Simultaneous component failures

The consumer’s issue:

Thirteen days after taking out my extended warranty, my car suffered several faults, all at the same time. I had problems with the centre console button on my multimedia unit, the offside front turbo pipe and the offside front suspension strut.

I tried to claim for the cost of the repairs to be covered by the policy, but the warranty provider declined to pay. They said that they thought it was extremely unlikely for all three components to suddenly and unexpectedly fail at the same time, particularly so soon after I took out the warranty.

They therefore wanted me to provide proof of a sudden mechanical failure, and I thought this was really unfair. It’s not my fault that the car had so many issues after I took out the policy. I even provided the warranty provider with a copy of my most recent MOT, which showed the vehicle passed with no advisories, so it must have been in a roadworthy condition. However, the extended warranty provider instead cancelled my policy and refunded me the remaining premium. This is nowhere near enough to pay for the cost of the repairs that I think should be covered by the warranty.

To resolve my dispute, I am looking for the warranty provider to pay for all of the repairs, and the cost of the recovery of my vehicle to the garage.”

The accredited business’ response:

  • A claim such as this arouses immediate suspicion – genuine claims are almost always for one failure and not multiple and unconnected faults, especially considering the car had only been covered by the policy for just 13 days.
  • There was no mention from the customer of a breakdown or the recovery of the vehicle, and we note that no recovery receipt has been provided, despite the consumer’s claim for these costs to be reimbursed.
  • Car warranties are not designed to help customers who sign up to a policy with pre-existing faults, and we found no evidence to support the customer’s assertion that all three incidents happened suddenly and unexpectedly after taking out the product.
  • There were also some other irregularities, including phone calls with the consumer where they admitted to there being pre-existing conditions. The repairing garage also requested to change parts that would not usually be replaced for these kinds of faults.
  • In any event, pre-existing faults are excluded from the warranty policy, so all claims by the customer were therefore declined.

The adjudication outcome:

  • The case was considered by two Motor Ombudsman adjudicators. The first rejected the complaint as they had been provided with no technical evidence to support the consumer’s claim that each problem was due to a sudden and unexpected breakdown.
  • As a result of the first adjudicator’s findings, the consumer submitted new evidence, and a second adjudicator considered the complaint again.
  • The adjudicator noted that the customer had supplied technical evidence from the repairing garage demonstrating that the offside front suspension strut had failed due to a sudden and unexpected breakdown, and that the car had been recovered to them
  • The adjudicator therefore partially upheld the complaint and, because of their findings, the business offered to pay the difference between the policy refund, and the costs to the consumer, which they calculated as being £383.64.
  • The customer, however, did not agree that this amount was correct or fair, as they felt it ought to be a payment of £859.20. They had calculated this on the basis of receiving a refund for the repair to the suspension strut, alongside the partial refund they received for the warranty. As such, the complaint was referred to an ombudsman for a final decision.

The ombudsman’s final decision:

  • The ombudsman considered whether there was sufficient evidence that the claim could be upheld in full. They did not think it could be, as they felt the business’ concerns over the evidence were reasonable, and the consumer had only provided technical documentation to support one element of their complaint.
  • In addition, they did not agree with the consumer’s calculation of £859.20. The consumer wanted the refund of their premium and the payment towards the repairs.
  • The ombudsman found this approach to be incorrect however, as they felt that the business acted reasonably in cancelling the policy, meaning the agreement should be treated as having never existed. As such, the consumer did not have a warranty to claim against, so could not receive the benefit of the warranty being cancelled and for a claim to be covered.
  • However, the ombudsman felt that the business waiting five months to cancel the policy was excessive and drew this out unnecessarily, because the information the warranty provider relied on to make this decision was available much sooner.
  • As such, they believed that the offer to cover the difference between the policy costs and repairs was fair to compensate the consumer for the inconvenience caused by the business’ delay.

Conclusion:

  • The consumer accepted the outcome and the business’ offer of £383.64, and the case was closed.