Jaguar Land Rover Limited, Registered Office, Abbey Road, Whitley, Coventry CV3 4LF
and Guy Salmon Jaguar Northampton, Jaguar House, Abington Square, Kettering Road, Northampton, NN1 4AJ
We are rejecting the Jaguar F Pace you sold us.
Rejection is made under the following legislation:
• The Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002,
• EU Directive 1999/44/EU,
• Clauses 48A to 48F, the Sale of Goods Act in April 2003,
• The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations May 2008 (CPRs),
• The Consumer Rights Act of October 2015,
• Clegg v Olle Andersson,
• The European Convention on Human Rights - including Disproportionate Interference and Infringement to Peaceful Enjoyment of Property,
• Health and Safety Legislation.
Defects in product manufacturing, quality control, product design led to water repeatedly leaking through the panoramic roof into the car. This became apparent because our light oyster headlining became marked. You repeatedly failed to rectify despite you being alerted a long time ago.
Serious and substantial corrosion of the roof structure then ensued with this new vehicle, weakening the strength of the roof and the underlying safety of the vehicle.
You have been given multiple opportunities to rectify matters. You have repeatedly failed. You have repeatedly procrastinated over rectification which has not been completed in a reasonable time frame. Things have not been to our satisfaction. The problems remain unresolved.
You have repeatedly misled us. You have been unable to source "appropriate" parts. There remains repeated slippage and no indication how long matters will remain unresolved.
Both Jaguar Land Rover and Sytner have deliberately and illegally sought to shirk legal responsibilities. You have both frustrated our Statutory Rights which you are both blatantly seeking to deny.
All these matters warrant publicity on the Public Interest grounds, for the protection of consumers.
Ours is not an isolated case; we keep reading about others' rejecting their Jaguar F Pace vehicles.
You have unreasonably sought to revoke manufacturer guarantees and warranties for us, and you additionally refuse to provide full manufacturer warranties for our rectification work.
Jaguar is supposed to be 'prestige'. Our top of the range Portfolio F Pace has been in pieces for a very long time. We are not prepared to suffer depreciation. We are not prepared to accept infringements to enjoyment of our property, our assets and our monetary investment in this defective F Pace.
You are also denying us access to our vehicle and to our personal belongings.
You supplied an inadequate E Pace loan car which is damaging both of our health conditions. And you have stipulated unreasonable controls over where the loan car can be driven. This is causing further detrimental effect on my wife preventing from her from being able to travel to obtain specialist healthcare abroad for her disabilities. We could travel in our F Pace but you have our car in pieces.
Other defects have been found with our F Pace which you have also failed to rectify.
All these defects are owing to faulty manufacture, and manufacturing defects. Rejection is also made on the grounds of poor quality and finish of materials that have undermined our use and enjoyment of our F Pace.
It is not our responsibility to bear costs for your failures. Despite you previously being told of our intention to reject our F Pace, you have failed to address matters despite repeated requests. We have been very patient with you. Too much patience has endured by us over long periods of time.
We do not trust you or our F Pace's structural integrity. You have no integrity.
Our F Pace is structurally unsound. It is still in pieces due to underlying manufacturing defects causing premature corrosion to the roof. Had we wanted a car without a roof, we would have bought one and not a Jaguar F Pace. Where in your advertising does it state a F Pace is a car without a working roof?
Rather than deal with matters you resorted to gimmicks and promises - all of which you have broken.
We are rejecting our F Pace. We will not accept any attempt to return it.
You cannot reject the rejection of our vehicle. The Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002, is derived from EU Directive 1999/44/EU which became Clauses 48A to 48F inclusive of the Sale of Goods Act in April 2003.
This reverses the burden of proof so that if goods are faulty, it is deemed they were faulty at the time of purchase and the trader has the onus of proving that the item is not defective due to a manufacturing defect.
The legislation further states the consumer does not have to prove our vehicle was faulty at the time of sale. It is assumed it was. If the retailer does not agree, it is for the retailer to prove that the car was satisfactory at the time of sale. This comes from the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002, derived from EU Directive 1999/44/EU which became clauses 48A to 48F inclusive of the Sale of Goods Act in April 2003.
The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations May 2008 (CPRs) contains a general prohibition against unfair commercial practices and, in particular prohibitions against misleading actions, misleading omissions and aggressive commercial practices. The Regulations are enforceable through the civil and criminal courts. This creates an offence of misleading omissions.
The Sale of Goods Act states the car must be "of a satisfactory quality", "fit for purpose" and "as described". The repeated problems with our F Pace (including the roof leaking and its premature corrosion) prove our car is not of satisfactory quality, is not fit for the purpose and is not as described.
The burden of proof falls on you as the Trader under the Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations, Sale of Goods Acts and Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations. You are required to provide proof. Merely providing your opinion is no defence.
Any item purchased must be of satisfactory quality. This means our vehicle should have been free from faults and be as it was described in any advertisement or brochure. The car you sold us was not.
If one or more of these criteria aren't met, we are within our rights to reject your car. Any refusal to accept our rejection is a deliberate act by you to deny us of our Statutory Rights.
The 2015 Consumer Rights Act is even more rigorous giving consumers even greater rights than before.
Our F Pace fails on three counts - it is not of satisfactory quality, it is not fit for the purpose, and the vehicle is not as described. For a full refund, the vehicle only needs to fail on 1 of these 3 counts. Our F Pace fails on all 3. You have been given plenty of chances to rectify the faults and you have failed here as well.
Any refusal to accept our rejection or any refusal to fully respond to all our correspondence are deliberate acts by you to deny us our Statutory Rights, and will be used against you.
A full refund is due for our F Pace for its full purchase price plus all extras and accessories purchased plus payment for all costs suffered on this vehicle plus interest, compensation, damages, consequential losses and additional payment for all your broken promises.
We also reject your E Pace loan car KM68 FWA. Your attention is also drawn to consequential losses and damages pertaining to this matter as well. Additional costs are sought for Health and Safety claims for you failing to supply us with a loan car of similar standing to our F Pace which has the lumbar support. Your E Pace loan car KM68 FWA does not have lumbar support.
Lumbar support is required for disability reasons and to preserve our health and endurance of life. These matters were clearly stated at the point of sale and have been repeated several times since. My wife is disabled and suffers fibromyalgia. We both have severe back pain.
You are well aware the lumbar support we purchased on our F Pace is a necessity for us. This was made clear to you over the many months while we were considering Jaguar. It was also made clear when we required lumbar support as an additional option on the factory order we specified for our F Pace. You have also additionally been informed about our hospital appointments etc.
There is direct evidence that your E Pace loan car KM68 FWA without lumbar support has worsened my serious back pain more acutely than before which has led to my recent referral to a Neurologist in connection with debilitating substantial pain and an acute condition.
Aside from the absence of lumbar support on your loan car, you are making matters even worse by enforcing stipulations on the use of your loan car when we ought to be able to use it as if it was our F Pace. We also require compensation for your unreasonable stipulations over the use of your loan car.
You have unreasonably stipulated my wife cannot drive your loan car to France for her to receive specialist treatment for her acute fibromyalgia. One can reasonably presume this scant regard for customers' health and safety extends to both Sytner and Jaguar Land Rover being abusive towards customers with disabilities.
Many thanks a one time Jaguar customer, A and C
and Guy Salmon Jaguar Northampton, Jaguar House, Abington Square, Kettering Road, Northampton, NN1 4AJ
We are rejecting the Jaguar F Pace you sold us.
Rejection is made under the following legislation:
• The Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002,
• EU Directive 1999/44/EU,
• Clauses 48A to 48F, the Sale of Goods Act in April 2003,
• The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations May 2008 (CPRs),
• The Consumer Rights Act of October 2015,
• Clegg v Olle Andersson,
• The European Convention on Human Rights - including Disproportionate Interference and Infringement to Peaceful Enjoyment of Property,
• Health and Safety Legislation.
Defects in product manufacturing, quality control, product design led to water repeatedly leaking through the panoramic roof into the car. This became apparent because our light oyster headlining became marked. You repeatedly failed to rectify despite you being alerted a long time ago.
Serious and substantial corrosion of the roof structure then ensued with this new vehicle, weakening the strength of the roof and the underlying safety of the vehicle.
You have been given multiple opportunities to rectify matters. You have repeatedly failed. You have repeatedly procrastinated over rectification which has not been completed in a reasonable time frame. Things have not been to our satisfaction. The problems remain unresolved.
You have repeatedly misled us. You have been unable to source "appropriate" parts. There remains repeated slippage and no indication how long matters will remain unresolved.
Both Jaguar Land Rover and Sytner have deliberately and illegally sought to shirk legal responsibilities. You have both frustrated our Statutory Rights which you are both blatantly seeking to deny.
All these matters warrant publicity on the Public Interest grounds, for the protection of consumers.
Ours is not an isolated case; we keep reading about others' rejecting their Jaguar F Pace vehicles.
You have unreasonably sought to revoke manufacturer guarantees and warranties for us, and you additionally refuse to provide full manufacturer warranties for our rectification work.
Jaguar is supposed to be 'prestige'. Our top of the range Portfolio F Pace has been in pieces for a very long time. We are not prepared to suffer depreciation. We are not prepared to accept infringements to enjoyment of our property, our assets and our monetary investment in this defective F Pace.
You are also denying us access to our vehicle and to our personal belongings.
You supplied an inadequate E Pace loan car which is damaging both of our health conditions. And you have stipulated unreasonable controls over where the loan car can be driven. This is causing further detrimental effect on my wife preventing from her from being able to travel to obtain specialist healthcare abroad for her disabilities. We could travel in our F Pace but you have our car in pieces.
Other defects have been found with our F Pace which you have also failed to rectify.
All these defects are owing to faulty manufacture, and manufacturing defects. Rejection is also made on the grounds of poor quality and finish of materials that have undermined our use and enjoyment of our F Pace.
It is not our responsibility to bear costs for your failures. Despite you previously being told of our intention to reject our F Pace, you have failed to address matters despite repeated requests. We have been very patient with you. Too much patience has endured by us over long periods of time.
We do not trust you or our F Pace's structural integrity. You have no integrity.
Our F Pace is structurally unsound. It is still in pieces due to underlying manufacturing defects causing premature corrosion to the roof. Had we wanted a car without a roof, we would have bought one and not a Jaguar F Pace. Where in your advertising does it state a F Pace is a car without a working roof?
Rather than deal with matters you resorted to gimmicks and promises - all of which you have broken.
We are rejecting our F Pace. We will not accept any attempt to return it.
You cannot reject the rejection of our vehicle. The Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002, is derived from EU Directive 1999/44/EU which became Clauses 48A to 48F inclusive of the Sale of Goods Act in April 2003.
This reverses the burden of proof so that if goods are faulty, it is deemed they were faulty at the time of purchase and the trader has the onus of proving that the item is not defective due to a manufacturing defect.
The legislation further states the consumer does not have to prove our vehicle was faulty at the time of sale. It is assumed it was. If the retailer does not agree, it is for the retailer to prove that the car was satisfactory at the time of sale. This comes from the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002, derived from EU Directive 1999/44/EU which became clauses 48A to 48F inclusive of the Sale of Goods Act in April 2003.
The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations May 2008 (CPRs) contains a general prohibition against unfair commercial practices and, in particular prohibitions against misleading actions, misleading omissions and aggressive commercial practices. The Regulations are enforceable through the civil and criminal courts. This creates an offence of misleading omissions.
The Sale of Goods Act states the car must be "of a satisfactory quality", "fit for purpose" and "as described". The repeated problems with our F Pace (including the roof leaking and its premature corrosion) prove our car is not of satisfactory quality, is not fit for the purpose and is not as described.
The burden of proof falls on you as the Trader under the Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations, Sale of Goods Acts and Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations. You are required to provide proof. Merely providing your opinion is no defence.
Any item purchased must be of satisfactory quality. This means our vehicle should have been free from faults and be as it was described in any advertisement or brochure. The car you sold us was not.
If one or more of these criteria aren't met, we are within our rights to reject your car. Any refusal to accept our rejection is a deliberate act by you to deny us of our Statutory Rights.
The 2015 Consumer Rights Act is even more rigorous giving consumers even greater rights than before.
Our F Pace fails on three counts - it is not of satisfactory quality, it is not fit for the purpose, and the vehicle is not as described. For a full refund, the vehicle only needs to fail on 1 of these 3 counts. Our F Pace fails on all 3. You have been given plenty of chances to rectify the faults and you have failed here as well.
Any refusal to accept our rejection or any refusal to fully respond to all our correspondence are deliberate acts by you to deny us our Statutory Rights, and will be used against you.
A full refund is due for our F Pace for its full purchase price plus all extras and accessories purchased plus payment for all costs suffered on this vehicle plus interest, compensation, damages, consequential losses and additional payment for all your broken promises.
We also reject your E Pace loan car KM68 FWA. Your attention is also drawn to consequential losses and damages pertaining to this matter as well. Additional costs are sought for Health and Safety claims for you failing to supply us with a loan car of similar standing to our F Pace which has the lumbar support. Your E Pace loan car KM68 FWA does not have lumbar support.
Lumbar support is required for disability reasons and to preserve our health and endurance of life. These matters were clearly stated at the point of sale and have been repeated several times since. My wife is disabled and suffers fibromyalgia. We both have severe back pain.
You are well aware the lumbar support we purchased on our F Pace is a necessity for us. This was made clear to you over the many months while we were considering Jaguar. It was also made clear when we required lumbar support as an additional option on the factory order we specified for our F Pace. You have also additionally been informed about our hospital appointments etc.
There is direct evidence that your E Pace loan car KM68 FWA without lumbar support has worsened my serious back pain more acutely than before which has led to my recent referral to a Neurologist in connection with debilitating substantial pain and an acute condition.
Aside from the absence of lumbar support on your loan car, you are making matters even worse by enforcing stipulations on the use of your loan car when we ought to be able to use it as if it was our F Pace. We also require compensation for your unreasonable stipulations over the use of your loan car.
You have unreasonably stipulated my wife cannot drive your loan car to France for her to receive specialist treatment for her acute fibromyalgia. One can reasonably presume this scant regard for customers' health and safety extends to both Sytner and Jaguar Land Rover being abusive towards customers with disabilities.
Many thanks a one time Jaguar customer, A and C