The consumer’s issue:
“In February 2012, I bought a new vehicle and was informed that it came with a lifetime warranty. At its service in 2017, an oil leak was identified on the engine, but I was told that this wouldn’t be covered under warranty because the agreement doesn’t reference seals or gaskets. Having read through the terms and conditions provided, the engine is a covered component and there are no exclusions for seals or gaskets. The exclusion wording within the terms does not specifically identify the seals and gaskets as not being covered. The one which failed on my vehicle is not a moving part and not one which is subject to wear and tear. I would therefore like the vehicle manufacturer to pay for my repair.”
The accredited business’ response:
- We investigated the matter with the service manager at the diagnosing dealership.
- They advised that the consumer came in with an oil leak which, after further diagnostics, was not considered to be a manufacturing defect.
- It was due to a seal which is not covered after the original manufacturer’s warranty has expired.
- We realise the consumer has a full service history, but this is not on the list of covered components, and the repair costs therefore lie with the customer.
- The parts in question are also not serviceable.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator did not uphold the customer’s complaint.
- On reviewing the terms and conditions, he noted that it had a list of components which were specifically covered, meaning anything not mentioned there, including seals and gaskets, would not be included.
- The consumer disagreed as the gasket in question was part of the engine, which was a covered component, and therefore should have been included.
- The case was therefore referred to the ombudsman for a final decision.
The ombudsman’s final decision:
- The ombudsman disagreed with the adjudication outcome and upheld the customer’s complaint.
- She found that there were two tests to see if something was covered under warranty – Is the component a covered component and, if so, did it fail for a reason other than wear or tear or did any other exclusion apply?
- Looking at the first test, in her view, this is a covered component as part of the engine. The warranty did not break down the engine into its individual parts – it just said the “engine”, which would indicate all of its individual parts are covered including the seals and gaskets.
- Looking at the second test, no argument had been made that the part failed due to wear and tear, and none of the other exclusions appeared to apply. For example, the part was not a serviceable item.
- As such, the ombudsman ruled that the vehicle manufacturer should cover the cost of repair in full.
Conclusion:
- The accredited business was found in breach of the Motor Industry Code of Practice for New Cars, and the consumer was awarded the full cost of repairs.
