The consumer’s issue:
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.
