Fault with new 2014 Range Rover Evoque lease car from Arval

notreallymyrealname

Wow thanks for the help everyone, I didn't drive the disco as it says it requires a service, (yes the car does know when it needs a service, it's programmed by the manufacturer). Granted that is a bit fussy but the car shouldn't have been loaned out.

As for having to provide the opportunity for the dealer to rectify the fault 3 times, this is not true. If the car is less than 6 months old you do not need to allow the manufacturer the opportunity to fix the vehicle at all. I did that only as a gesture of good will (and because I wanted the car).

Anyway after plenty of abuse on Facebook Landrover have agreed a full refund or replacement.

nobbysn*ts

notreallymyrealname wrote: »

Wow thanks for the help everyone, I didn't drive the disco as it says it requires a service, (yes the car does know when it needs a service, it's programmed by the manufacturer). Granted that is a bit fussy but the car shouldn't have been loaned out.

As for having to provide the opportunity for the dealer to rectify the fault 3 times, this is not true. If the car is less than 6 months old you do not need to allow the manufacturer the opportunity to fix the vehicle at all. I did that only as a gesture of good will (and because I wanted the car).

Anyway after plenty of abuse on Facebook Landrover have agreed a full refund or replacement.

Congratulations, glad you got it sorted. As you've noticed, this forum seems to be less 'money saving expert' and more 'bend over and take it' nowadays.

mattyprice4004

notreallymyrealname wrote: »

If the car is less than 6 months old you do not need to allow the manufacturer the opportunity to fix the vehicle at all.

That statement is incorrect - after 6 months the burden of proof changes, but after acceptance they can repair, replace or refund at their option just as with any other product.

agrinnall

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

Congratulations, glad you got it sorted. As you've noticed, this forum seems to be less 'money saving expert' and more 'bend over and take it' nowadays.

So can you point at any posts in this thread that say the OP has 'bend over and take it' as you so impolitely put it? There are a few who think the complaint about the temporary replacement vehicle is a bit picky and irrelevant, but none that I can see that say there was no case for Land Rover to investigate. Not everything on here is about saving every last penny, a lot of it is about how to operate within the confines of what the law allows.

To the OP, well done for sticking to your guns and getting the refund or replacement from LR.