The consumer’s issue:
“My front left suspension was making a banging noise every time I turned right. I took the car to a garage on several occasions, but they could not find a fault with the car. I did not want to take any chances and breakdown on the road because I have a two-year-old child. Therefore, I took my car to a different garage where I instructed them to replace both front suspension arms which were broken. I phoned my warranty provider and told them that my car was in the garage getting fixed. I would like my warranty provider to refund me the money I paid for the repairs because they are covered by my warranty. In addition, my warranty provider has provided poor customer service and has failed to call me back.”
The accredited business’ response:
- The customer reported to us that he could hear a snapping sound on his vehicle’s suspension and that his friend’s garage was having a look at the car.
- His car was eventually driven to a garage outside of our nationwide network of approved workshops.
- This workshop did not provide us with a written diagnosis for us to assess the customer’s claim for repairs.
- Following the repair, we were provided with a diagnosis, invoice and photographs of the old parts. The photos showed that the suspension arms had deteriorated but this was not deemed to be a sudden and unexpected failure.
- The customer was therefore informed that his claim had been declined as it did not meet the conditions of his policy (i.e. he went ahead with the repair without authorisation).
- The customer’s appeal against the decision was rejected, but he still did not accept our explanation.
- The customer was offered a telephone call with our Chief Operating Officer (COO) and the customer accepted a refund of £229.54 as a “goodwill gesture” even though his claim had been declined.
- In addition, our Claims Engineers rejected the claim on the basis that they did not consider this to conform to our definition of a “breakdown”.
The adjudication outcome:
- Under the warranty agreement, the warranty provider is not obligated to pay for any repairs carried out without prior authorisation from the warranty provider.
- Therefore, the warranty provider had not acted in breach of the Vehicle Warranty Products Code of Practice and the customer’s claim was not upheld by The Motor Ombudsman.
- Additionally the warranty provider had always responded to the customer within a reasonable time frame.
Conclusion:
- The customer and the accredited business accepted the outcome as recommended by The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator and the case was closed.
