FAQs

We believe Jaguar Land Rover has sold cars with defective components, including diesel particulate filter (DPF) systems. 

Jaguar Land Rover uses a DPF system to reduce emissions from their cars. The DPF system forms an essential part of the diesel aftertreatment system. A DPF system collects combustion particulates in the filter which are then burned off when the engine reaches a high temperature, in a process called regeneration. When functioning properly, the DPF system should be self-cleaning and remove the soot build up. We say that the DPF systems installed by Jaguar Land Rover were not fit for purpose.

A full or clogged DPF can cause the car to enter “limp mode”, making it slower and less responsive, increasing the risk of an accident and putting both the owner and other road users in danger.

We believe that consumers were sold a luxury vehicle on the premise that it met the required standards and would perform as advertised. Put simply, certain cars have not lived up to these promises.

The claim is against Jaguar Land Rover Automotive Plc and related financing and dealer entities. We commonly refer to these entities as the “Defendant”.

• Range Rover (L405)
• Range Rover Sport (L494)
• Range Rover Evoque (L538 and L551)
• Land Rover Discovery (L462)
• Land Rover Discovery Sport (L550)
• Land Rover Velar (L560)
• Jaguar E-Pace (X540)
• Jaguar F-Pace (X761)
• Jaguar XE (X760)
• Jaguar XF (X260)

To meet the claim’s eligibility criteria, the cars must have been purchased from January 2015 onwards.

Yes. This is a different and separate claim to the emissions cheating case being brought against Jaguar Land Rover.

The defective components (including in relation to the DPF system) are separate problems which we believe Jaguar Land Rover needs to answer to.

You can still sign-up if your vehicle is already enrolled as a claimant in a dieselgate claim but please let us know by emailing [email protected]

‘DPF’ stands for diesel particulate filter. The DPF system is part of the diesel exhaust after-treatment system, designed to comply with European standards.

The purpose of the DPF is to capture soot and pollutants from diesel combustion. It is designed to be able to regenerate and clean itself, to prevent the system from clogging or blocking.

When functioning properly, the DPF system should essentially clean and remove the soot build up in the exhaust.

In short, people have been paying up to £120,000 for cars that were not fit for purpose. Drivers had a reasonable expectation that their luxury car would meet the safety, reliability and performance standards advertised by Jaguar Land Rover, but Jaguar Land Rover failed to deliver.

• Limp mode: A full or clogged DPF can cause the car to enter “limp mode”, making it slower and less responsive, increasing the risk of an accident and putting both the owner and other road users in danger.
• Shortened service intervals: The defective components mean the affected cars need to be serviced more frequently than would have been expected when they were purchased, with the associated costs being met by the car owners.
• Engine damage: Driving with a full DPF filter can also cause damage to the car leading to oil dilution and increased wear and tear of the engine. The defects can also result in the vehicle needing more frequent oil changes.
• Higher costs: costs of additional servicing, increased fuel consumption and maintaining the defects are often passed onto the drivers.

We estimate that there are over a million affected consumers which were sold affected vehicles (new or pre-owned) between April 2017 and 2022.

Over 500,000 new car owners may be eligible to make a claim, hundreds of thousands of pre-owned car owners may also have claims.

Drivers who bought a pre-owned car from a registered Jaguar Land Rover dealership may be eligible for compensation. Try our eligibility checker for a free legal assessment.

Compensation levels for pre-owned vehicles may be lower than cars that were bought new.

We currently estimate claimants could receive £3,000 to £16,000 each.

How much you might receive depends on a range of factors including how much drivers paid for their car and how much harm the Court determines Jaguar Land Rover caused by its behaviour.

At this very early stage, the damages estimates are based on claimants receiving a percentage of the average price of the specific car models in question, with the opportunity to increase that with servicing costs spent and assessing the depreciation of the car’s value as a result of the defects. This approach has been informed by similar cases in other jurisdictions. Assessing damages will be an on-going process.

Under consumer protection law motorists could recover between 25% and 75% of the price of their vehicle depending on the severity of the misleading or aggressive practice or the difference between the market price of the product at the time of sale, and the price paid. This could be many thousands of pounds, even for second-hand owners.

There is an ongoing class action in Australia concerning this defect and we are closely following its progress. Whilst the English Courts are not bound by decisions made in Australia, it will provide us with a helpful indicator of compensation levels.

*Please note £3,000 to £16,000 is our best estimate at this stage

We intend to apply for a Group Litigation Order (‘GLO’ for short) against Jaguar Land Rover.

A GLO is a procedural mechanism the Court’s have designed to help large groups of people bringing claims on a collective basis.

It would be difficult for individuals to bring a successful case against a company as powerful as Jaguar Land Rover – litigation is very expensive (the cost of bringing the case individually would be higher than the damages claimed) and large companies employ aggressive defence firms to represent them.

Collective action proceedings offer consumers the opportunity to enforce their own rights and hold large companies to account, on a conditional basis.

We have undertaken a detailed review of the factual and legal background of the case. We are in the early stages of the litigation where our focus is on recruiting as many claimants as possible (to exert the maximum pressure on Jaguar Land Rover) and engaging in pre-action correspondence with the Defendant.

Milberg London are working on conditional fee agreements (CFA) which means only part of our standard fee is paid (by the funder), the remaining fee being subject to success of the claim. If the case is successful, the funder and Milberg London become entitled to a fee or uplift in exchange for taking on the risk of funding the claim.

To be a claimant, you need to agree to a CFA, together with our other terms of business which govern how we run the case.

No.

The case is being funded by a third-party litigation funder. The funder will pay for the costs associated in bringing the claim including court fees, barristers and experts. In addition, Milberg London are working on conditional fee agreements which means only part of their standard fee is paid (by the funder), the remaining fee being subject to success of the claim.

Furthermore, to protect against the risk of having to pay Jaguar Land Rover’s legal costs (if the claim is not successful), After-the-Event insurance will be obtained – this is also paid for by the funder.

If the case is successful, the funder, the insurer and Milberg London become entitled to a fee or uplift in exchange for taking on the risk of funding the claim. This comes out of the award obtained (not from your pocket).

If the claim is not successful, the funder and insurer will not receive anything, and the legal team will only receive their discounted fees as paid by funder.

The claimants will not need to pay anything if the claim is unsuccessful.

See The Team and Milberg.

The case is being funded by a third-party litigation funder. 

Our legal team are working hard behind the scenes to progress your claim and are making good headway. We aim to provide clients with case updates every 6 to 8 weeks.

Please make sure you check your junk/spam folders and if necessary, adjust your settings so our emails get through!

In addition, you can always get in touch with your Case Manager for an update, please email [email protected] or call us on +4420 3824 6541.

Unfortunately, the wheels of justice turn slowly, and actions can take years to work their way through the Court system. Our estimate for bringing the case to a conclusion is currently 3 to 5 years.

Please stick with us, we do believe we’ll get there in the end and it’s always possible the case settles early.

Know your rights – the purchase of your JLR vehicle may be governed by statute…

If you bought your vehicle after 1 October 2015, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (“CRA”) will apply. Under the CRA, any vehicle you buy must be of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose and as described. We say that the defective components, including the DPF, are a breach of these mandatory standards. The self-help remedies available to you under the CRA will depend on when you purchased your vehicle.

Within 30 days of purchase

• You have a short-term right to reject the vehicle and get a refund directly from the retailer (not the manufacturer) within 30 days of owning the vehicle.
• The 30-day time limit starts from the date of ownership and delivery, if these differ, take the later date.
• To exercise this right, contact the retailer you bought your vehicle from (not the manufacturer) to explain the issue and that you wish to reject the vehicle and receive a refund.

Between 1 – 6 months of purchase

• If the 30-day period has passed, you must give the retailer an opportunity to repair or replace the vehicle first.
• The retailer must repair or replace the vehicle within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to you.
• If the repair or replacement is unsuccessful, you will then have the right to either:
  • a price reduction on the vehicle, or
  • a final right to reject the vehicle and receive a refund. Bear in mind that at this stage, the retailer may apply a deduction to the refund to account for your use of the vehicle.
• Within the first 6 months of ownership, it is presumed that any faults discovered by you were there at the time of purchase. The burden is on the retailer to prove otherwise i.e., that the vehicle wasn’t faulty when you received it.
• Even though the vehicle is presumed defective if you raise the issues within 6 months of ownership, they may attempt to assert that the vehicle is not defective and deny your right to reject or partial refund. They may blame the issues on your driving style or come up with other reasoning that points the finger elsewhere.  Pursuing a claim with us is probably your best option if this happens. Try our eligibility checker for a free legal assessment.

After 6 months of purchase

• You can still exercise your rights as described above but be aware that after 6 months of ownership, the burden is on the consumer (you) to prove the vehicle was faulty at the time of purchase. This may require expert evidence and may prove more of an uphill battle – it’ll be difficult to do without having detailed mechanical knowledge.
• Indeed, we expect that attempts by consumers to assert their rights to a refund outside the six-month window will be rejected by the retailer on the basis that the vehicle was not defective at the time of purchase. If this happens, pursuing a claim with us is probably your only recourse.

We are very interested to hear how consumers get on in pursuing their rights under the CRA directly against the retailers. We encourage you to share your experiences with us by emailing [email protected].

If you are finding the process of enforcing your individual rights difficult or are not getting the results you want, you should consider joining our group action. Litigation takes a long time so even if you’d like to try resolve it yourself, it is still worth signing up with us as well. You can always discontinue your claim with us if you manage to get a good outcome with the retailer!

Try our eligibility checker for a free legal assessment.

There are a number of reasons why a vehicle may be ineligible:

• It is too old.
• It is not a model we have identified as being affected by the defective components subject to the claim. 
• We do not have enough information or documentation from you in order to validate your claim.

Jaguar Land Rover is facing a similar case in Australia which is ongoing. Toyota and Mitsubishi are also facing cases in Australia.

Milberg London is acting for over 100,000 claimants against Mercedes and Vauxhall over their emissions cheating claims. Both claims are proceeding through the courts. These cases deal with different issues but have an automotive defendant and are being brought using the same group action mechanism, a GLO.

VW has had a number of cases brought against it around the world over the “Dieselgate” scandal, in which the company used “defeat devices” so their cars would pass emissions tests and could be approved for sale. The UK proceedings against VW were successfully settled in May 2022, with claimants receiving thousands in compensation. While the VW case is about something different – emissions cheating – it shows how collective action proceedings can hold large automotive companies accountable.

If this case was frivolous or without merit, Jaguar Land Rover would be able to move quickly to dismiss it. The case will be issued in the English High Court and decided through a rigorous process by the High Court – one of the Senior Courts of England and Wales and notoriously robust. There is nothing frivolous about consumers exercising their rights and holding powerful companies to account for breaking the law.