Steering rack failure

The consumer’s issue:

I bought a four-year-old ‘67 plate saloon in 2021, and took out a one-year extended warranty policy in January 2023. Five months later, I was driving when my steering rack seized and locked, and I was unable to turn the wheel. My vehicle was recovered to the repairing dealership, and a claim was made to the extended warranty provider to replace the steering rack which was about £3,700.

The extended warranty provider approved the claim in August 2023, two months after it had been submitted, and then negotiated with the repairing dealership to fit a reconditioned part. After the dealership agreed, there was a two-week wait for the component to be delivered and fitted to my vehicle, which was done at the end of August.

When the repairer installed the part, they found that there was a compatibility issue it, so I had to wait for an additional sensor to be reordered and fitted, which meant I only got my car back in mid-October 2023. I therefore had to take trains and pay for temporary insurance cover on a car that I borrowed.

I do not think this qualifies as a simple, fair and prompt process, and I think it is a breach of The Motor Ombudsman’s Code of Practice for Extended Warranty Products from what your website says. To resolve my complaint, I am looking for a refund of £2,000, to cover the cost of a like-for-like hire car (£1,600), the cost of the trains, the temporary insurance, and compensation for emotional damages of not being able to return to my family at the weekend.”

The accredited business’ response:

  • The repair of the vehicle was fully paid-for under warranty, and the vehicle was returned to the customer in full working condition in October 2023.
  • We sent an independent engineering inspector who reported that the failure was not sudden and unexpected as required by the terms of the warranty, and we could have declined the claim, but we decided to assist the customer as a gesture of goodwill.
  • We informed the customer that we would attempt to source a reconditioned steering rack as the cost for a new part was excessive. This part was sourced from a third-party specialist.
  • The repairing dealership found issues with the compatibility, but this was resolved, however, new issues were found with the steering angle sensor, that had to be reordered.
  • The total cost of the repair was nearly £2,700, which was paid for under warranty.
  • We agree that there were undue delays, and we apologise for this and any inconvenience caused, but some delays were outside of our control.

The adjudication outcome:

  • After reviewing the evidence supplied by both parties, the adjudicator noted that the fault would not have been covered under the warranty, as it was not sudden and unexpected failure as defined in the warranty terms. This meant that the repair was covered as a goodwill gesture.
  • The consumer complained about the delay in responding to their claim, but the adjudicator found this to be in line with the terms of the warranty which stipulates a maximum time of eight weeks to come to a decision on any claim.
  • The adjudicator also found that the terms of the warranty state that the accredited business can request for a more economical repair, and for reconditioned parts to be used. This was the case here, and while a fault was found with the reconditioned component, it was ultimately fixed at no cost to the consumer.
  • The adjudicator stated that The Motor Ombudsman does not award compensation for stress and inconvenience, and un-proven consequential losses, so the consumer’s claim for compensation for emotional damages and the temporary insurance was not upheld.
  • The consumer did not actually hire a vehicle, so this rental cost was also not awarded.
  • The accredited business had already apologised to the customer for the delay in having the repair carried out, so there was no other remedy available.
  • As a result of the evidence presented, the consumer’s complaint was not upheld in their favour.

Conclusion:

  • The consumer and the accredited business accepted the adjudicator’s decision, and the case was closed.