The consumer’s issue:
“I purchased my car in March 2013, and at the same, I also bought a ceramic coating as I wanted it to protect the paintwork on my vehicle. In July 2017, I noticed lacquer coming off on my bonnet. I contacted the warranty administrator to put in a claim, and I was asked to send in pictures of the damage to my vehicle which I duly did.
I was then informed that my claim had been refused because I failed to take off bird droppings from my car which caused the lacquer to come off. I do not accept that this is as a result of bird droppings as the damage would be all over the car and not just on the bonnet. I am therefore looking for my bonnet to be repainted and for the cost of this to be covered by the warranty administrator.”
The accredited business’ response:
- The customer’s claim was rejected using the photographic evidence provided.
- It was declined as the cause of damage is not covered under the terms and conditions of the policy.
- The ceramic coating agreement covers damage arising from frost, UV light, bird lime, tree sap, acid rain and hydrocarbons, but bird lime stains are only covered if they have been removed immediately. Bird lime is acidic and will cause damage to bodywork if left untouched for a long period of time.
The adjudication outcome:
- The adjudicator did not uphold the consumer’s complaint.
- Limitations apply to the consumer’s extended warranty product, and the exclusion, i.e. the speed of removal of the bird lime, was the reason for the claim being declined.
- The consumer believed that the damage had not been caused by bird lime, and was therefore asked to provide technical evidence supporting this in order for the outcome to be revised.
- Without the relevant evidence, a recommendation for the repair costs could not be made.
Conclusion:
- The consumer decided not to appeal with an independent technical report, and the case was closed.
