Thanks. So ACF50 as an alternative to the Waxoyl?

Equally it raises the question, that, if the supposition is correct, is how many other vehicles from the main dealer are also thus damaged?
.
Kind regards from Fred
. 2010GS Auto ex Celeb, Santorini Black, 2011 facelift , spoiler, spats, mudflaps, LED footwell lamps, Witter detach,
Other cars:-
1958 & 1959 Austin J40 Pedal Cars under restoration (I make many J40 parts)
If you have an Austin J40 or Pathfinder Pedal Car looking for a new home pls PM me.
2009 Meriva

Quite. What I don't know of course is whether the dealer did it or the previous owner..

I've emailed the dealer without a reply yet. I'm not sure where I stand, disregarding the fact for the moment that I've only just noticed it, 8 weeks after sale.

The vehicle has a 1 year LR warranty but I'm guessing this is a Sale Of Goods Act type claim, against the dealer?

Depending on what the supplying dealer says I think I'll take it to my local LR dealer for a corrosion inspection and estimate to put right.

le bouch wrote:

Thanks. So ACF50 as an alternative to the Waxoyl?

Waxoyl doesn't affect electrics. It's oil based and oil is an insulator. All mains transformers bringing g power to your house are full of oil ; if you opened up your automatic gearbox you would see lots if wiring and switches --- all running in --- oil
.
Back to the start position of this post.
There may be benefit of talking to your solicitor about returning your car and a full refund.
.
Kind regards from Fred
.

Got a reply from the dealer today..

I have asked to return the car for a refund.


"It may be worth popping into your local dealer to see if their warranty guy can cover any of the damage under warranty."


At least they're acknowledging there is a problem.

I wonder.............did you select the car from an internet search that might have included photos? did you save any photos?
.
I do hope that you can resolve matters.
.
Kind regards from Fred

I did select it from photos - all external. Took the train from the south coast up to Carlisle, paid then drove it home. Didn't even lift the bonnet

Last edited by le bouch on 25th Mar 2014 6:49 pm. Edited 1 time in total

For info, I spent the morning at my local LR dealer and took photos of a comparable year/model/mileage car.

Quite a difference. I have requested my money back from the dealer.

Maybe it was previously used to put boats in / out of the sea ? Anyway, if you get no joy them spray it all with ACF-50 which is far superior to waxoil. Read up on ACF-50 it is a great product and works best after you have sat the spray tin in a bowl of hot water for 15 - 20 minutes.  FL2 HSE Auto Galway Green
Evoque SD4 Auto Blue.
FL1 HSE TD4 Manual Black - Gone.
RR Classic V8 EFI - Gone

Evening. Only just noticed this post and I do find it most intriguing. I will keep an eye on how this develops and one thing that is crucial is to keep everything in writing. If they make promises over the phone, demand it in a letter or an email.

The one issue to be aware of is that (especially with it being a used car) is that the dealer should be given chance to repair the fault. On the other hand you have the benefit of it being a supposedly approved LR vehicle and having had it less than 6 months.

The Sale of Goods Act does contain a caveat in S.14(2)(c) as follows:

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 buyer’s attention before the contract is made,

(b)where the buyer examines the goods before the contract is made, which that examination ought to reveal,

Did you place a deposit, however small, before you saw the vehicle in the flesh? If not, did you look under the bonnet before placing the deposit?

If you did not look under the bonnet before purchase then they may argue that you should have done. I would argue that the big claims of the approved programme could lead a customer to have peace of mind to such a degree as to deem such an inspection as unnecessary.

Many factors to consider but happy to assist further with legal queries if needed  LL.B (Hons) - University of Derby
LOT (Lord of Time) - University of Gallifrey

Just done a bit of research in my mind palace and on my Uni case law database

Tread carefully when claiming rejection and refund. Each case is judged on its own facts but my gut feeling is that the dealer should be allowed a chance to repair it. As seen in the below authority, time taken in requesting repairs is not to be counted.


Clegg v Andersson (t/a Nordic Marine) [2003] EWCA Civ 320

With regard to the deemed acceptance provision in s.35(4), the Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994 had altered the law with regard to the correct approach to the lapse of reasonable time. Consequently, the time taken to effect modification or repair was to be taken into account in resolving questions of fact arising under s.35(4), Bernstein v Pamson Motors (Golders Green) Ltd [1987] 2 All E.R. 220 disapproved.


In Clegg v Andersson T/A Nordic Marine, speaking of Bernstein, Sir Andrew Morritt VC said: "As the judge acknowledged that decision has been criticised 104 LQR 18. Further it was based on the terms of s.35 before amendment by the Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994. It is unnecessary to express a view as to whether the decision of Rougier J was correct before the amendment to s.35 effected by Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994. In my view it does not represent the law now. As originally enacted s.35(1) provided that a buyer was deemed to have accepted goods, inter alia, “when after the lapse of a reasonable time he retains the goods without intimating to the seller that he has rejected them”. S.59 provided then, as it does now, that what is a reasonable time is a question of fact. The material difference arises from the removal of that part of subsection (1) to subsection (4) and the addition of subsections (5) and (6). Thus subsection (5) provides that whether or not the buyer has had a reasonable time to inspect the goods is only one of the questions to be answered in ascertaining whether there has been acceptance in accordance with subsection (4). Subsection (6)(a) shows that time taken merely in requesting or agreeing to repairs, and, I would hold, for carrying them out, is not to be counted." LL.B (Hons) - University of Derby
LOT (Lord of Time) - University of Gallifrey

Hi.

Thanks so much for your help here.

In answer, the deal was agreed over the phone - I also paid a £500 deposit via credit card. A few days later we travelled from Sussex to Carlisle and paid the balance via debit card. Our inspection of the vehicle consisted of a walk-around, look inside and verbal instruction from the dealer re the controls. The bonnet was NOT lifted. We were at the dealer for about 45 minutes.

I feel silly for not examining the engine bay but TBH was swayed a little by the whole 'dealer experience' and in my defence, where do you draw the line? Lift the bonnet? Get on the ground and look underneath? Ask for the car to go on ramps? Would I even know what I was looking for? In essence, I trusted them that this was a 'good car' - there were zero faults disclosed to me.

I appreciate that they should be given a chance to make good but I do worry that any 'repair' would be cosmetic and not address the problem. I do really like the car and spent ages finding it but in my mind the whole purchase has been spoiled - it wasn't cheap (£14.5k) and I am minded to pursue reject / refund. The whole reason I specifically bought from a Land Rover dealer was to avoid this kind of thing - it certainly wasn't to save money.

I wonder if you could put into layman's terms the implication of the stated case you quoted with regard to my situation?

Thanks so much again.

Not lifting the bonnet was a mistake but when you have the salesman waffling all the good stuff in your ear mistakes do happen,it's a main dealer they should sort your problem out.

I am off to work shortly so I can't go into great detail but I can give a quick reply. Firstly, I see why you would want a refund but I was advising caution as there is no strict right to one over a repair so a court may not agree with you.

However, you are within 6 months of purchase which helps and you stated rejection upon becoming aware of the problem which may also help. I would advise you to print off the approved LR benefits because I would agree about where you draw the line. In my opinion it isn't reasonable to expect an under bonnet inspection by the customer when dealing with an approved vehicle. Also in your favour is the fact that you paid before seeing the goods because the caveat in SOGA I mentioned above does not apply. You entered into the contract before seeing the goods.

The case I mentioned is basically saying that if you give the dealer a chance to repair it and they fail so you reject it, they cannot count the time spent requesting repairs or trying to do the repairs as time elapsed when arguing that you have had the car too long before claiming rejection.

The dealer may argue that you cannot reject on that issue because the car is otherwise ok. But in Rogers v Parish, numerous attempts had been made by the seller to repair many faults on a new Range Rover (I know the car in question here is used but the principle applies). They argued that Rogers had no right to reject the car because it was road worthy and could be used etc. The court held, that where goods as delivered are defective, they are not of merchantable quality and do not become so simply because they are capable of being used in some way. LL.B (Hons) - University of Derby
LOT (Lord of Time) - University of Gallifrey