The consumer bought a used crossover SUV, and took out an extended warranty policy after the manufacturer’s warranty had expired. Whilst driving on the motorway, the car suffered from a loss of power and broke down, and was towed to a local garage. They discovered a faulty turbocharger, and the consumer proceeded to contact the warranty company to make a claim on their policy to cover the cost of the repairs.

At this point, the consumer was told that a thorough assessment was needed to establish the root cause of the issue, but as they could not be without the vehicle as they used it to get to work, and the investigation by the warranty provider did not take place on the scheduled date, the consumer went ahead with the repairs.

However, the assessment subsequently took place, but the business rejected the consumer’s claim because the correct claims process had not been followed, and it believed the issue with the turbocharger was also pre-existing.

The consumer disputed this, citing a full service and MOT history, whilst the vehicle also underwent a health check before the policy started, at the warranty provider’s request. Furthermore, the agreement explicitly included coverage for wear and tear, which was the reason provided by the garage for the turbocharger failure.

The consumer therefore believed that they were eligible to be reimbursed for the replacement of the turbo, which cost in the region of £2,000.

The case outcome:

The ombudsman considered the evidence from both parties, and noted that the warranty policy set out the process that should be followed when a claim is made, as well as what the warranty did and did not cover.

Specifically, the ombudsman noted that the policy dictated that no repairs were to start until the business had given authorisation. In this case, the business was not initially convinced that the claim fell under the terms of their coverage. Therefore, it requested their own inspection to obtain further information.

However, by the time this took place, the engineer noted that their assessment was restricted due to the faulty turbocharger having already been removed and replaced.

Based on the course of events, the ombudsman stated in their decision that the claims process was clearly set out in the policy, and that it had not been followed by the consumer, and meant the warranty provider could not fully assess the issue against the terms of their policy.

Additionally, the ombudsman noted that, when the consumer first contacted the warranty provider about the faulty turbo, the business replied with an email outlining the claims process. This contained a section in bold marked as “IMPORTANT”, and clearly repeated the policy wording in that repairs could not begin without prior agreement from the warranty provider.

Conclusion:

After considering the facts of the case provided by both parties, the ombudsman noted that a warranty policy has two aspects. These are namely the claim process that is to be followed, and the coverage offered by the policy.

On this occasion, the ombudsman noted that the process had not been followed by the consumer, impacting the ability of the warranty provider to assess the validity of the claim.

As such, the ombudsman did not uphold the complaint in the consumer’s favour, and stated that the business did not have any obligation to cover the cost of the repairs given the process had been made clear to the consumer on multiple occasions.

The post Turbocharger claim dispute appeared first on The Motor Ombudsman.

The customer bought a used ’67-plate hatchback for around £10,000 in May 2021, and around a year later, it broke down shortly after the car was serviced. Following the vehicle’s recovery to a dealership, the problem was diagnosed as being a fuel pump failure, and the consumer was told that the repair would initially be covered under the warranty.

However, a week later, the dealer got back in touch to inform the customer that there was evidence of petrol and diesel in the fuel tank, so the work would now not be paid-for under the warranty, much to the frustration of the consumer as they said this had not happened.

The customer said the dealership had not followed the correct process to diagnose the mis-fueling, as they did not provide a report with the fueling test results. After this, the warranty company organised their own independent inspection to assess the damage to the vehicle. This concluded that the fuel pump damage was caused by mis-fueling. Therefore, the warranty company upheld their position and the customer’s claim was declined.

The consumer believed that the cost of repairs (around £8,000), i.e. to replace the entire fuel system, were still eligible to be covered in line with the terms of the warranty, and also claimed not to have seen the inspection report. The customer did not believe the findings were accurate, as the inspection was completed several months after the initial failure had occurred.

The case outcome:

The Motor Ombudsman reviewed the evidence provided, and explained that the warranty provider relies on the opinion of a technician to decide whether the claim is upheld or not. In this case, the technician reported that the fault was related to misfuelling by the customer, and there was no conflicting view of this, meaning the claim was declined correctly in line with the terms of the agreement.

Although the consumer’s complaint was not upheld, the ombudsman did explain to the warranty provider that they should have obtained evidence about the incorrect fuel being used as part of their claim assessment. Similarly, they should have provided a copy of the independent inspection report to the customer when this was requested.

If a customer’s claim is declined for reasons for which they are responsible, or the fault, in this case putting incorrect fuel into the vehicle, then they are entitled to ask and receive evidence showing this. This will also prevent disputes being escalated to The Motor Ombudsman.

Conclusion:

Based on the evidence presented, the complaint was not upheld in the consumer’s favour, and no breach of the Vehicle Warranty Code was found. The case was closed.

The post Fuel pump failure appeared first on The Motor Ombudsman.

In November 2015, the consumer purchased a brand-new sports car, and took out an extended warranty in July 2023. A few months later, in January 2024, and with around 75,500 miles on the clock, the vehicle was taken to the garage for its annual MOT, which it passed. However, the nearside front outer drive shaft joint constant velocity boot was noted as being severely deteriorated. This was also classified as a minor defect, meaning a repair was to be made as soon as possible.

The consumer therefore submitted a claim for the part to be replaced at a dealership under warranty, but the warranty provider declined it, because the vehicle had passed its MOT, and the component was considered still working. Therefore, this did not meet the definition of a breakdown as per the terms of the policy.

The consumer argued that the warranty terms did not stipulate that the vehicle must fail the MOT test in order for the component to be covered, and that the dealer advised the CV boot had suffered a breakdown and required immediate replacement. The warranty provider also highlighted that the dealership’s vehicle inspection advisory note highlighted that the component was still working.

As a result of the claim being declined, the consumer proceeded to have the vehicle repaired at their own cost, and in turn, sent their dispute to The Motor Ombudsman, seeking reimbursement for the repair totalling around £1,900.

The case outcome:

The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator reviewed the evidence supplied by both parties and noted that the warranty would cover the drive shaft joint constant velocity boot following a breakdown. The adjudicator equally acknowledged the evidence confirming that the dealership considered the issue a sudden and unexpected failure, and explained that the issue must meet the definition of a breakdown in its entirety to be covered under the terms of the warranty.

The warranty stated that, beyond being sudden and unexpected, a failure must cause the component to stop working and require immediate repair or replacement before it will work again. The adjudicator also pointed out that the dealership’s inspection report advised that the component was slightly deteriorated, but still functioning, and that the MOT certificate stated that the defect should be repaired as soon as possible, but not that it must be rectified immediately.

In summary, this did not meet the warranty’s definition of a breakdown, and the adjudicator also noted that the consumer had gone ahead with the repair, contravening the terms’ requirement to obtain the warranty provider’s prior authorisation before undertaking any work.

Conclusion:

From the evidence provided, the adjudicator concluded that the claim was correctly declined as per the terms of the policy, meaning the consumer’s complaint could not be upheld, and no award was given.

Key learning point:

While a failure may meet part of the warranty’s criteria for coverage, it must meet all of the criteria in order for the claim to be covered.

The post Defective CV boot appeared first on The Motor Ombudsman.

The consumer purchased a used 65-plate saloon for around £16,000 in January 2022, and took out an extended warranty at the same time. In February 2023, they encountered a problem with the car’s rear differential, and contacted the warranty provider to get the issue fixed under the terms of the policy.

The customer obtained a quote from a main dealership who could complete the repairs straight away, but the warranty company declined this. Instead, as a more economical route, the business preferred a third-party company which provided ‘used’ parts. Upon informing the customer, they raised a complaint as they said that these types of components were not stated in the policy, which covered reconditioned, new or service exchange parts only.

The warranty provider subsequently reviewed their position and agreed to source a reconditioned part, which was fitted to the consumer’s car two months after the claim was originally submitted by the vehicle owner. As the consumer believed that the warranty provider failed to uphold the terms of the policy, they were seeking compensation of £100 a day for the period whilst they were waiting for their car to be fixed. In light of what had happened, the consumer was however, offered £250 as a gesture of goodwill.

The case outcome:

Upon review of the warranty terms, it was deemed the customer was correct in that the policy stated that the business will use reconditioned parts, new or service exchange components when completing repairs. Therefore, by the business obtaining a ‘used’ part, this meant that it was acting outside of the scope of the agreement.

The warranty provider tried to rely on sections within the warranty terms that gave them discretion when reviewing claims, and allowed them to complete claims on an economic basis. Whilst this may be the case, the business cannot use ‘discretion’ as a way to extend or insert terms into a warranty that are not specifically stated. The part of the warranty that allowed a business to complete an economic repair also did not mention the business acquiring ‘used’ parts to do so.

In terms of the compensation the consumer was seeking, The Motor Ombudsman does not make any awards for this, nor were there any provisions in the policy to suggest the consumer was entitled to it, even if the warranty provider was not able source a replacement part within a reasonable timeframe.

In summary, the complaint was partially upheld in the consumer’s favour, and the business was directed to award the sum of £250 previously offered to the consumer. The consumer rejected this conclusion upon receiving the ombudsman’s final decision, and was free to pursue their dispute via a court of law at their own cost.

The post Rear differential fault appeared first on The Motor Ombudsman.

“I bought a four-year-old ‘67 plate saloon in 2021, and took out a one-year extended warranty policy in January 2023. Five months later, I was driving when my steering rack seized and locked, and I was unable to turn the wheel. My vehicle was recovered to the repairing dealership, and a claim was made to the extended warranty provider to replace the steering rack which was about £3,700.

The extended warranty provider approved the claim in August 2023, two months after it had been submitted, and then negotiated with the repairing dealership to fit a reconditioned part. After the dealership agreed, there was a two-week wait for the component to be delivered and fitted to my vehicle, which was done at the end of August.

When the repairer installed the part, they found that there was a compatibility issue it, so I had to wait for an additional sensor to be reordered and fitted, which meant I only got my car back in mid-October 2023. I therefore had to take trains and pay for temporary insurance cover on a car that I borrowed.

I do not think this qualifies as a simple, fair and prompt process, and I think it is a breach of The Motor Ombudsman’s Code of Practice for Extended Warranty Products from what your website says. To resolve my complaint, I am looking for a refund of £2,000, to cover the cost of a like-for-like hire car (£1,600), the cost of the trains, the temporary insurance, and compensation for emotional damages of not being able to return to my family at the weekend.”

The accredited business’ response:

• The repair of the vehicle was fully paid-for under warranty, and the vehicle was returned to the customer in full working condition in October 2023.
• We sent an independent engineering inspector who reported that the failure was not sudden and unexpected as required by the terms of the warranty, and we could have declined the claim, but we decided to assist the customer as a gesture of goodwill.
• We informed the customer that we would attempt to source a reconditioned steering rack as the cost for a new part was excessive. This part was sourced from a third-party specialist.
• The repairing dealership found issues with the compatibility, but this was resolved, however, new issues were found with the steering angle sensor, that had to be reordered.
• The total cost of the repair was nearly £2,700, which was paid for under warranty.
• We agree that there were undue delays, and we apologise for this and any inconvenience caused, but some delays were outside of our control.

The adjudication outcome:

• After reviewing the evidence supplied by both parties, the adjudicator noted that the fault would not have been covered under the warranty, as it was not sudden and unexpected failure as defined in the warranty terms. This meant that the repair was covered as a goodwill gesture.
• The consumer complained about the delay in responding to their claim, but the adjudicator found this to be in line with the terms of the warranty which stipulates a maximum time of eight weeks to come to a decision on any claim.
• The adjudicator also found that the terms of the warranty state that the accredited business can request for a more economical repair, and for reconditioned parts to be used. This was the case here, and while a fault was found with the reconditioned component, it was ultimately fixed at no cost to the consumer.
• The adjudicator stated that The Motor Ombudsman does not award compensation for stress and inconvenience, and un-proven consequential losses, so the consumer’s claim for compensation for emotional damages and the temporary insurance was not upheld.
• The consumer did not actually hire a vehicle, so this rental cost was also not awarded.
• The accredited business had already apologised to the customer for the delay in having the repair carried out, so there was no other remedy available.
• As a result of the evidence presented, the consumer’s complaint was not upheld in their favour.

Conclusion:

• The consumer and the accredited business accepted the adjudicator’s decision, and the case was closed.

The post Steering rack failure appeared first on The Motor Ombudsman.

“I purchased a used diesel hatchback with 51,000 miles on the clock from a private individual in August 2022. At the same time, I took out an extended warranty policy, which was managed by a third party on behalf of the manufacturer of my vehicle.

Three months later, I had an issue with my engine, and a problem with the engine management sensors was diagnosed. A claim was therefore made in line with the warranty terms, as the policy documentation said that these components were covered. However, it was refused, as I was told that the sensors were not included under the agreement. In fact, both the manufacturer’s service centre and the warranty provider said the other party was responsible for declining the claim.

I therefore sought clarification on this from the vehicle manufacturer, and after attempting to contact them in January and February 2023, I discovered that the email addresses advertised on their website were incorrect. When I was eventually able to speak to them in April 2023, I expressed my desire to open an investigation, only to find out three months later that it had never been initiated.

I eventually received a response from the manufacturer in August 2023 which did not allow me to proceed with my claim, and I therefore deem the policy to have been mis-sold, as neither the manufacturer or the third party extended vehicle warranty provider covered the parts listed in the agreement. To resolve my complaint, I am therefore seeking a full refund of the sum of £517 paid for the policy, as I believe my claim has been turned down incorrectly.”

The accredited business’ response:

• We do not believe the policy was mis-sold, as the consumer had the opportunity to review the terms and conditions before making the purchase online.
• Following the completion of a purchase, a further 14-day cooling off period is also given to allow a consumer more time to refer to the policy documents to ensure the extended warranty is suitable. As such, we believe the policy was sold in good faith.
• As we had no further contact from the consumer regarding the policy, we cannot agree that they were unhappy with the terms and conditions.
• The policy booklet refers to items not covered by the warranty. Despite stating that the engine, which includes engine management sensors, is covered, the booklet also specifies that the agreement does not apply to failures caused by “oil degradation or carbon/soot build-up”, which applied in this case.
• In addition to this, the business working on the customer’s vehicle confirmed that the car had not been serviced since 2018, and our terms and conditions confirm the vehicle must be kept in a roadworthy condition, and serviced in line with the manufacturer’s recommended service intervals.
• Like many other insurance products, there will always be restrictions on what can claimed for, and we are unfortunately unable to overturn our decision to decline the customer’s request.

The adjudication outcome:

• After reviewing the evidence, The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator noted that the warranty did not apply to failures caused by “oil degradation or carbon/soot build-up”.
• Since the repairer had informed the warranty provider that the vehicle had not been serviced since 2018, and with no contradicting evidence being provided by the consumer, it was reasonable to establish that the lack of regular maintenance contributed to the accumulation of soot in the engine, resulting in the engine management light to illuminate.
• The adjudicator also remarked that it was clearly stated that the warranty provider would not pay for any costs resulting from a vehicle not being kept in an unroadworthy condition or not being serviced in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations.
• Even if the consumer had provided evidence proving that the vehicle had been serviced, they still would have been unable to make a valid claim under the warranty due to failures caused by soot build-up not being covered.
• In regards to the policy being “mis-sold”, the adjudicator noted that the consumer had purchased it online. This meant that before the completion of the sale, the consumer had the opportunity to review the policy’s terms and conditions.
• Furthermore, considering a further 14-day cooling period was provided following the purchase, the consumer had adequate time to cancel the warranty if they believed it was not suited to their needs.
• As a result of the evidence presented, the consumer’s complaint was not upheld in their favour.

Conclusion:

• The consumer did not respond to the adjudication outcome. The business was notified of this, and the case was subsequently closed.

The post Engine management sensors claim appeared first on The Motor Ombudsman.

“I bought a 64-plate sportscar, and took out an extended warranty to cover the cost of any major faults. I had a water pump and connection boxes fail on my car, which meant that the vehicle had to be recovered at a fee of £40 to a local garage (the policy covers up to the amount of £50). To fix the leak, this required a new water pump, a coolant pipe and hose, a crush gasket, and a pipe junction. However, when a claim was submitted to the warranty provider, this was declined, apart from the cost of the pump, leaving me with a £280 bill to pay, inclusive of labour.

Although I am aware tubes are excluded under the policy, I believe the other parts and labour should be covered, as these are mechanical components, which are complex in shape, and are formed from a rigid material, not a flexible pipe or hose, as was stated.

Therefore, I believe I have a valid claim for the business to reimburse me for both the costs of the recovery and other failed parts listed under the policy in order to resolve my complaint. I am also seeking compensation for the inconvenience that I have suffered.”

The accredited business’ response:

• After reviewing the claim, we are able to cover the cost of replacing the water pump, but the coolant pipe and hose are not covered, as they are listed within the exclusions section on the agreement.
• Therefore, we have approved the claim for the covered part required in line with the policy.
• Unfortunately, we are unable to provide any assistance beyond this.

The adjudication outcome:

• The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator stated that the complainant had the burden of demonstrating that the replacement of the parts mentioned, and the recovery cost should be covered under the terms of the warranty agreement.
• The adjudicator explained that the warranty provider was only obliged to cover repair costs when a covered component suffered a mechanical breakdown – defined as a complete failure of the part.
• In terms of the evidence provided, there were images of the faulty components that were removed and needed to be replaced. From these, it was clear that these parts were specifically excluded from coverage in terms of the warranty.
• With regards to the vehicle recovery, the warranty policy stipulated that costs would only be covered in the event of a valid claim.
• Therefore, due to the warranty claim being declined, the adjudicator could not agree that this charge should be reimbursed.
• As a result, the complaint was not upheld in the consumer’s favour, meaning the warranty provider was not obliged to cover the repair or the recovery costs.

The response to the adjudication outcome:

• The business agreed with the outcome, but the consumer disagreed, and requested a final decision from the ombudsman. This is because they explained that the original fault was settled by the business, and so the recovery costs should have been included within this settlement.

The ombudsman’s final decision:

• The ombudsman reviewed the complaint, and was satisfied that the business had declined the coverage of parts in line with the warranty terms.
• The exclusions listed under the policy clearly stated gaskets, hoses and pipes, meaning all of the items listed on the repair invoice were parts that fell within this category.
• However, as the business confirmed that the water pump was replaced under the policy, the ombudsman stated that they should cover the recovery charge of £40 that the consumer incurred.
• The ombudsman therefore determined that there had been a breach of the Vehicle Warranty Products Code, as the business did not cover the recovery costs, as they should have done under the terms of the policy, which was up the value of £50, inclusive of VAT.
• The business also failed to adequately respond to the complaint, as they dismissed the consumer’s claim about the recovery costs.
• As a result, the consumer’s case was partially upheld, and the business was directed to reimburse the customer for the sum of £40.
• As to the consumer’s claim for compensation for the inconvenience of raising the complaint, the ombudsman stated that The Motor Ombudsman does not make financial rewards for distress or inconvenience, and that no further action could be taken on this point.

The post Coolant pipe and hose claim appeared first on The Motor Ombudsman.

“I purchased a used 17-plate compact sports car in October 2022, and I took out an extended warranty at the same time. Just a week after buying the vehicle, various warning lights illuminated on the dashboard. I contacted the warranty company to make a claim, but they refused to take this in any further, as they said that I needed to find a garage of my choice in order for a claim to be made.

I went to a business that specialised in my brand of vehicle and obtained a quote for the diagnostics. I tried to get approval from the warranty company, but the business told me that the garage should contact them directly to confirm what repairs are needed. It was found that a new wheel speed sensor was required.

The garage then advised me that the warranty company had approved the repairs, but were only querying their labour rate for the diagnostic which they kindly offered to reduce for me to £72.50 + VAT, to avoid the warranty provider not covering the entire cost of the repair. At this point, I was not advised by either the warranty provider or the garage that I would have to cover any shortfall once the work had been done.

Following the repair, I submitted the garage’s invoice for £393 to the warranty company, as advised by the workshop, and the warranty provider said that it would take up to 30 days to be reimbursed, which I thought was excessive. Even at this stage, there was no indication I wouldn’t be getting all of my money back.
It was only ten days after submitting the invoice that I received the first communication from the warranty company, where they said that they would only be paying £279 of the £393 – a shortfall of over £100, with no breakdown or reason given.

I do not believe I am responsible for paying this remaining amount, which is specifically due to poor / absent communications from the warranty provider. To resolve my complaint, I would like to be compensated for my financial loss, and also for my time having to go to the trouble of complaining and referring the matter to The Motor Ombudsman for such a minor amount.

I would also like the warranty provider to fully address the complaint I made, as they only commented about the labour costs. There was no reference made to the parts costs, plus there was lack of contact about them not approving the costs in full, and no sign of any apology.”

The accredited business’ response:

• We are sorry to hear that the consumer was disappointed with the amount reimbursed following their claim submitted to us.
• However, we only pay for labour in line with the manufacturer’s recommended repair times. It would appear the garage overcharged the customer on labour, as they quoted two hours to change the wheel sensor, where it should take only 0.2 hours. We therefore authorised one hour of labour as part of the claim, which was the maximum amount of labour that would be covered by the policy terms.
• The cost of parts within the claim was covered by us in full, and we will not be making any further reimbursement to the customer on this occasion.

The adjudication outcome:

• The adjudicator explained that, under the Vehicle Warranty Products Code, the warranty provider had an obligation to act in accordance with the terms of the warranty agreement.
• The adjudicator also stated that, as the complainant, the consumer had the evidential burden of showing that the warranty provider had failed to honour the warranty by not covering the labour cost in full.
• It was noted that, under the warranty agreement, the warranty provider was only responsible for covering repair costs when a covered component suffered a sudden and unexpected failure.
• In this case, the terms of the warranty stated that a maximum of one hour of labour would be covered.
• The adjudicator also acknowledged that the garage told the warranty company that the repair would only take 0.2 hours. Therefore this is what was approved.
• However, the work ended up taking two hours, which exceeded the maximum time limit of our hour defined under the policy terms.
• On this basis, the warranty provider was only responsible for covering a maximum of one hour instead of the full two hours that was being claimed for, meaning the case was not upheld in the consumer’s favour.

The consumer’s response:

• The consumer rejected the adjudicator’s findings, and said the root cause of their complaint was that the warranty provider did not inform them of any liabilities when the claim was being made.
• The customer said that they would have taken their vehicle to a cheaper garage if they had previously been aware of the cost that they would be responsible for.
• The customer maintained a desired resolution to have the full claim paid and compensation for inconvenience caused, and requested a final decision from an ombudsman.

The ombudsman’s final decision:

•  The ombudsman reviewed the case in full, including the adjudication outcome, and explained the main dispute that needed to be considered was if the claim had been dealt with in the correct way.
• The ombudsman stated that the consumer believed that the warranty provider had breached the Vehicle Warranty Code, as they were not made aware of the claim limits.
• However, based on the documentation submitted, the ombudsman did not deem the consumer to have been treated unfairly, or that any elements of the Code had been breached. It was also determined that the claim amount had been calculated correctly.
• The ombudsman remarked that the warranty provider has been informed by the garage that the work would only take 0.2 hours, and so they authorised the repairs on this basis. Had the business been told the labour would be two hours from the beginning, then she would have expected them to communicate the limits to the customer.
• However, as they were not informed of the actual labour required as part of the work, they authorised the repairs as the labour and parts fell within the warranty’s terms and conditions i.e. a maximum of our hour of labour.
• Whilst the ombudsman understood that the consumer would be unhappy to be left paying for costs that they believed to be covered under his warranty, the ombudsman agreed with the warranty provider that the garage had misrepresented the labour cost, which is why the claim amount was reduced.
• On these grounds, the case was not upheld in the consumer’s favour at the final decision stage and, as a result, they were not entitled to any further award.

The post Wheel sensor repair claim appeared first on The Motor Ombudsman.

“I took out a top-of-the-range extended warranty policy for my saloon car that I bought new in August 2016 for around £30,000. When the car was less than five years old, a warning light appeared on the dashboard in relation to the height of the chassis. An independent specialist that looked at the car found that there was a fault with the suspension compressor valve block, and the warranty provider authorised its replacement. However, when the repair was being made, the mechanic noticed air escaping from the suspension air bags, so they made contact again with the warranty company, and it was agreed that they should also be replaced. However, after they were changed, the warning light re-appeared, and the garage found the same fault codes.

When the car was returned for further repairs, the warranty administrator authorised the work in relation to the suspension air bags, but withdrew the authorisation for the repair of the valve block, as they said that it did not meet the terms of the warranty, as the fault was said to be “progressive” rather than being a “sudden mechanical failure”. However, I disputed this, as the warranty policy covered suspension parts, and wear and tear up to five years of age or 60,000 miles. At the time of my claim, my car had only travelled about 42,500 miles, and was less than five years old, so met both of these criteria.

To resolve my dispute, I am looking for the warranty provider to honour the coverage provided by the policy, and to cover the £700 cost of replacing the compressor valve block, which they have refused to pay for.”

The accredited business’ response:

• The purpose of our warranty policy is to protect against sudden and unexpected breakdown to mechanical and electrical components within the vehicle. Our terms define a breakdown as: “The sudden and unexpected failure of a component arising from any permanent mechanical or electrical defect, (for a reason other than wear and tear, normal deterioration or negligence) causing a sudden stoppage of its function, necessitating immediate repair or replacement of the component before normal operation can be resumed.”
• The first diagnosis of the problem we received from the repairer was that the suspension valve block had failed and required replacement. The claim was subsequently authorised by us, but then the diagnosis changed, and it was confirmed that the suspension air bags had actually failed.
• Following this repair, the garage then told us that the fault remained and that the control module required replacement.
• From the final diagnosis, it was clear from our point of view that that the air bags deteriorated to the point of leaking, thus putting excessive strain on the compressor valve block, which eventually broke down. The garage said it was not a sudden failure, against which our warranty protects, but occurred over a period of time.
• Therefore, we stand by our claim authorisation in order to assist the customer with the cost of the most expensive element of repair needed to their vehicle, which we think is a fair resolution.

The adjudication outcome:

• The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator explained that, even though the invoices and the responses from each party confirmed the presence of a fault with the suspension system, there was no clear indication that the compressor block suffered a sudden and unexpected breakdown.
• Instead, the documentary evidence suggested that, on a balance of probabilities, the compressor block more likely broke down over an extended period of time, and its repair could therefore not be covered by the provider under the terms of the warranty agreement.
• Therefore, the adjudicator was unable to uphold the complaint in the consumer’s favour.

The consumer’s response to the adjudication outcome:

• The consumer rejected the adjudicator’s findings, because from their perspective, the part was covered under the terms of the warranty, as the claim was declined on the basis that the failure of the component was “progressive”, and that this word was not mentioned anywhere on the policy.
• The consumer also highlighted that suspension parts were not listed as excluded components, and brought attention to the wear and tear clause, which explained that, no claim would be rejected on the grounds of wear and tear, where the vehicle had covered less than 60,000 miles, and was under five years old at the time of the claim. At this point, the consumer’s car was less than five years old and had only covered about 42,500 miles.
• The consumer requested a final decision from an ombudsman.

The ombudsman’s final decision:

•  The ombudsman acknowledged that the consumer had taken their car to a garage to be inspected shortly after the warning light appeared, which the warranty provider did not dispute, and was satisfied that the consumer did not continue to drive the vehicle, and cause damage after the warning light for the chassis height came on.
• In the ombudsman’s view, the compressor failed as a result of a sudden and unexpected mechanical failure, and may well have been as a result of wear and tear of the compressor, or related parts. However, the policy did state that no claim would be rejected on the grounds of wear and tear, and protected against sudden component failure requiring immediate repair and replacement.
• The ombudsman decided that these terms could be seen as contradictory. He added that, where there is any contradiction in the terms, the usual principle is for those terms to be construed in favour of the person who did not draft those terms i.e. the consumer . This is known as “contra proferentem”.
• Therefore, the ombudsman upheld the complaint in the consumer’s favour, as the policy said that a claim could not be declined due to wear and tear. Therefore, the consumer was entitled to the £700 cost of the repair to be covered by the warranty provider.

The post Conflicting warranty terms appeared first on The Motor Ombudsman.

“I purchased a used 61-plate petrol SUV with around 56,000 miles on the clock in January 2022, and took out an 18-month extended warranty at the same time (for the price of 12 months). In May 2022, the clutch on the vehicle suffered a sudden failure rendering the car immobile. After the breakdown service recovered the vehicle to my home, I submitted a claim to the warranty provider to have the car repaired, but to my dismay, I was informed that the repair would not be covered under the policy, as the part failure was considered wear and tear.

The warranty provider’s recommended garage informed me that another report was to be carried out by their in-house engineer. Following further investigation and the report, the vehicle now requires a replacement clutch kit.

As I am still paying for the warranty policy, all I want is that they honour their end of the bargain and pay for the parts to repair my vehicle, as well as the cost of the transportation of the vehicle to the garage, which equates to a total claim of around £670.”

The accredited business’ response:

•  In May 2022, the customer called our repairs team to report an issue with the clutch.
• We advised that the vehicle should be recovered to a VAT registered garage of the customer’s choice, and to provide our business with the diagnosis and estimate for the repairs for us to assess their claim.
• A couple of days later, the customer provided a quote for repair by an independent garage, which was around £680.
• However, due to there being very little detail with the quote, we decided to send out an independent engineer to inspect the customer’s car.
• In our opinion, the vehicle displayed common symptoms of a concentric slave cylinder defect, which we consider was most likely due to general in-service wear of the concentric slave cylinder seal or sleeve, allowing fluid leakage and the loss of hydraulic operation.
• The clutch kit faults with this car were therefore caused by long term wear and deterioration, and there had not been a sudden and unexpected failure of the clutch as per the terms of the customer’s warranty.
• We explained to the consumer the reasons why we would not be able to approve the claim, and our appeals team came to the same conclusion that it should be declined.

The adjudication outcome:

•   The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator considered the version of events provided by both parties, and explained that the consumer had the evidential burden of demonstrating that the cost of the clutch repair should be covered under the terms of the warranty.
• The adjudicator remarked that the warranty provider was only obliged to cover the costs of repair when a component suffered sudden mechanical or electrical failure, and the vehicle is recovered to a garage.
• The evidence showed that the clutch suffered a sudden and unexpected mechanical failure. When inspected, the clutch pedal showed no resistance and stayed at the lowest point when depressed. The report provided by the warranty provider gave three probable causes of the issue and concluded that the condition would have been developing at the inception of the policy.
• The adjudicator explained that their decision would be made on balance of probabilities, and explained that the warranty provider had an obligation to act in accordance with the warranty agreement.
• The adjudicator did not find the multiple probable cause to be definitive, and explained that the conclusion reached on this basis would be insufficient for the claim to be rejected.
• The fact of the case remained that the clutch suffered sudden and unexpected mechanical failure.
• As such, the adjudicator found that the warranty provider had breached the terms of the warranty agreement by rejecting the customer’s claim for the sudden failure of the clutch.
• As a result, the customer’s complaint was upheld in their favour, and the warranty provider was obligated to reimburse the cost of clutch assembly renewal along with the cost of vehicle transportation – a total of £672.

Conclusion

• The warranty provider accepted the adjudicator’s decision, but outlined the fact the consumer had a 50% parts and labour contribution to make plus the required excess.
• This information was relayed to consumer who agreed to the terms, and with both parties in agreement, the case was then closed.

The post Sudden clutch failure appeared first on The Motor Ombudsman.