Approved Used Land Rover - 'Almost New'

Transform_IT

Transform_IT

Transform_IT

Associate
Joined
18 Oct 2012
Posts
465
Evening folks,

I'm seeking advice and possibly some support regarding a troubling experience my daughter has had with an approved used Land Rover Discovery Sport purchased from a Land Rover garage.

Here's a rundown of what happened: My daughter purchased a 2019 Discovery Sport from an LR garage, and for the first three months, everything seemed fine. However, a suspension fault suddenly appeared, accompanied by a grinding sound from the NSF wheel when turning full lock. We promptly contacted the garage, who directed us to the warranty company. Despite assurances that we could book the car with any service provider, getting it looked at promptly was a nightmare. Our local LR garage couldn't even see us for three weeks, and when we requested a courtesy car, it became a drawn-out ordeal.

Eventually, after much back-and-forth, a courtesy car was arranged, but my daughter was uncomfortable driving it due to safety concerns related to the issues with our Discovery Sport. The AA inspection confirmed her fears, advising against using the vehicle and noting damage to the tyres due to the suspension fault and loose arch liners.

After 4.5 weeks, the suspension fault was finally rectified. However, we're now being told that all the arch liners are loose or missing clips, causing damage to the tyres. Shockingly, we've been informed that this damage isn't covered, despite the issues originating from the vehicle and not due to normal wear and tear.

This begs the question: How can a car described as 'Almost New,' having undergone a thorough 165-point inspection, have such significant issues merely months into ownership? Would cracked, worn tyres with minimal tread and missing, damaged, and loose wheel arch liners be considered 'Almost New' to anyone else?

We're at a loss here. My daughter loves the car and wants it back, but understandably, she wants it to be in proper working order. Has anyone else faced a similar situation with an approved used Land Rover? Any advice, insights, or support would be immensely appreciated.

Thanks in advance
 
Last edited:
The inspection wasn't actually done and they've stated that to help sell the vehicle? Did she/someone else not see the worn tyres, as it's about as obvious as it can get on the exterior of a vehcile outside of actual damage? It's common for things such as arch liners amongst other bits of plastic trim on a car to have missing clips after they have been removed. It can be for inspection or service work to replace something they are unable to get at without removing the trim. Clips normally then get damaged upon removal, lost or they simply can't be bothered to put them back.
 
Transform_IT said:
Would cracked, worn tyres with minimal tread
Click to expand...
Minimal being what exactly? They were likely at least 3mm at the point of sale, which whilst not great in terms of performance is probably a good few months/or couple of thousand miles away from the legal limit.
Presumably they are a decent brand in which case probably still preferable over some yingyongs or whatever else might have been fitted had you pushed for new tyres.
 
Get onto LR customer service and see if they will put it right for you. It can be hit and miss with any approved used vehicle depending on who has the franchise and the one she bought it from sounds like a poor one. Who was it?
 
Why are you bothering with a warranty claim? If the arch liners are loose due to missing clips & it's caused damage then it's thecl Consumer Rights Act you use, not a warranty.

They have sold you a defective vehicle.
 
Last edited:
OP - does your daughter still have the courtesy car?

If so, refuse to give it back until the liners have been repaired at their expense as the suspension failure they've just fixed under warranty caused the damage.

That's like saying the timing belt snapped and destroyed the engine but we're only going to warranty the belt.



Also - what car did AA inspect? the owned car or courtesy car - sort of reads like the courtesy car was rejected on AA say so.

When did the AA get involved? If it's the owned car and AA recovered the vehicle then that will lend weight to the argument the failure caused the secondary damage.
 
It does baffle me that anyone buys these things, 5 minutes on google will tell you everything you need to know.

Only buy one if you've got lots of money to spare and have another vehicle that you can use while it's being fixed.
 
EddScott said:
OP - does your daughter still have the courtesy car?

If so, refuse to give it back until the liners have been repaired at their expense as the suspension failure they've just fixed under warranty caused the damage.

That's like saying the timing belt snapped and destroyed the engine but we're only going to warranty the belt.



Also - what car did AA inspect? the owned car or courtesy car - sort of reads like the courtesy car was rejected on AA say so.

When did the AA get involved? If it's the owned car and AA recovered the vehicle then that will lend weight to the argument the failure caused the secondary damage.
Click to expand...
The AA came out to check her car to diagnose it before deciding what to do. AA fed back to my daughter and the garage. They then arranged her courtesy car.
 
She's had a reply from the garage:

####################################################################################

The rear tyres are fine at 3mm, the slight cracking isn’t an issue, I wouldn’t be recommending these to be replaced based on that alone.



The OSF tyre is at 5mm according to the video so that’s also fine. The NSF tyre appears to have some damage to the tread and although its mainly cosmetic, I can see why they have recommended that tyre. So you need 1 NSF tyre and the wheel arch liners refitting/replacing. - The video shows chunks missing fro the tyre at both edges (inner/outer).



I’ve looked at the history on the car and can’t see any reason for the wheel arch liners to have been touched. They are not serviceable items so I cant see any reason other than a manufacturing fault for them to be in this condition.



I take it your car is still with the retailer, if so, ask them to submit a goodwill case to JLR. I am happy for them to contact me direct for any support with getting your car sorted. - He knows where the car is, but wants my daughter to contact them and tell them to submit a goodwill gesture.

#####################################################################################

So, basically, they will replace one tyre and the arch liners, but that means the other 3 tyres are cracked and worn, and the front will have a new tyre and another with ~5mm tread. Thus, causing uneven wear on the new tyre. He mentioned they will put the issues right as a gesture of goodwill, yet there is an admittance of a manufacturer's fault. I am baffled. Surely, they should be putting it right, and as a gesture of goodwill and apology, they should be replacing the other front tyre and possibly the rear tyre. Especially as one of the rear liners is damaged and has been rubbing on the tyre's inner wall.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom