Rejection of F Pace, Premature Corrosion Leaking Panoramic Roof, Car in Pieces, Parts on Long Term Back Order

Forum for Jaguar Customer Relations
Locked
loads2
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2018 3:54 pm

Rejection of F Pace, Premature Corrosion Leaking Panoramic Roof, Car in Pieces, Parts on Long Term Back Order

Post by loads2 » Tue Dec 11, 2018 4:41 pm

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
Last edited by loads2 on Tue Dec 11, 2018 10:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.


Jagfpacejk
Posts: 4693
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:58 pm

Re: Rejection of F Pace, Premature Corrosion Leaking Panoramic Roof, Car in Pieces, Parts on Long Term Back Order

Post by Jagfpacejk » Tue Dec 11, 2018 5:31 pm

Wow that is some letter, i am sorry to read your issues and good luck.

Can not believe they will not allow you access to your personal belongs, is that not theft?

Can not believe the restrictions on your E Pace.

Hope you and your wife are better soon.

Not good.
Ex Owner of a Pre Launch 1st Edition Supercharged V6 and a Ex Owner of 1st Edition Diesel V6


loads2
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2018 3:54 pm

Re: Rejection of F Pace, Premature Corrosion Leaking Panoramic Roof, Car in Pieces, Parts on Long Term Back Order

Post by loads2 » Tue Dec 11, 2018 5:37 pm

Thanks for your kind words. I am also putting a much shortened version as a google review.


Jagfpacejk
Posts: 4693
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:58 pm

Re: Rejection of F Pace, Premature Corrosion Leaking Panoramic Roof, Car in Pieces, Parts on Long Term Back Order

Post by Jagfpacejk » Tue Dec 11, 2018 5:51 pm

loads2 wrote:
Tue Dec 11, 2018 5:37 pm
Thanks for your kind words. I am also putting a much shortened version as a google review.
I do not think Jaguar and JLR help themselves, the amount of bad press they have got or have had must hurt there bottom line sales figures as i am sure others will think twice before buying one of there cars when customer who have issues are treated so badly.

I have to say your not alone.

Do you know what you may move onto?
Ex Owner of a Pre Launch 1st Edition Supercharged V6 and a Ex Owner of 1st Edition Diesel V6


loads2
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2018 3:54 pm

Re: Rejection of F Pace, Premature Corrosion Leaking Panoramic Roof, Car in Pieces, Parts on Long Term Back Order

Post by loads2 » Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:06 pm

At present Jaguar are preventing me moving on. .. they are refusing to accept my rejection ... guess this happens a lot with Jaguar


Jagfpacejk
Posts: 4693
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:58 pm

Re: Rejection of F Pace, Premature Corrosion Leaking Panoramic Roof, Car in Pieces, Parts on Long Term Back Order

Post by Jagfpacejk » Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:53 pm

loads2 wrote:
Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:06 pm
At present Jaguar are preventing me moving on. .. they are refusing to accept my rejection ... guess this happens a lot with Jaguar
have a search through this forum where your find others have rejected there Fpace with success.
Ex Owner of a Pre Launch 1st Edition Supercharged V6 and a Ex Owner of 1st Edition Diesel V6


June16
Posts: 1027
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2016 10:45 pm

Re: Rejection of F Pace, Premature Corrosion Leaking Panoramic Roof, Car in Pieces, Parts on Long Term Back Order

Post by June16 » Wed Dec 12, 2018 11:35 am

loads2 wrote:
Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:06 pm
At present Jaguar are preventing me moving on. .. they are refusing to accept my rejection ... guess this happens a lot with Jaguar
Get a solicitors letter , I used that for my rejection of a Discovery Sport , best £76 I ever spent , I then claimed the £76 back through small claims. They didn’t even read the letter and just accepted it.😂.

They think you’ll go away , so prove them wrong.

You only need to use the Consumer Rights Act 2015 for ejection , ONE attempt at repair , they failed to repair it so reject it.
MY18 Rsport 25t BRG , Ebony - Oyster, 18 way mem, Surround Cam, blis, ICTP, LED adaptive....etc


loads2
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2018 3:54 pm

Difficulties in Dealing with Jaguar Land Rover

Post by loads2 » Tue Dec 18, 2018 1:01 pm

My wife and I have rejected a F Pace. We previously posted about difficulties in dealing with Jaguar Land Rover over our rejection and our attempts to rectify.

Never before have we encountered such difficulties with any other manufacturer. Lots of good experience of Audi, BMW, Citroen, Renault before. An issue with our cheaper Dacia was speedily sorted by Dacia customer services some years ago [referred to in my wife’s email below]. Our F Pace was purchased to replace our Duster.

From this forum - we are not seeking sympathy nor seeking to hurt anyone’s feelings over their experience of Jaguar. Everyone’s experience is obviously different. Diversity matters. We would welcome any helpful advice from people here in connection with rejecting our F Pace. We have listed the issues we have and what we have attempted so far.

My wife and I construct emails and letters all of which have been ignored. Jaguar and the dealer reply without reference to anything sent to them before - using fresh emails without any email chain each time - ignoring everything that has been sent before.

Jaguar and the dealer’s “response” has been limited to simply forcing us into a stream of different stop gap vehicles all of which have been unsuitable for medical reasons.

Our dialogue is below.

Date: Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 6:42 PM
To: Ralf Speth and Lorraine Brookes at Jaguar Land Rover Executive Office
To: Steve Gough, Sytner Group, Guy Salmon Jaguar Land Rover

You need to address all these issues, not just cherry pick.

Date: Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 4:51 PM
To: Ralf Speth and Lorraine Brookes at Jaguar Land Rover Executive Office
To: Steve Gough, Sytner Group, Guy Salmon Jaguar Land Rover

Thank you for your email - It completely ignores all the substantive matters while seemingly wrongly claiming to “resolve” without actually dealing with anything at all.

We are rejecting our F Pace. And we are rejecting your vehicles without lumbar support. You cannot refuse our rejections.

Supplying stop gap loan vehicles does not actually put anything right. Your latest stop gap offer just demonstrates your gross stupidity.

Having been notified and you yourself having acknowledged we need lumbar support for Medical Reasons, you blatantly have no regard for us in offering us yet another vehicle without lumbar support.

As per our exchange of emails last week and as per your prior agreement, you are duly now invoiced for unreasonable and Disproportionate Interference and Infringement to Peaceful Enjoyment of Property and for undermining our use and enjoyment of our F Pace. Full payment against these invoices will be needed in the first instance

You have already been notified of your contraventions against specified Legislation. Regrettably you have deliberately sought to ignore the warnings given. Payment will now need to be received in full. This will need to take place in the first instance.

We note your repeated history of ignoring all the substantive issues. You will find invoices to Jaguar Land Rover and to Sytner attached, together with other correspondence you have conveniently ignored in what can only be described as shyster practice by both Jaguar Land Rover and Sytner acting in concert in cahoots to contravene Legislation.

These are interim invoices. Further invoices will be issued in addition to these invoices. Further amounts will be owed by Jaguar Land Rover and Sytner.

We also note your continued refusal to even acknowledge the existence of my wife who has emailed you separately without even an acknowledgement.

We can only presume from your actions that Jaguar Land Rover and Sytner are acting without due respect as chauvinists, and also in direct contravention of Legislation which seeks to prevent this and other Sexist acts. Her email to you is below – presumably you will keep ignoring her existence? You will also need to answer her email as well.

You took our vehicle and our personal possessions away on 3 November, over 44 days ago, under the guise then that you would only deny us of our vehicle and personal possessions for only “a week”. This was excessive then, but 44 days since then is completely unreasonable.

After 44 days, we are entitled to seek compensation and damages pertaining to the Legislation you have been notified of but which you have ignored.

Payment is required in the first instance in addition to the very meagre very mean “goodwill gesture” (your words) which still hasn’t been received.

We additionally refer the below and attached.

We reject apologies.


Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018, 8:45 am
To: Ralf Speth and Lorraine Brookes at Jaguar Land Rover Executive Office
To: Steve Gough, Sytner Group, Guy Salmon Jaguar Land Rover

Had u actually done anything at all u would see one of the many issues is my wife asking for the 300 pounds u promised a month ago. We are still rejecting your f pace regardless of u not paying.

As for your stop gap vehicles these need to be of comparable list price to the vehicle we have rejected and with lumbar support for medical reasons. My wife will need to agree and you will need to advise full spec before she can.

I suggest invoicing you 300 a day for every day you are preventing us access to our personal possessions for Disproportionate Interference and Infringement to Peaceful Enjoyment of Property and for undermining our use and enjoyment of our F Pace.

We have rejected our vehicle.

We reject your rejection of our rejections.
You cannot reject the rejection of our vehicle. For your rejection of our rejection to be valid, you need to prove the vehicle was not faulty due to manufacturing defect. The Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002, derived from EU Directive 1999/44/EU which became Clauses 48A to 48F in the Sale of Goods Act 2003 puts the burden of proof on you. The Legislation further states it is for you to prove that the car was satisfactory at the point of sale. The Sale of Goods Act states the car must be of satisfactory quality, fit for the purpose and as described. The repeated problems with our car (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. You are required to provide proof. Merely dismissing matters or making generalised assumptions or not being specific to our vehicle chassis number is no defence.

Defects in product manufacturing, quality control, product design led to water repeatedly leaking through the panoramic roof into the car. Our headlining became marked. You failed to rectify and still haven’t fixed the problem after too long for us to reasonably be expected to endure. Serious and substantial corrosion of the roof structure ensued with our new vehicle, weakening the strength of the roof and the underlying safety of the vehicle. For avoidance of doubt you do have a Legal Obligation and Duty of Care to us as consumers. This is enshrined in Legislation which you are seeking to ignore to your detriment.

Unless you can prove otherwise, our car’s defects are owing to faulty manufacture and manufacturing defects. You must provide information to prove your case but you haven’t done so.

Our car is still in pieces in your yard next to railway sidings [the app on my phone says the bonnet has been left open and the car hasn’t moved for the past 2 months]. There is no end date. We reject our F Pace. It is up to you to prove with specific evidence this specific vehicle was correctly manufactured. Any refusal to do so only serves to weaken your case.

Unless you can prove otherwise our car is structurally unsound from underlying manufacturing defects which have caused leaking, seepage and premature corrosion to the roof. Had we wanted a car without a roof, we would have bought one. Where in your advertising does it state a F Pace car is without a working roof? The Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations, Sale of Goods Acts and Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations require our vehicle to be as described in any advertisement or brochure. The car you supplied was not. Our vehicle is not of satisfactory quality, is not fit for the purpose and is not as described.


Date: Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 2:33 PM
To: Ralf Speth and Ashleigh Kelly at Jaguar Land Rover Executive Office
To: Steve Gough, Sytner Group, Guy Salmon Jaguar Land Rover

please note we are not prepared to deal with a corporate exec support person or Ashleigh Kelly, this matter is being trivialised or blatantly ignored.

Its not just the matter of a car unfit for purpose, when its in pieces in your yard, then its not a car????
its the depreciation we are suffering on the vehicle as we are not using it while it is in pieces in your yard????
its not just the service plan, we paid for but wont use because its not clocking up miles as its in pieces in your yard???
its not the guarantee that is lapsing while its in piece in your yard????
its not just the substandard replacement vehicle we are expected to use while ours in in pieces in your yard????
its not just you cannot give us any indication of when the car is likely to be returned while in pieces in your yard????
its not the addition pain one has to "put up with" as the loan car doesn't have the MEDICALLY required lumbar support????
its not just the restrictions you are placing on us as autonomous humans?????
its not that you think its ok that we pay additional insurance premiums to take your car abroad while ours is in pieces in your yard???
its not that the REPAIR is only guaranteed for two months if the car is ever repaired??????

its all of these, and also the £300 supposedly goodwill gesture that has NOT been reimbursed by Jaguar, while our car is in pieces in your yard?

At this rate this £300 need to be paid every week until the car is fixed????? Dacia had our car for 2 months while parts were on back order, not only did they supply comparable or BETTER cars, they also gave us £1000 good will gesture. Makes Jag look CHEAP in comparison.

you can give us no guarantees to the standard of any repair, the integrity of the repair or vehicle and not even a date as to when the vehicle is likely to be returned, JAGUAR as coming across a one big JOKE...…………...the 12 year old car that the Jag was purchased to replace was and still is in better condition than this car!!!!

WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO GET THIS SORTED??????? maybe you can just swop this car for a whole new one?????

1 year old less than 4000 miles and its in PIECES...……...do you not think that you are breaking any consumer laws????

MEANWHILE I HAVE HAD TO DRIVE ANOTHER CAR TO FRANCE FOR MEDICAL TREATMENT THANKS TO JAG NOT LETTING ME TAKE OUR CAR ABROAD. FYI I AM ALSO RESIDENT IN FRANCE AND AN ITALIAN CITIZEN, SO WILL TRAVEL FREQUENTLY BETWEEN THESE COUNTRIES, BUT NOT WITH MY CAR BECAUSE ITS NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE!!!!!!!

this must be why they are known as an old mans car, the old man that just potters down to the newsagent once a week, but leaves the car in the garage the rest of the time!!!!!

look forward to a prompt courteous professional response, and a date at the close of business today as when the fully repaired, guaranteed, and extended extended warranty (not a typo) will be back on my drive, hell!!!! on the bloody road! and a cheque for £300 minimum sent to me!!!

many thanks a one-time jag customer?


Date: Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 4:38 PM
Subject: Re: Rejection of Jaguar F-Pace
To: Ralf Speth and Lorraine Brookes at Jaguar Land Rover Executive Office
To: Steve Gough, Sytner Group, Guy Salmon Jaguar Land Rover

We refer again to the attached letter. You need to address all the contents, rather than selectively ignore matters.

Jaguar cars have been rejected. Besides these contraventions of Law by you, our letter additionally refers to other substantive issues including contraventions by you of the European Convention on Human Rights – and Disproportionate Interference and Infringement to Peaceful Enjoyment of Property, and your contraventions of Health and Safety Legislation, and your unreasonable extortion of control which has worsened health conditions and made it more difficult to access specialist care and treatment.

Actions speak louder than words.

Apologies are not accepted.


Locked

Return to “Jaguar Customer Relations”