The consumer’s issue:
“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.
