Thoughts on Warranty Claim Needed

[charliedb2]

Hello all,

I am after your valuable insight and experience if i may. I bought a C2S 997 gen2 from Porsche newcastle 2 months ago, i noticed that the rear light clusters were prone to condensation within the first few days and sent my local OPC (Leicester) a pic of it misting. They went to porsche for the warranty claim but it got refused as there was apparently not enough water for it to be deemed enough.

As the weather has got damper its got worse and i have just sent them the below picture.



The service manager at Porsche Leicester came back with the following response;

"Having taken a look at the images this would not unfortunately be a warranty covered issue as the likely hood is that the
Failure will be caused by a gradual deterioration rather than a sudden failure.

This means it is wear and tear which is not covered on the Porsche extended warranty.

I am happy to order a lamp and fit it for you but this would be chargeable."

I think that takes the proverbial personally, how is a light cluster subject to wear and tear? This is my first warranty dealing with Porsche and i am pretty unimpressed, is this usual for them, am i being unfair with the claim? Any thoughts greatly appreciated.

Charlie

[Magic919]

I would go after the OPC that sold you it.

Some of them only want to replace them if the water is 'pooling', which mine did eventually. I could have kept fish in mine, in the end. Given time the indicators start to flash quickly when the water sloshes and it causes an alarm on the dash. Like this >

[river_rat]

That's very poor, I woudl expect them just to replace that regardless of whether it is under warranty or not - you only bought it 2 months ago and it already had the issue!

[Baz99]

Mechanisable quality / fitness for purpose, spring to mind. Take it back and raise hell in the showroom. Alternatively drill drain holes in the bottom of the assembly, but of course concealed!

[WindyM]

One of my 997.2 rear lights had less condensation droplets inside than yours. Guildford OPC weren't sure Porsche would honour the warranty and took their own photos. They got back to me the next day to say it had been approved... maybe too many of us have claimed recently and Porsche have changed their policy? I'd ask to see the response from Porsche to make sure your OPC isn't being a gatekeeper. And then try Guildford OPC!

[VPD255M]

Regardless of the extended warranty, Sale of goods act 1979 states that if the fault is discovered within 6 months it is the dealers responsibility to prove that the car is of satisfactory quality & that the fault wasn't present when sold.

[Polome]

Recently I had a rear lens replaced under warranty , initially Opc a bit sticky until I showed them that the leakage point was a de lamination of the light lens . I.E. The red part had partially separated along the horizontal join with the clear part ,the unjointed seam of the two parts allowing water ingress. Easy to check by pressing gently along the seam ,if it's separated movement can be detected between coloured plastics. It was easy enough then to claim component failure. FWIW the new 991 rear lights look very similar but close inspection shows the lens to be a one piece unit , not made up with joined sections as per 997. Porsche obviously reacting( sensibly) to another " nothing wrong here sir " good luck. Ian

[ORD]

I wouldn't take no for an answer on this one.

You don't buy an OPC car to be told it's basically an old crock and that's your problem.

[majordad]

I had this problem on my 7.2GT3RS. Both lights were replaced under warranty. It's a known fault and where I live my car would fail it's MOT for that. The light lets in moisture so it's a design fault.

[wilkos]

Had mine replaced a couple of years ago. The lens had separated at the bottom of the clear section from the red section. got the usual 'it's a bit of condensation, it's normal' so I jet washed the crap out of it until the rear light was fiull of water and failed to work. Got replaced immediately.
If the lens is separating, it needs replacing. If it's slight condensation, then it's a design fault, but not a biggy.
For reference my 991 rear lights have never suffered any condensation.

Edited by wilkos on Friday 4th September 07:34

[charliedb2]

Thanks all for your replies, good to know the consensus is I'm in the right here.

Since posting Leicester have told me to go back to the dealer I purchase it from as it should have been sorted by them prepurchase. I have dropped Newcastle a message and wait to hear, however I can guarentee Leicester have not approached Porsche with the new pics as they responded to me within 20 minutes of my email.

One way or another I will get it sorted, it should not be this hard though, they are making Leicester Audi look like saints so far based on my previous experience.

[Demort]

That is a border line warrenty claim , porsche now include wear and tear on warrenty and dealers are being much more carefull when it comes to claims.Unfortunatly for the dealers they say its warrenty , they replace item and put a claim into porsche , a few days later porsche rejects the claim .. dealer has to suffer the cost.
As a new purchace the supplying dealer should rectify the claim .. but they aint cheap !

Btw the moisture is caused by a seperation of the clear lens and the red lens.

[petej]

Dealer principle.. 2 questions in quick succession after you tell him you want the lamp replaced.

1- is the car supposed to do this?

2 - Am I being unreasonable?