Engine management sensors claim

The consumer’s issue:

“I purchased a used diesel hatchback with 51,000 miles on the clock from a private individual in August 2022. At the same time, I took out an extended warranty policy, which was managed by a third party on behalf of the manufacturer of my vehicle.

Three months later, I had an issue with my engine, and a problem with the engine management sensors was diagnosed. A claim was therefore made in line with the warranty terms, as the policy documentation said that these components were covered. However, it was refused, as I was told that the sensors were not included under the agreement. In fact, both the manufacturer’s service centre and the warranty provider said the other party was responsible for declining the claim.

I therefore sought clarification on this from the vehicle manufacturer, and after attempting to contact them in January and February 2023, I discovered that the email addresses advertised on their website were incorrect. When I was eventually able to speak to them in April 2023, I expressed my desire to open an investigation, only to find out three months later that it had never been initiated.

I eventually received a response from the manufacturer in August 2023 which did not allow me to proceed with my claim, and I therefore deem the policy to have been mis-sold, as neither the manufacturer or the third party extended vehicle warranty provider covered the parts listed in the agreement. To resolve my complaint, I am therefore seeking a full refund of the sum of £517 paid for the policy, as I believe my claim has been turned down incorrectly.”

The accredited business’ response:

  • We do not believe the policy was mis-sold, as the consumer had the opportunity to review the terms and conditions before making the purchase online.
  • Following the completion of a purchase, a further 14-day cooling off period is also given to allow a consumer more time to refer to the policy documents to ensure the extended warranty is suitable. As such, we believe the policy was sold in good faith.
  • As we had no further contact from the consumer regarding the policy, we cannot agree that they were unhappy with the terms and conditions.
  • The policy booklet refers to items not covered by the warranty. Despite stating that the engine, which includes engine management sensors, is covered, the booklet also specifies that the agreement does not apply to failures caused by “oil degradation or carbon/soot build-up”, which applied in this case.
  • In addition to this, the business working on the customer’s vehicle confirmed that the car had not been serviced since 2018, and our terms and conditions confirm the vehicle must be kept in a roadworthy condition, and serviced in line with the manufacturer’s recommended service intervals.
  • Like many other insurance products, there will always be restrictions on what can claimed for, and we are unfortunately unable to overturn our decision to decline the customer’s request.

The adjudication outcome:

  • After reviewing the evidence, The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator noted that the warranty did not apply to failures caused by “oil degradation or carbon/soot build-up”.
  • Since the repairer had informed the warranty provider that the vehicle had not been serviced since 2018, and with no contradicting evidence being provided by the consumer, it was reasonable to establish that the lack of regular maintenance contributed to the accumulation of soot in the engine, resulting in the engine management light to illuminate.
  • The adjudicator also remarked that it was clearly stated that the warranty provider would not pay for any costs resulting from a vehicle not being kept in an unroadworthy condition or not being serviced in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations.
  • Even if the consumer had provided evidence proving that the vehicle had been serviced, they still would have been unable to make a valid claim under the warranty due to failures caused by soot build-up not being covered.
  • In regards to the policy being “mis-sold”, the adjudicator noted that the consumer had purchased it online. This meant that before the completion of the sale, the consumer had the opportunity to review the policy’s terms and conditions.
  • Furthermore, considering a further 14-day cooling period was provided following the purchase, the consumer had adequate time to cancel the warranty if they believed it was not suited to their needs.
  • As a result of the evidence presented, the consumer’s complaint was not upheld in their favour.

Conclusion:

  • The consumer did not respond to the adjudication outcome. The business was notified of this, and the case was subsequently closed.