Servicing outside of OPC whilst in warranty
Discussion
981Boxess said:
SV_WDC said:
One of the issues on warranty value is believing a repair could lead to a “four figure bill,” but such figures are often quoted by those with warranty, which - as we know - will include OPC extortionate labour rate which could make up a substantial proportion of the total bill.
The only time you can judge the value of a warranty, or any insurance for that matter, is after it has expired or in this case when you have sold the car - we can all be clever afterwards.The warranty is optional and there isn't a right or wrong answer, nobody posting on here knows anything others don't, you pays your money you takes your choice.
TBH my point was not to say anyone was right or wrong. Simply providing a further perspective related to the 'value' as many here are very opinionated that the warranty is absolutely necessary & quoting "I have had x repair & the claim amounted to £y" but simply reminding people that this is likely to be an inflated number as the OPC labour rate is extortionate.
For me, this thread has presented many interesting points & certainly liked the spreadsheet post which incorporates the total cost once OPC servicing is factored into the price.
SV_WDC said:
One of the issues on warranty value is believing a repair could lead to a “four figure bill,” but such figures are often quoted by those with warranty, which - as we know - will include OPC extortionate labour rate which could make up a substantial proportion of the total bill.
OPCs do not receive anything like the retail rates for parts or labour for warranty work either under the manufacturers warranty nor the extended one. No manufacturer does this.
FrancisA said:
And how do you expect that argument to go if an issue arises and they claim it is as a result of work by an Indie? This is a huge money spinner and they will look for grey areas to avoid fulfilling warranty claims. Therefore if the argument can be made that a fault is a result of a service not being done by an authorised service centre it becomes an issue. I do believe the wording is designed to keep customers in the OPC network.
I don't disagree with you and that wording will encourage people to use the OPC for everything lest there be any hassle, but if there was a dispute about the cause of the fault and a claim being rejected, as this warranty is basically an insurance contract, the customer has recourse to the Financial Ombudsman Service. If they rejected a claim, the customer would need a letter from an engineer or specialist confirming the cause of the fault and then the ball is back in Porsche's court to prove the indi has caused the problem. So while they could in theory kick out a claim for a failed PDK because an indi changed your brake pads six months ago, they wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on.jeebsy said:
FrancisA said:
And how do you expect that argument to go if an issue arises and they claim it is as a result of work by an Indie? This is a huge money spinner and they will look for grey areas to avoid fulfilling warranty claims. Therefore if the argument can be made that a fault is a result of a service not being done by an authorised service centre it becomes an issue. I do believe the wording is designed to keep customers in the OPC network.
I don't disagree with you and that wording will encourage people to use the OPC for everything lest there be any hassle, but if there was a dispute about the cause of the fault and a claim being rejected, as this warranty is basically an insurance contract, the customer has recourse to the Financial Ombudsman Service. If they rejected a claim, the customer would need a letter from an engineer or specialist confirming the cause of the fault and then the ball is back in Porsche's court to prove the indi has caused the problem. So while they could in theory kick out a claim for a failed PDK because an indi changed your brake pads six months ago, they wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on.Bonefish Blues said:
jeebsy said:
FrancisA said:
And how do you expect that argument to go if an issue arises and they claim it is as a result of work by an Indie? This is a huge money spinner and they will look for grey areas to avoid fulfilling warranty claims. Therefore if the argument can be made that a fault is a result of a service not being done by an authorised service centre it becomes an issue. I do believe the wording is designed to keep customers in the OPC network.
I don't disagree with you and that wording will encourage people to use the OPC for everything lest there be any hassle, but if there was a dispute about the cause of the fault and a claim being rejected, as this warranty is basically an insurance contract, the customer has recourse to the Financial Ombudsman Service. If they rejected a claim, the customer would need a letter from an engineer or specialist confirming the cause of the fault and then the ball is back in Porsche's court to prove the indi has caused the problem. So while they could in theory kick out a claim for a failed PDK because an indi changed your brake pads six months ago, they wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on.Nurburgsingh said:
Bonefish Blues said:
jeebsy said:
FrancisA said:
And how do you expect that argument to go if an issue arises and they claim it is as a result of work by an Indie? This is a huge money spinner and they will look for grey areas to avoid fulfilling warranty claims. Therefore if the argument can be made that a fault is a result of a service not being done by an authorised service centre it becomes an issue. I do believe the wording is designed to keep customers in the OPC network.
I don't disagree with you and that wording will encourage people to use the OPC for everything lest there be any hassle, but if there was a dispute about the cause of the fault and a claim being rejected, as this warranty is basically an insurance contract, the customer has recourse to the Financial Ombudsman Service. If they rejected a claim, the customer would need a letter from an engineer or specialist confirming the cause of the fault and then the ball is back in Porsche's court to prove the indi has caused the problem. So while they could in theory kick out a claim for a failed PDK because an indi changed your brake pads six months ago, they wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on.ETA
Previous thread:
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
ETFA
So they can insist on this to pass the 111-pointer to be able to buy the/be accepted for the warranty, but thereafter if you chose to fit non-Ns, and a fault occurred which was unrelated to their fitting (so just about everything) they would be very hard-pressed to reject a claim on those grounds.
Edited by Bonefish Blues on Monday 19th February 17:45
Edited by Bonefish Blues on Monday 19th February 17:51
Bonefish Blues said:
Not really. It's not proximate to the fault which occurred, and would be silly.
of course. the previous poster was talking about grey areas to avoid warranty claims so i used an extreme example, but the rest of the sentence ("they wouldn't have a leg to stand on") shows that. if you take your car elsewhere for bread and butter, vanilla type work to be done then in practice the risk of a claim being declined because they think the cause is poor workmanship by a third party should be negligible, and if they try it, you have a route to challenge it.jeebsy said:
Bonefish Blues said:
Not really. It's not proximate to the fault which occurred, and would be silly.
of course. the previous poster was talking about grey areas to avoid warranty claims so i used an extreme example, but the rest of the sentence ("they wouldn't have a leg to stand on") shows that. if you take your car elsewhere for bread and butter, vanilla type work to be done then in practice the risk of a claim being declined because they think the cause is poor workmanship by a third party should be negligible, and if they try it, you have a route to challenge it.Bonefish Blues said:
Not really. It's not proximate to the fault which occurred, and would be silly.
The Dutch/Irish chap who deals in watches and has a YT channel had the manufacturer's warranty voided on his new Ferrari 812 because he fitted an aftermarket exhaust. They refused to replace a broken window motor which is definitely not connected to the modification. That said he's not easy to watch (shouts a lot and cameraman who must be doing an Irish Jig whilst filming!) and I suspect there's a fair amount of clickbait in the story but if it's correct Ferrari have stood their ground and the dealer doesn't want to take them on for their customer.
Armitage.Shanks said:
Bonefish Blues said:
Not really. It's not proximate to the fault which occurred, and would be silly.
The Dutch/Irish chap who deals in watches and has a YT channel had the manufacturer's warranty voided on his new Ferrari 812 because he fitted an aftermarket exhaust. They refused to replace a broken window motor which is definitely not connected to the modification. That said he's not easy to watch (shouts a lot and cameraman who must be doing an Irish Jig whilst filming!) and I suspect there's a fair amount of clickbait in the story but if it's correct Ferrari have stood their ground and the dealer doesn't want to take them on for their customer.
ETA
Would Ferrari seek to tie the validity of a warranty to the use of Shell lubricants I wonder, since they are their official supplier?
Edited by Bonefish Blues on Monday 19th February 23:16
Armitage.Shanks said:
The Dutch/Irish chap who deals in watches and has a YT channel had the manufacturer's warranty voided on his new Ferrari 812 because he fitted an aftermarket exhaust. They refused to replace a broken window motor which is definitely not connected to the modification.
That said he's not easy to watch (shouts a lot and cameraman who must be doing an Irish Jig whilst filming!) and I suspect there's a fair amount of clickbait in the story but if it's correct Ferrari have stood their ground and the dealer doesn't want to take them on for their customer.
he put a video out yesterday or sunday - they've said they'll do the repairs under warranty if he puts the car back to stock.That said he's not easy to watch (shouts a lot and cameraman who must be doing an Irish Jig whilst filming!) and I suspect there's a fair amount of clickbait in the story but if it's correct Ferrari have stood their ground and the dealer doesn't want to take them on for their customer.
jeebsy said:
I don't disagree with you and that wording will encourage people to use the OPC for everything lest there be any hassle, but if there was a dispute about the cause of the fault and a claim being rejected, as this warranty is basically an insurance contract, the customer has recourse to the Financial Ombudsman Service. If they rejected a claim, the customer would need a letter from an engineer or specialist confirming the cause of the fault and then the ball is back in Porsche's court to prove the indi has caused the problem. So while they could in theory kick out a claim for a failed PDK because an indi changed your brake pads six months ago, they wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on.
Do you have any idea who long those disputes can take? 6 months is not unheard of. You have just shelled out over 60K on your dream car only to be told because you had an oil change at an Indie and your PDK is malfunctioning Porsche won’t fix it. You then have your car sitting on your drive for 6 months while you hope the FO will come down in your favour. I would rather bend over and see if it hurts! My point is do not assume that the bureaucratic process is simple and pain free. FrancisA said:
jeebsy said:
I don't disagree with you and that wording will encourage people to use the OPC for everything lest there be any hassle, but if there was a dispute about the cause of the fault and a claim being rejected, as this warranty is basically an insurance contract, the customer has recourse to the Financial Ombudsman Service. If they rejected a claim, the customer would need a letter from an engineer or specialist confirming the cause of the fault and then the ball is back in Porsche's court to prove the indi has caused the problem. So while they could in theory kick out a claim for a failed PDK because an indi changed your brake pads six months ago, they wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on.
Do you have any idea who long those disputes can take? 6 months is not unheard of. You have just shelled out over 60K on your dream car only to be told because you had an oil change at an Indie and your PDK is malfunctioning Porsche won’t fix it. You then have your car sitting on your drive for 6 months while you hope the FO will come down in your favour. I would rather bend over and see if it hurts! My point is do not assume that the bureaucratic process is simple and pain free. FrancisA said:
Do you have any idea who long those disputes can take? 6 months is not unheard of. You have just shelled out over 60K on your dream car only to be told because you had an oil change at an Indie and your PDK is malfunctioning Porsche won’t fix it. You then have your car sitting on your drive for 6 months while you hope the FO will come down in your favour. I would rather bend over and see if it hurts! My point is do not assume that the bureaucratic process is simple and pain free.
I was an insurance adjudicator at the Ombudsman for several years and, when I started, it was about 18 months to get your case looked at. Close to three years if you needed a final decision. The queues are down a lot now but I have a case ongoing with them about the moment about something relatively minor and we're nine months into that. The wheels of justice can turn slowly, but I honestly think the likelihood of an insurer saying 'sorry, sir, a third party changed your brake pads six months ago, that must be why your engine blew up' is negligible and they'd be on the hook for additional costs and interest too. Obviously if you get work done elsewhere you do invite the possibility of this happening, no matter how remote, but that's a decision for each individual. Personally, for stuff like pads/discs and basic wear and tear stuff, I'd have an indi do it. Anything drivetrain related, I'd probably suck it up and go to Porsche.
Edited by jeebsy on Tuesday 20th February 08:02
Edited by jeebsy on Tuesday 20th February 08:30
jeebsy said:
I don't disagree with you and that wording will encourage people to use the OPC for everything lest there be any hassle, but if there was a dispute about the cause of the fault and a claim being rejected, as this warranty is basically an insurance contract, the customer has recourse to the Financial Ombudsman Service. If they rejected a claim, the customer would need a letter from an engineer or specialist confirming the cause of the fault and then the ball is back in Porsche's court to prove the indi has caused the problem. So while they could in theory kick out a claim for a failed PDK because an indi changed your brake pads six months ago, they wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on.
Lets introduce a real life scenario into this sea of theories.You are driving down the Autobahn, nice sunny day making reasonable progress and you hear a noise coming from the engine so you pull over. You call out ADAC who take a look and mumble a few words including kaput, whilst lining the car up to tow it to the nearest OPC, say Porsche Cologne. When it arrives and the 'Warranty' word starts getting thrown about what are they going to find when they check the service history of the car, which will be the the first thing they do?
Sorry sir you appear to not have had a service for 3+ years so any work will be chargeable, how you would you like us to proceed? Are you going to start to explain to them that is has been serviced by someone who knows what they are doing who also happened to be cheaper than Porsche, sorry I meant because you prefer them to Porsche because they do a better job, the same people you are now looking to for help to dig you out of the hole you find yourself in.
Who in their right mind would want to put themselves in that position just to save a few quid on servicing, knowing that they would have the Financial Ombudsman in their corner to help save the day, if they ever answer the phone?
More importantly when Porsche Cologne have told you to do one, what would you do next, using just some of all that money you have saved on non OPC servicing?
981Boxess said:
Lets introduce a real life scenario into this sea of theories.
You are driving down the Autobahn, nice sunny day making reasonable progress and you hear a noise coming from the engine so you pull over. You call out ADAC who take a look and mumble a few words including kaput, whilst lining the car up to tow it to the nearest OPC, say Porsche Cologne. When it arrives and the 'Warranty' word starts getting thrown about what are they going to find when they check the service history of the car, which will the the first thing they do?
Sorry sir you appear to not have had a service for 3+ years so any work will be chargeable, how you would you like us to proceed? Are you going to start to explain to them that is has been serviced by someone who knows what they are doing who also happened to be cheaper than Porsche, sorry I meant because you prefer them to Porsche because they do a better job, the same people you are now looking to for help to dig you out of the hole you find yourself in.
Who in their right mind would want to put themselves in that position just to save a few quid on servicing, knowing that they would have the Financial Ombudsman in their corner to help save the day, if they ever answer the phone?
More importantly when Porsche Cologne have told you to do one, what would you do next, using just some of all that money you have saved on non OPC servicing?
This is a terrible example because Porsche wouldn't renew your warranty if you hadn't take it into them for a service at the two year interval so you would be stupid or lying to try and claim warranty cover in this event.You are driving down the Autobahn, nice sunny day making reasonable progress and you hear a noise coming from the engine so you pull over. You call out ADAC who take a look and mumble a few words including kaput, whilst lining the car up to tow it to the nearest OPC, say Porsche Cologne. When it arrives and the 'Warranty' word starts getting thrown about what are they going to find when they check the service history of the car, which will the the first thing they do?
Sorry sir you appear to not have had a service for 3+ years so any work will be chargeable, how you would you like us to proceed? Are you going to start to explain to them that is has been serviced by someone who knows what they are doing who also happened to be cheaper than Porsche, sorry I meant because you prefer them to Porsche because they do a better job, the same people you are now looking to for help to dig you out of the hole you find yourself in.
Who in their right mind would want to put themselves in that position just to save a few quid on servicing, knowing that they would have the Financial Ombudsman in their corner to help save the day, if they ever answer the phone?
More importantly when Porsche Cologne have told you to do one, what would you do next, using just some of all that money you have saved on non OPC servicing?
When talking about the requirement to have your 'servicing' done by Porsche to maintain your warranty, that's your routine interval work as specific in the handbook. If Porsche don't do that, you've got no cover. That's not even up for debate.
What people seem to be talking about here is taking your car somewhere else for work between the service intervals, like if you need your pads and discs changed between intervals or something minor done for an MOT. You can do that, with the caveat that if your indi does something which causes a warranty claim, Porsche can decline it.
It's up to each person if they want to take the risk but Porsche get enough money between selling you the insurance and £1200 or whatever for the service without also charging you £300 to change your windscreen wipers because you're scared if someone else does it your PDK isn't covered. For simple jobs i'd be comfortable there's enough protection for an indi to do it. Anything which they could feasibly point to as having the potential to cause bigger issues, i'd take it to Porsche.
jeebsy said:
When talking about the requirement to have your 'servicing' done by Porsche to maintain your warranty, that's your routine interval work as specific in the handbook. If Porsche don't do that, you've got no cover. That's not even up for debate.
That's exactly what's being debated. Do read the threadjeebsy said:
This is a terrible example because Porsche wouldn't renew your warranty if you hadn't take it into them for a service at the two year interval so you would be stupid or lying to try and claim warranty cover in this event.
It wouldn't show up on the Porsche system if you had it done at an indie would it?So a perfect example, if you read what I posted again.
Porsche do not earn a penny from the insurance/warranty they just do the paperwork on behalf of the insurers, I get trade on everything at my OPC except warranty for that reason. They get their money from the servicing and judging by the 6 week wait to book a car in there is no shortage of people who prefer to do it that way.
jeebsy said:
When talking about the requirement to have your 'servicing' done by Porsche to maintain your warranty, that's your routine interval work as specific in the handbook. If Porsche don't do that, you've got no cover. That's not even up for debate.
.
I agree with your general point but please do try and read the preceeding statements for Porsche before writing stuff that just isn't true. .
981Boxess said:
It wouldn't show up on the Porsche system if you had it done at an indie would it?
So a perfect example, if you read what I posted again.
Porsche do not earn a penny from the insurance/warranty they just do the paperwork on behalf of the insurers, I get trade on everything at my OPC except warranty for that reason. They get their money from the servicing and judging by the 6 week wait to book a car in there is no shortage of people who prefer to do it that way.
Summary of the symbiotic relationship that exists between the two.So a perfect example, if you read what I posted again.
Porsche do not earn a penny from the insurance/warranty they just do the paperwork on behalf of the insurers, I get trade on everything at my OPC except warranty for that reason. They get their money from the servicing and judging by the 6 week wait to book a car in there is no shortage of people who prefer to do it that way.
Gassing Station | Porsche General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff