make a video recording of it.

Also, they don't know what has happened to the car.

 

They have been told that the wipers pump flooded the interiors and some electric, but some smart boys could make this up after leaving the car near a river and getting flooded.

 

They have to verify the fault first, correct?

I believe you've already been told about this on another thread and eventually had to agree.

If you don't take the car to them, how are they going to verify the fault?

And if they collect the car at their expense and find that it's not an inherent fault, are they going to be at a loss?

 

By all means, some good garages would collect the car and do an inspection warning the owner that if there's no inherent fault this service would be charged, but many don't like being in credit.

Hence I suggested to take the car there.

This is not submission,  it's common sense.

 

Think about the potential court case:

their defence would simply be "we have not been given the opportunity to inspect the vehicle".

 

As you know I'm the last one to stick up for car dealers, but in this instance i think you're jumping a few steps.

That bulletin is very good evidence that transport, inspection and repairs will most likely be paid by jaguar or be part of the civil claim.

But in all honesty, Jaguar and the dealer have no leg to stand on  given the opportunity to inspect the vehicle. 

[BankFodder]

Well in that case I think that I am jumping the gun a bit.

I hadn't understood this but still it's a good thing that you sent the letter within six months.

I think that you should probably now write them a slightly more conciliatory letter but start off by telling them that as you have now asserted your right to reject under the consumer rights act, your true interest is in having the vehicle repaired (if that is correct) and that you want to know what arrangements they are proposing to make to collect the vehicle and to repair it and then to return it to you.

As I say, keep the letter very conciliatory but I would then follow it up with a phone call in a few days time to follow up and to ask them what is going to happen because the vehicle cannot be driven and you need it.

Once you understand what their reaction is, we can then decide what attitude to take.

[BankFodder]

13 hours ago, king12345 said:

All well and good Bankfodder, but you can't scream CRA at a dealer who sold you a car 6 months ago and expect them to jump at your orders.

I am well against rogue traders, but in this instance we need to look at the dealer side as well.

They will inevitably deny that there's an inherent fault, that's why I suggested to make a video recording of it.

Also, they don't know what has happened to the car.

They have been told that the wipers pump flooded the interiors and some electric, but some smart boys could make this up after leaving the car near a river and getting flooded.

They have to verify the fault first, correct?

I believe you've already been told about this on another thread and eventually had to agree.

If you don't take the car to them, how are they going to verify the fault?

And if they collect the car at their expense and find that it's not an inherent fault, are they going to be at a loss?

By all means, some good garages would collect the car and do an inspection warning the owner that if there's no inherent fault this service would be charged, but many don't like being in credit.

Hence I suggested to take the car there.

This is not submission,  it's common sense.

Think about the potential court case: their defence would simply be "we have not been given the opportunity to inspect the vehicle".

As you know I'm the last one to stick up for car dealers, but in this instance i think you're jumping a few steps.

That bulletin is very good evidence that transport, inspection and repairs will most likely be paid by jaguar or be part of the civil claim.

But in all honesty, Jaguar and the dealer have no leg to stand on  given the opportunity to inspect the vehicle. 

 

In fact none of this is relevant because we have just learnt that there has been no prior communication with the dealer at all. I have to criticise the OP for this. It should have been the first port of call and it seems extraordinary to me that he didn't immediately contact the seller of the vehicle and let them know what has happened.

This is definitely the wrong approach. I may be aggressive about these things  but I'm not necessarily conflict oriented if there is a cooperative dealer who respects consumer rights. I had assumed that as the OP was now contacting Jaguar direct, that he had already made overtures to the seller and had been rebuffed. I now understand that this assumption was completely wrong.

[spinningfish]

In fairness to myself, I didn't contact the original seller first, as I didn't realise I had any right to do so.

 

The car was sold with three months free warranty and I thought that was my lot, hence getting in contact with my local Jaguar dealership first.

 

Huge apologies for any confusion.

[BankFodder]

I think what you have said bears out everything that I said earlier about how the these three months or 12 months warranty is et cetera eventually reduces consumers awareness of their very powerful statutory rights in this country and finally produces a consumer culture which has very minimal expectations of any transaction. You can read what I wrote about this a few years ago when I was looking at extended warranties – follow the link.

I hope that you will now understand that you have powerful statutory rights which render most of the other promises that you are given by any seller completely redundant. I hope you will now understand that when you make a contract with somebody, it is that contracting party who is responsible for all of the obligations they undertake towards you. They can't shift responsibility to 1/3 party – even though sometimes it might be more convenient to do so but in the event of any problems, the buck stops with the seller.

Don't be swayed by three month warranties or extended warranties or 12 month warranties – they are meaningless and they are just a confidence trick.

I've looked at the website of GCS and it concerns me that there don't appear to be any terms and conditions at all and certainly no reference to your statutory rights. When I see this kind of essential information missing from any business website, it rings alarm bells for me and it makes me think that they don't really want you to know your rights might be.

It looks as if it has worked very well with you

[spinningfish]

Exactly. I had absolutely no idea I had any recourse, hence me immediately turning to Jaguar.

[spinningfish]

Afternoon guys.

 

Just received the following from the dealer I purchased from:

 

Dear Mr Fish.

 

Sorry to hear you are experiencing problems with your car.

 

Unfortunately my contract of sale on this vehicle is with CarMoney Ltd and any issues or complaints will have to come from them. You can contact CarMoney on 0333 4564550 you will need your finance reference number for security.

 

Kind regards
David Wickes
GCS Cars Ltd

[BankFodder]

Is this a purchase or a hire purchase?

[king12345]

Where did you buy ghe car from?

I mean, what does your sale receipt says?

GCS or Car Money?

[spinningfish]

Dear All

Firstly, please accept my apologies for the lack of contact. I've been working in the Middle East for the last month and for whatever reason CAG was blocked on my hotel WiFi.

So, you don't have to go through the whole thread again, here's a brief summary...

Bought Jaguar XF from dealer on 16th February 2019 via finance arranged through CarMoney Ltd.

Car failed entirely on the 5th August 2019 due to the long-term ingress of water into the Central Junction Box, corroding everything.

Sent CRA letter to the dealership on August 14th 2019 - within six-months of purchase. Dealer eventually responded on 19th August 2019 stating that his receipt was with CarMoney Ltd and they had to deal with it.

Emailed CarMoney on 19th August 2019 to state problem. No response. Flew to Middle East on 20th. Tried to ring CarMoney from Middle East, but number wouldn't work from there. Emailed CarMoney again on the 23rd August 2019. Again no response.

In the meantime, got car taken into local Jaguar dealership for inspection and diagnostic. Report and breakdown of costs below:

"Hi Mr Fish,
 
The technician has checked the vehicle for the electrical failure faults which lead him to the central junction box located on the osf of the vehicle, carried out visual inspection and identified connector C3BP01G (BLUE) excessively corroded and internal Central junction box connection point corroded and in unserviceable condition, repair requires new engine harness and central junction box to repair, we suspect the corrosion has been caused by capillary effect from the washer pump unit, we would also replace the pump and level sensor as part of the repair.

The breakdown is as follows:
 
Labour 13.1 hours at the warranty rate of £86.85 total £1135.12
 
Parts required for repair:
 
Fuse box £331.82
Pump £63.45
Sensor £14.87
Harness £806.26
Total for parts at warranty rate £1216.40
 
Total including VAT £2821.82.
 
Regards 
 
Daniel Jacques
Jaguar Service Manager"
 

Arrived back from Middle East on Sunday 15th September 2019. Call CarMoney who haven't received my email because they have a spam filter that blocks "info@" email addresses. Of course, mine is an "info@" email address. Sent the email trail to show I had emailed them and they called me yesterday to say they would honour the six-months, because of the problems I'd been having emailing. Marvellous. Or so I thought...

The nice chap at CarMoney said I would now have to notify the finance company, Oodle. They are just the broker. Right. Sent the whole email trail again. Explained that I'd served my CRA to the dealer within six-months. Dealer said contact CarMoney etc etc.

No response, so have called Oodle this evening to be told that my claim is outside of the six-months. I explained that I'd contacted the dealer etc and problems emailing CarMoney etc. Sorry, can't help. Outside of six-months. Apparently they would have offered me a courtesy car too.

They have advised me that I need to buy an independent assessment of my car from a company called ACE UK, who perform vehicle examinations and will be able to ascertain whether the problem existed when the car was sold. Apparently they won't accept Jaguar's report!! I've Googled ACE and am less than impressed with the views.

So, my wife and kids have now been without the car for almost six-weeks now and I'm so confused as to my rights and whether I even have any anymore.

Sorry to go on, but I'm so depressed with the whole saga.

Thanks for all your help.
 

[dx100uk]

consumer rights act is against the retailer regardless to how the purchase was financed.

It is customary to involve the finance co, as if it Hire Purchase agreement??? [you haven't answered that to date? ] they might help out.

 

but as they are not and just fobbing you off elsewhere who say , haha you got to us too late....you revert to the retailer.

 

the comment:

Dealer eventually responded on 19th August 2019 stating that his receipt was with CarMoney Ltd and they had to deal with it.

is WRONG.

 

I would also update jaguar as they advised earlier.

you might well be surprised.

 

for whatever reason I know a jaguar specialist rather well. just asked your question..

reply:

dear xxxxxx [DX]

repairs for the failure of the screen pump seal are very common and 9/10 are directly funded and completely by jaguar themselves without question once they have our report...hope that helps..regards...xxxxxxx

 

the other point that seems to have been overlooked..??

you part paid for this car by credit card.

that makes the credit card company are equally liable under section 75 of the Consumer credits act too.?

 

 

 

 

 

[spinningfish]

Good Morning DX

Thanks for your reply.

So, firstly, yes it is a Hire Purchase agreement. I have checked the contract this morning. And yes, they are fobbing me off with the nonsense about independent inspections etc, when the onus is on the retailer to prove the fault wasn't there at point of sale.

So, the retailer has misinformed me regarding him only being able to deal with CarMoney?! I'm fuming about that. My family have had no car for weeks on that pretence.

I did go to Jaguar first actually, as I didn't realise my rights, and despite the report, they only offered to pay for 25% of the repair cost as a 'goodwill gesture'.

So, should I now correct my finance company, the dealer and write to the Credit Card Company?

Many thanks!!

[spinningfish]

10 hours ago, dx100uk said:

 

the other point that seems to have been overlooked..??

you part paid for this car by credit card.

that makes the credit card company are equally liable under section 75 of the Consumer credits act too.?

 

 

 

Just a point I've seen on Martin Lewis' website seems to suggest that Section 75 doesn't apply on a HP Agreement:

 

"Hire purchase is not covered under Section 75, though the redress process is similar. If you have a complaint about something you bought using HP, try to resolve it with the supplier. It has obligations under the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act to ensure that the goods are of satisfactory quality, and as described.

If you can't resolve the complaint with the supplier, try the finance provider (the company you're making repayments to). It's also bound under the same Act to make things right with you, though what that actually means will depend on your complaint. If you're still not satisfied, you can take your complaint to the Financial Ombudsman."

 

[AndyOrch]

Correct.....Hire purchase agreements are consumer credit contracts that give the consumer the right – but not the obligation – to buy the goods at the end of the hire purchase term. Section 75 does not apply to hire purchase.

 

However, the FOS will consider all claims from consumers for faulty goods, not fit for purpose or not as described. At the end of the process you can still sue the company concerned, especially if you feel that severe damages should be awarded.

 

Andy

[spinningfish]

Thanks Andy.

And as far as you can say, is the dealer misleading me by stating that he could only deal with CarMoney when I sent him the CRA 2015 letter, within the six-months?

[dx100uk]

On February 16th 2019, I purchased the car from a general car dealer - GCS Cars in Thrapston. Paid partly by credit card, with the remainder on finance.

…..

 

don't think the fact that the remainder was HP nulls the fact that part was paid by credit card, thus giving you protection under section 75?

 

[AndyOrch]

No because your not buying..its not a purchase and was used as a deposit/part payment....your not buying on a HP agreement.

[spinningfish]

I've just had this emailed from CarMoney. I'm so confused, I really don't know what I'm supposed to be doing and with whom.

"Apologies for the delay in response. I have spoken to Oodle regarding the complaint and unfortunatly, they would require an independent report to be carried out on the vehicle. The burden of proof would lie with yourself.
 
I can certainly help by giving you the details of Scotia, who is the company that we use."

 

Everything I've read says that I did the right thing by exercising my rights under the CRA 2015 with the dealer. That was done within the six-months, so the burden of proof should be on the dealer still? Or am I completely wrong??

Edited September 19, 2019 by spinningfish

[dx100uk]

you already have one.

 

dx

 

[AndyOrch]

The burden of proof would lie with yourself.

 

Im not sure about that ....the burden of proof I would assume is between the HP Company and the dealer ? The vehicle is not your property ...yet.

[spinningfish]

9 minutes ago, dx100uk said:

you already have one.

 

dx

 

Exactly what I told them. Apparently their inspection will determine whether the fault was there at the point of sale... 

[dx100uk]

cause it will they have a time machine too!

 

[spinningfish]

Hahaha!!

 

Oh, DX, what the heck do I do? Direct to dealer?

Tell finance company it's within six months, so onus is on dealer to prove?

 

Help!!

[spinningfish]

On 19/08/2019 at 13:51, BankFodder said:

Is this a purchase or a hire purchase?

HP

[Chuffnut]

15 hours ago, Andyorch said:

The burden of proof would lie with yourself.

 

Im not sure about that ....the burden of proof I would assume is between the HP Company and the dealer ? The vehicle is not your property ...yet.

I think this is where the confusion is arising. Because the dealer sold the car to the finance company, that is a business to business transaction, the CRA is redundant in that transaction. I think the OP has a contract with the finance company, oodle. It’s oodles responsibility to the op to provide a car that meets the criteria under the CRA. 

 

The burden of responsibility rests with the op to prove to oodle the fault was inherent at the point of sale. Which will be impossible i’d say.  

 

Unless i’m mistaken, the contract is with oodle, not the dealer.