Colthebrummie
Well-Known Member
I thought the original reason buyers may have a claim was that they bought the vehicle believing it was in one road tax band when suddenly it may jump up to a higher band.
Col
Col
Hippo
Lord Hippo
That's part of the problem. The efficiency of burning diesel and the waste it produces may not necessarily be at the level the buyer was told. eg it's now in a higher band because they found out at a later date they were lied to about the figures. Last I heard of it the uk gov weren't going to change the emission figures so cars would stay in their original band.
I reckon it’s just chancers hoping to prey on people’s greed.
I just put my plate in for my 1991 defender and I might be able to claim!! I am going to be rich!!!
View attachment 234692
strange though, I wonder where my ecu and cheat device are hidden
Jumping on your Bandwagon I put in the reg' of my Series 2. Apparently it isn't a Landrover ?
flat
Well-Known Member
I wasn’t going to say anything but....
The terminology used for UK motor makers was a ‘defeat device’. This was any type of software or hardware that recognised, and was only active during an emission cycle.
A large motor manafacturer beginning with F... got caught, I think in the eighties, for using the bonnet light wiring to presume the vehicle was running an emission cycle, of course if the vehicle went above a certain speed. This then ran modified fueling, this drove a bit crap, but this wouldn’t be noticed on a rolling road. Unfortunately in California the clean air bods noticed the difference. California were pretty hot on this and fined F... per vehicle sold in that US State. And it was big bucks.
F... never did this again and setup in house training courses to make sure its employees new the differences between a defeat devices and what was allowed, and their personal responsibilities.
This Company happened to share this info with JLR. They also had the defeat device recognition training. They also made sure they obeyed the rules so a substantial per vehicle sold fine wouldn’t happen.
I may have some knowledge of the certification process.
My view on the action is, it is just a fishing trip on the off chance. Nothing has been implied as to what they may have done. So, how can they accuse JLR of something, but can’t even give any idea as to what they are accusing them of?
Some bod is gambling a few weeks work, this is then going to cost the authorities and JLR a lot of money.
They should be able to claim all the costs back!
The terminology used for UK motor makers was a ‘defeat device’. This was any type of software or hardware that recognised, and was only active during an emission cycle.
A large motor manafacturer beginning with F... got caught, I think in the eighties, for using the bonnet light wiring to presume the vehicle was running an emission cycle, of course if the vehicle went above a certain speed. This then ran modified fueling, this drove a bit crap, but this wouldn’t be noticed on a rolling road. Unfortunately in California the clean air bods noticed the difference. California were pretty hot on this and fined F... per vehicle sold in that US State. And it was big bucks.
F... never did this again and setup in house training courses to make sure its employees new the differences between a defeat devices and what was allowed, and their personal responsibilities.
This Company happened to share this info with JLR. They also had the defeat device recognition training. They also made sure they obeyed the rules so a substantial per vehicle sold fine wouldn’t happen.
I may have some knowledge of the certification process.
My view on the action is, it is just a fishing trip on the off chance. Nothing has been implied as to what they may have done. So, how can they accuse JLR of something, but can’t even give any idea as to what they are accusing them of?
Some bod is gambling a few weeks work, this is then going to cost the authorities and JLR a lot of money.
They should be able to claim all the costs back!
SWalker
Active Member
... the only winners here will be the claims company racking up the hours and getting paid somewhere along the line, most likely not by JLR...I have a VAG that was subject to that, I was approached and asked if i wanted to jump on board and claim for my 3.0L V6.... LOL like i bought that for the fuel economy... said engineers and people responsible now in jail quite rightly so....
Hippo
Lord Hippo
No. JLR say's:
- Jaguar Land Rover, owner of the Jaguar and Land Rover brands, said it "does not use emissions cheat devices or software in any of its products. We have not yet seen any technical evidence in relation to this matter and will strongly contest any claims made."
https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/travel/diesel-emissions-group-legal-claims/#join
Dated 29 June 2021.
One assumes the comment was made at the time of their investigations, just before the article was published.
MJI
Well-Known Member
Completely different to VW group.
Because it is a case of the ambulance chasers going after them with no proof.
ML should not be advertise speculative cases like this as the owners could get burned by it.
The patron saint of lawyers is satan.
norseman
Well-Known Member
Hippo
Lord Hippo
From what I see there's been a number of accusations against JLR. Nobody has any proof of wrong doing and no one has come forward with test results to prove theres a problem. JLR said they don't cheat, prove it if you say we do. They sound quite confident. Martins site is just high lighting this as a number of companies are collecting owners names just in case theres a possible case. Locking them in for the future.
MJI
Well-Known Member
And potentially being liable for JLRs costs.
