The consumer’s issue:
“I purchased a used 66-plate petrol saloon in September 2018 for nearly £14,500, and a leaking water pump was discovered during the service at my local franchise dealership in September 2022. The diagnosis revealed that the seal within the water pump was the main source of the leak, which meant that the entire water pump had to be replaced at a cost of £400.
I claimed to have this cost covered under the manufacturer’s warranty, but upon the collection of my vehicle, I was informed that it had been declined, as the seal was not covered under the policy, which I disputed, as the water pump is a listed component.
As a resolution to my complaint, I am looking for a full refund from the manufacturer for the sum paid for the replacement of the water pump, along with a written apology, as it’s a covered component, and I have serviced my vehicle in accordance with the vehicle manufacturer’s schedule.”
The accredited business’ response:
- The customer contacted us to advise that a new water pump was fitted to their vehicle, which had a full service history, and just 27,000 miles on the clock.
- The customer was unhappy with the fact that they had been billed £400 for the work carried out, as they were under the impression that the policy would cover this.
- We advised the customer that within the warranty terms not all components are covered, and more times than not, the warranty claim relies on the cause of the fault.
- The technicians at the dealership looked into the issue, and confirmed that the seal suffered a gradual deterioration with age.
- Unfortunately, we do not have the means to overturn our warranty process, and advised the customer that, as we had escalated all the points raised, they would need to take their vehicle to another dealership for a second opinion or to contact The Motor Ombudsman to resolve the dispute.
- The customer responded advising they had cancelled their service plan, and that they would be visiting an independent garage for any work required in the future.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator considered the version of events provided by both parties, and explained that the complainant in this dispute had the evidential burden of demonstrating that the fault with their water pump was covered within the scope of the warranty.
- The adjudicator disagreed with the response from the manufacturer to dismiss the warranty claim on the basis of gradual deterioration.
- They explained that the failure of the component had occurred within a mileage of less than 28,000, which could not be considered a reasonable amount for such an issue to occur, and to reject the claim under the guise of gradual deterioration.
- The adjudicator equally remarked that the water pump was indeed a covered component within the terms and condition of the manufacturer’s warranty.
- The fact of the case remained that an integral part of the component failed, and the water pump was covered within the terms.
- As such, the adjudicator concluded that the manufacturer should refund the cost of the water pump replacement to the customer, and issue an apology for the wrongful rejection of the claim.
Conclusion
- The manufacturer and the customer accepted the conclusion reached by the adjudicator, and the customer received a full refund for the water pump repair, a £30 contribution towards a new service plan, and an apology for their mistake made.
- The case was then closed.
