xtattsbox wrote:

Jerry21, I think that you are going to have a fight, but they are talking . It is given away by the "good will payment" You can re read "good will payment" "trying to fob you off payment.

Firstly has the fault been linked to "weld splatter contamination in the steering gear piston tube". If it is and there is no way that it could have happened in the 6 weeks that it was in warranty. (AND it is a known fault) then LR are liable for the repair as it happened during the manufacturing process.

"Your rights when buying from a car dealer


When buying from a dealer, under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended) a car must be:

Of satisfactory quality. It must meet the standard a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, bearing in mind the way it was described, how much it cost, the make, the age, the history, the mileage, the intended usage of the car and any other relevant circumstances. Amongst other things, this covers the fitness, appearance and finish of the car, its safety and its durability. The car must be free from defects, except when they were pointed out to you by the seller before you agreed to buy it or where you have inspected the car and that inspection ought to have uncovered the car defects. Even where a car appears to have a minor defect, it may still be of unsatisfactory quality if that defect could lead to extensive damage or render the car dangerous to drive.

Also:
- It is not sufficient that a car is merely roadworthy and safe.
- The dealer may be liable for faults that were present at the time of sale, even though they may only become apparent later on.
- Dealers are not liable for fair wear and tear, where the car broke down through normal use. Nor are they liable for your misuse or accidental damage
As described. This covers all statements made about the car, whether in writing, in a conversation over the phone or in the showroom, in a newspaper, website, email or text, or in documentation. If the advert states "air conditioning and CD player" then the car should come with these features and they should be working.
Reasonably fit for any normal purpose. It should get you from A to B with the appropriate degree of comfort, ease of handling and reliability that a reasonable person would expect.
Reasonably fit for any other purpose you make known to the dealer. For example, if you require a vehicle for towing a caravan."

http://www.consumerdirect.gov.uk/before_yo...ars/dealer

They are liable for the costs, end of...

ad15 is observing what is - the jerry21 FL2 is out of warranty.

Diplomacy and discretion will reap greater reward in these circumstances (especially if you are not the original owner) than gung-ho belligerent flag waving the SOGA, which given the nature of the claim will be dismissed.

On the one hand you'll get your FL2 fixed and warranted at a fair discount (someone, if not you, has enjoyed the use of that part(s) for more than 3yrs) - one the other hand you risk the offer being withdrawn by LR.

Secure the offer. The fact that your own finances would be handicapped in these circumstances has no relevance in the appraisal of the merit of Land Rover's proposal.

However, I do wish for you the best possible outcome.

[/quote]
hmm, i disagree here,,

the sale of goods act does not cover for an indefinite amount of time,,, 3 years and 26000 miles is plenty of time,,, it';s not LR's fault that you have done low mileage,, the fact is if you'd done average or higher the issue may have become apparent sooner,,
eother way, it's not LR's problem to sort,,

however, they aARE offering 33%... i'd take it before it disappears all together, a warranty is a warranty,, 3 years is 3 years,,NOT 3 years and 6 weeks,, there has to be a line somewhere,,

i do feel for you i really do but trying to throw the SOGA at them i think will not work...[/quote]

The fundamental difference is that the issue with the car is a known fault and was there when the car was purchased. This IS NOT a warranty issue. The car that was sold was faulty. It has an inherent fault that has been recognised by Land Rover in that they have released a technical bulletin that enables them to repair it on cars that are still under warranty.

The important thing is that the car should be free from defects.

The Manufacturers Warranty has nothing to do with the Sale of Goods act and does not alleviate the dealer from their responsibilities under the sale of goods act.

In the 3 year period that the warranty is in place, they can back charge the costs to the manufacturer. BUT they are liable for the repair at all times. The fact that they can backcharge the costs is a benefit for the dealer.

Finally, 3 years and 26000 miles is plenty of time for what.... Sorry, the car was manufactured with a fault. The fact that the car is just out of warranty in neither here nor there. Hi Darling, I'll be home in 10 mins. If I'm not back, please read this message again...

a lot of valid points here, but my own view is that LR have a legal obligation within the three year warranty period and no legal obligation outwith this period.

outwith the three year period LR and/or the dealer may show goodwill/loyalty gestures at their discretion to maintain customer satisfaction, etc but legally they do not need to do this.

if it was me I would take the contribution to the repair and have the work done, then perhaps afterwards pursue LR for more compensation.

Iain

iain, completely agree with you..


xtattsbox,,, legally i think you're way off the mark,, the product has been free from defect for 3 years and 26000 miles,,,that is the warranty offered by LR,,, if you want a 5 year warranty then buy a hyundai...

you could say that it is a "known" fault that somewhere around 50,000 miles vw transporters waterpumps pack up... it's a known fact,, it happens to all of them, BUT if it happens in warranty, fine it's replaced,, if not,, then tough cheese..

it's also "known fact" that nissan navara clutches are not up to the job....outside warranty though,, you're on your own....

If you are correct and the car is out of warranty, therefore they have no liability (your logic. not mine) why have they offered to pay 33% of the costs. It is out of warranty. They shouldn't have to pay anything.

The manufacturers warranty has nothing to do with the sale of goods act.

Once a product is outside its warranty, it does not alleviate their (the seller, not the manufacturer) responsibilities under the sale of goods act. I had this with an iPod. It failed outside the warranty (3 years old). The guy in Currys said sorry nothing I can do. I spoke to the manager, and he was quite clear on the whole thing. If I wanted to pursue it, they would disassemble the unit and check to see if it had failed as the result of a manufacturing flaw, or wear and tear. If it was wear and tear, they could repair it, but I would be liable for the all associated costs.

If it was a flaw, they would be prepared to pay a reasonable percentage of the repair costs. He said that as the unit was 3 y.o and the life expectancy of computer equipment is 5 years, they would only pay about 2/5ths of the cost to repair the unit.

That was a reasonable interpretation of the sale of goods act. He did not walk away from his responsibilities, and as a result, I purchased a new iPod from the store.

Ok the car, it has done 26,000 miles and is 3 years old. It is out of it's manufacturers warranty, so that means that the car is now at the end of its reasonable life? Erm no... It has a manufacturing fault that has caused the premature failure of a part. As such the dealer, assuming that it is them who sold the car is liable for a reasonable % of the repair. 33% is not reasonable.

The reasonable period of time, for the sale of goods act is 6 years. Hi Darling, I'll be home in 10 mins. If I'm not back, please read this message again...

I think everyone is sympathetic to the problem, but in reality sticking out for a full cost refund is probably a non starter unless you start a small claim court action and even then........., On the other hand taking 33% towards the cost is on the table. LR probably think they are being decent about that. I'd take it before it expires or as someone says, LR get hacked off with your attitude.

I can see both points of view, butv all I'd say is that if the problem was as bad as what you say, period, it would require a recall of all effected vehicles, so there must be a caveat to the identified problem. One thing is for sure, it wont be clear cut, so.....

It seems all we are discussing recently are Injustices and this does seem like another one-
The little guy taking on the big corporation aside from the warranty length issue you should expect goods to last a reasonable lifetime but.....

I'd ask em if they'd do 50% then put it to bed (personally)

Not fit for the purpose for which it was sold. LRs responsibility, simple. Guarantee periods are irrelevant in this instance.

Yeh, But try telling them that, That's what I have been saying.