The consumer’s issue:
“I purchased a used 61-plate petrol SUV with around 56,000 miles on the clock in January 2022, and took out an 18-month extended warranty at the same time (for the price of 12 months). In May 2022, the clutch on the vehicle suffered a sudden failure rendering the car immobile. After the breakdown service recovered the vehicle to my home, I submitted a claim to the warranty provider to have the car repaired, but to my dismay, I was informed that the repair would not be covered under the policy, as the part failure was considered wear and tear.
The warranty provider’s recommended garage informed me that another report was to be carried out by their in-house engineer. Following further investigation and the report, the vehicle now requires a replacement clutch kit.
As I am still paying for the warranty policy, all I want is that they honour their end of the bargain and pay for the parts to repair my vehicle, as well as the cost of the transportation of the vehicle to the garage, which equates to a total claim of around £670.”
The accredited business’ response:
- In May 2022, the customer called our repairs team to report an issue with the clutch.
- We advised that the vehicle should be recovered to a VAT registered garage of the customer’s choice, and to provide our business with the diagnosis and estimate for the repairs for us to assess their claim.
- A couple of days later, the customer provided a quote for repair by an independent garage, which was around £680.
- However, due to there being very little detail with the quote, we decided to send out an independent engineer to inspect the customer’s car.
- In our opinion, the vehicle displayed common symptoms of a concentric slave cylinder defect, which we consider was most likely due to general in-service wear of the concentric slave cylinder seal or sleeve, allowing fluid leakage and the loss of hydraulic operation.
- The clutch kit faults with this car were therefore caused by long term wear and deterioration, and there had not been a sudden and unexpected failure of the clutch as per the terms of the customer’s warranty.
- We explained to the consumer the reasons why we would not be able to approve the claim, and our appeals team came to the same conclusion that it should be declined.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator considered the version of events provided by both parties, and explained that the consumer had the evidential burden of demonstrating that the cost of the clutch repair should be covered under the terms of the warranty.
- The adjudicator remarked that the warranty provider was only obliged to cover the costs of repair when a component suffered sudden mechanical or electrical failure, and the vehicle is recovered to a garage.
- The evidence showed that the clutch suffered a sudden and unexpected mechanical failure. When inspected, the clutch pedal showed no resistance and stayed at the lowest point when depressed. The report provided by the warranty provider gave three probable causes of the issue and concluded that the condition would have been developing at the inception of the policy.
- The adjudicator explained that their decision would be made on balance of probabilities, and explained that the warranty provider had an obligation to act in accordance with the warranty agreement.
- The adjudicator did not find the multiple probable cause to be definitive, and explained that the conclusion reached on this basis would be insufficient for the claim to be rejected.
- The fact of the case remained that the clutch suffered sudden and unexpected mechanical failure.
- As such, the adjudicator found that the warranty provider had breached the terms of the warranty agreement by rejecting the customer’s claim for the sudden failure of the clutch.
- As a result, the customer’s complaint was upheld in their favour, and the warranty provider was obligated to reimburse the cost of clutch assembly renewal along with the cost of vehicle transportation – a total of £672.
Conclusion
- The warranty provider accepted the adjudicator’s decision, but outlined the fact the consumer had a 50% parts and labour contribution to make plus the required excess.
- This information was relayed to consumer who agreed to the terms, and with both parties in agreement, the case was then closed.
