The consumer’s issue:
“I have an 11-year-old saloon car. Because of the age of the vehicle, I decided to buy an extended warranty policy to cover the cost of repairs of any faults. Shortly after purchasing the warranty, the automatic gearbox suffered a mechanical failure. I reported the problem to the warranty provider, and they had an independent inspection carried out. They claimed that the fault was due to wear and tear, so the warranty provider refused to cover the repairs.
I disagreed with this because my garage told me that the components were broken, so I asked a different independent inspector to look at my vehicle. They examined it and, in their opinion, the gearbox broke down due to a sudden mechanical failure, which is covered under my warranty.
I shared the report with the warranty provider, but they’ve refused to change their position. I am looking for the business to cover the full cost of the repair, which is £3,600.”
The accredited business’ response:
- The claim for the repair of the automatic gearbox was declined based on the report of our independent assessor. The assessment concluded that the drive chain was worn and had been slipping on the drum.
- The customer’s repairer said that a weld broke on the drive drum, so the customer had their own inspection, which agreed the drive drum had broken. We sent this report to our assessor, who disputed the findings.
- We have been speaking to the customer for some time now trying to get some evidence of the failed weld, but all they send is a picture of the drum, which our assessor said does not show any failure.
- A third company was engaged for a second opinion and they agreed that there was no visual failure to the unit other than the wear to the pulley.
- They also sent images of two similar working drums, which looked exactly the same, but without the wear.
- We have constantly advised her that if we can get evidence of the broken weld then we would look at the claim again, but so far there has been no evidence of this failed component.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator reviewed the complaint and found the evidence to be conflicting. Because of this, they assessed the evidence on the balance of probabilities to determine which set of evidence she found to be more persuasive.
- However, both sets of reports were convincing, so she was not able to prefer one over the other.
- Under the circumstances, she felt a fair way to resolve the complaint would be to partially uphold the complaint, and for both parties to contribute equally to the full cost of the repair totalling £3,600.
- The consumer disagreed with this, as they felt the business should be covering the full cost of the claim, so they asked for an ombudsman to review the complaint.
The ombudsman’s final decision:
- The ombudsman agreed with the adjudicator’s approach in this instance.
- They understood why the business sought to reject the claim, based on the views of their technical evidence. However, the consumer was able to provide the same level of technical evidence to support their own version of events.
- The ombudsman felt that, while there was no consensus in technical opinions, the consumer had been able to supply enough information to raise sufficient doubts, and so they agreed with the adjudicator’s findings that the consumer should not have to bear the full burden of the costs of repair.
- She therefore supported that both parties paid £1,800 towards the total cost of the repair, and partially upheld the complaint in the consumer’s favour.
Conclusion:
- The consumer accepted the ombudsman’s final decision, and the case was closed.
