OPC Warranty Changes?
Discussion
I took my car to the OPC this morning for it's first MOT and the 111 point check for it's warranty renewal.
Upon arriving was told they don't do the 111 point check anymore and you can just do the warranty renewal over the phone - anyone else know the details? When I booked it maybe 6 weeks ago it was still the old system.
How can they haul you over the coals for incorrect tyres or the wrong type of wiper blades if they don't check?
Upon arriving was told they don't do the 111 point check anymore and you can just do the warranty renewal over the phone - anyone else know the details? When I booked it maybe 6 weeks ago it was still the old system.
How can they haul you over the coals for incorrect tyres or the wrong type of wiper blades if they don't check?
Not aware of that, but it was always the case that there was no 111 point inspection charge, if the warranty was renewed in conjunction with a service.
In some ways the check had value. If you were buying a car privately with extended warranty, you would have the added knowledge that it had been OPC inspected as the warranty was renewed.
In some ways the check had value. If you were buying a car privately with extended warranty, you would have the added knowledge that it had been OPC inspected as the warranty was renewed.
Makes sense given that if they pick anything up on the 111 check they'd have to fix it anyway under the expiring warranty.
The check seemed a cash cow to see if you have any non-standard parts fitted. I suppose now we're in the debate whether a non-standard part not attributed to the claim voids the warranty?
The check seemed a cash cow to see if you have any non-standard parts fitted. I suppose now we're in the debate whether a non-standard part not attributed to the claim voids the warranty?
Cimaguy said:
I extended my warranty in July. The car had to go through the 111 inspection which included a new front screen because the car didn't have an original Porsche approved product! As you can imagine it was a frustrating time!
And a classic example of the idiotic T&C of the warranty. We extended the warranty on the wife's Cayman on Friday and was informed by the service guy when we dropped it off in the morning that while they were no longer charging for the inspection they would still do it to make sure everything was ok.
When we picked it up we were advised that they had lubricated the catch on the bonnet as it was a bit stiff which my wife immediately agreed with but had forgotten to mention.
Everything else was ok and we left pretty happy.
When we picked it up we were advised that they had lubricated the catch on the bonnet as it was a bit stiff which my wife immediately agreed with but had forgotten to mention.
Everything else was ok and we left pretty happy.
I just went on to a couple of Porsche websites and can find nothing there about this. It will be a significant shift in approach if confirmed on a general basis. The only wording I can find at the moment suggests that the only occasion when the 111 point inspection is not required is if the approved/extended warranty is purchased within the first 12 month period of the New Car Warranty - which would be a weird thing to do, anyway.
As mentioned before, it would be great to see a copy (scan/pdf?) of the main T&Cs that have been given to anyone taking out the extended warranty under this new regime. Anyone?
James
As mentioned before, it would be great to see a copy (scan/pdf?) of the main T&Cs that have been given to anyone taking out the extended warranty under this new regime. Anyone?
James
short-shift said:
I just went on to a couple of Porsche websites and can find nothing there about this. It will be a significant shift in approach if confirmed on a general basis. The only wording I can find at the moment suggests that the only occasion when the 111 point inspection is not required is if the approved/extended warranty is purchased within the first 12 month period of the New Car Warranty - which would be a weird thing to do, anyway.
As mentioned before, it would be great to see a copy (scan/pdf?) of the main T&Cs that have been given to anyone taking out the extended warranty under this new regime. Anyone?
James
I’ll have a look at what we were given on Friday and let you know.As mentioned before, it would be great to see a copy (scan/pdf?) of the main T&Cs that have been given to anyone taking out the extended warranty under this new regime. Anyone?
James
I think the reason for the change is that the insurers that back the policy appear to have changed. The policy is now with Real Garant Versicherung AG.
There is no mention of the 111 point check being a requirement but is does still state that fitting non Porsche parts or unapproved modifications will invalidate the policy.
I’ve got to pop out for a couple of hours this morning but I’ll take a picture of the actual document and post it late4 this afternoon unless someone else beats me to it in the meantime.
There is no mention of the 111 point check being a requirement but is does still state that fitting non Porsche parts or unapproved modifications will invalidate the policy.
I’ve got to pop out for a couple of hours this morning but I’ll take a picture of the actual document and post it late4 this afternoon unless someone else beats me to it in the meantime.
If this really is a change as reported above, then it is quite material.
The change in insurance provider to Real Garant took place at some time in 2019 so this move, to remove the need for the 111-point inspection, does not seem to be directly linked to that. And interestingly, a quick read-through of the RG T&C's throws up Clause 2 as of importance, and Clause 2 (d) in particular.
I quote (this from RG T&Cs dated October 2019):
"What is not covered?
2. A claim made under Your Policy for the repair or replacement of a defective system of component shall be invalid to the extent that the defect results from any of the following:
(a) ...
(b) ...
(c) ...
(d) Non-Genuine Porsche parts have been fitted to your Vehicle"
So, at last, there now has to be a link between the fitment of any non-genuine Porsche part and the part that failed for warranty to be invalidated; any blanket denial of cover no longer applies.
At a stroke, the nonsense that saw warranty policies being denied because, for example, non-Porsche wiper blades were fitted, or a dash camera was 'permanently' wired are swept away. Of course, if the wiper motor failed or the cabin electronics started to play up after fitment of the parts I mentioned above then a claim could still be rejected - as you might reasonably expect.
But the removal of the 111 inspection as an additional layer of gatekeeping, leaving only the governing clause in the policy, means the position is very clear; warranty provisions will stand unless the fitment of non-Porsche parts can be established as being a contributory factor to the failure that is being claimed under the warranty.
Am I right in this interpretation? Is so, this represents - at last - a very welcome and sensible change in approach.
James
The change in insurance provider to Real Garant took place at some time in 2019 so this move, to remove the need for the 111-point inspection, does not seem to be directly linked to that. And interestingly, a quick read-through of the RG T&C's throws up Clause 2 as of importance, and Clause 2 (d) in particular.
I quote (this from RG T&Cs dated October 2019):
"What is not covered?
2. A claim made under Your Policy for the repair or replacement of a defective system of component shall be invalid to the extent that the defect results from any of the following:
(a) ...
(b) ...
(c) ...
(d) Non-Genuine Porsche parts have been fitted to your Vehicle"
So, at last, there now has to be a link between the fitment of any non-genuine Porsche part and the part that failed for warranty to be invalidated; any blanket denial of cover no longer applies.
At a stroke, the nonsense that saw warranty policies being denied because, for example, non-Porsche wiper blades were fitted, or a dash camera was 'permanently' wired are swept away. Of course, if the wiper motor failed or the cabin electronics started to play up after fitment of the parts I mentioned above then a claim could still be rejected - as you might reasonably expect.
But the removal of the 111 inspection as an additional layer of gatekeeping, leaving only the governing clause in the policy, means the position is very clear; warranty provisions will stand unless the fitment of non-Porsche parts can be established as being a contributory factor to the failure that is being claimed under the warranty.
Am I right in this interpretation? Is so, this represents - at last - a very welcome and sensible change in approach.
James
short-shift said:
If this really is a change as reported above, then it is quite material.
The change in insurance provider to Real Garant took place at some time in 2019 so this move, to remove the need for the 111-point inspection, does not seem to be directly linked to that. And interestingly, a quick read-through of the RG T&C's throws up Clause 2 as of importance, and Clause 2 (d) in particular.
I quote (this from RG T&Cs dated October 2019):
"What is not covered?
2. A claim made under Your Policy for the repair or replacement of a defective system of component shall be invalid to the extent that the defect results from any of the following:
(a) ...
(b) ...
(c) ...
(d) Non-Genuine Porsche parts have been fitted to your Vehicle"
So, at last, there now has to be a link between the fitment of any non-genuine Porsche part and the part that failed for warranty to be invalidated; any blanket denial of cover no longer applies.
At a stroke, the nonsense that saw warranty policies being denied because, for example, non-Porsche wiper blades were fitted, or a dash camera was 'permanently' wired are swept away. Of course, if the wiper motor failed or the cabin electronics started to play up after fitment of the parts I mentioned above then a claim could still be rejected - as you might reasonably expect.
But the removal of the 111 inspection as an additional layer of gatekeeping, leaving only the governing clause in the policy, means the position is very clear; warranty provisions will stand unless the fitment of non-Porsche parts can be established as being a contributory factor to the failure that is being claimed under the warranty.
Am I right in this interpretation? Is so, this represents - at last - a very welcome and sensible change in approach.
James
It certainly sounds like it which is great news. The change in insurance provider to Real Garant took place at some time in 2019 so this move, to remove the need for the 111-point inspection, does not seem to be directly linked to that. And interestingly, a quick read-through of the RG T&C's throws up Clause 2 as of importance, and Clause 2 (d) in particular.
I quote (this from RG T&Cs dated October 2019):
"What is not covered?
2. A claim made under Your Policy for the repair or replacement of a defective system of component shall be invalid to the extent that the defect results from any of the following:
(a) ...
(b) ...
(c) ...
(d) Non-Genuine Porsche parts have been fitted to your Vehicle"
So, at last, there now has to be a link between the fitment of any non-genuine Porsche part and the part that failed for warranty to be invalidated; any blanket denial of cover no longer applies.
At a stroke, the nonsense that saw warranty policies being denied because, for example, non-Porsche wiper blades were fitted, or a dash camera was 'permanently' wired are swept away. Of course, if the wiper motor failed or the cabin electronics started to play up after fitment of the parts I mentioned above then a claim could still be rejected - as you might reasonably expect.
But the removal of the 111 inspection as an additional layer of gatekeeping, leaving only the governing clause in the policy, means the position is very clear; warranty provisions will stand unless the fitment of non-Porsche parts can be established as being a contributory factor to the failure that is being claimed under the warranty.
Am I right in this interpretation? Is so, this represents - at last - a very welcome and sensible change in approach.
James
I renewed the warranty on my soon to be 3 year old 991.2 GT3 via a Sytner OPC - no 111 inspection - just pay up and renew (did this last week - warranty runs out end Nov - new one starts from the End Nov date)
When questioned they said this was because the car was still in its original manufactures warranty state. (Rather than already in its extended state)
All good
short-shift said:
So, at last, there now has to be a link between the fitment of any non-genuine Porsche part and the part that failed for warranty to be invalidated; any blanket denial of cover no longer applies.
At a stroke, the nonsense that saw warranty policies being denied because, for example, non-Porsche wiper blades were fitted, or a dash camera was 'permanently' wired are swept away. Of course, if the wiper motor failed or the cabin electronics started to play up after fitment of the parts I mentioned above then a claim could still be rejected - as you might reasonably expect.
That's a common sense approach and what I would want to see. If there was ever a case where incorrect wiper blades affected a claim for, say a defective brake caliper, it would be worthy of legal challenge.At a stroke, the nonsense that saw warranty policies being denied because, for example, non-Porsche wiper blades were fitted, or a dash camera was 'permanently' wired are swept away. Of course, if the wiper motor failed or the cabin electronics started to play up after fitment of the parts I mentioned above then a claim could still be rejected - as you might reasonably expect.
short-shift said:
If this really is a change as reported above, then it is quite material.
The change in insurance provider to Real Garant took place at some time in 2019 so this move, to remove the need for the 111-point inspection, does not seem to be directly linked to that. And interestingly, a quick read-through of the RG T&C's throws up Clause 2 as of importance, and Clause 2 (d) in particular.
I quote (this from RG T&Cs dated October 2019):
"What is not covered?
2. A claim made under Your Policy for the repair or replacement of a defective system of component shall be invalid to the extent that the defect results from any of the following:
(a) ...
(b) ...
(c) ...
(d) Non-Genuine Porsche parts have been fitted to your Vehicle"
So, at last, there now has to be a link between the fitment of any non-genuine Porsche part and the part that failed for warranty to be invalidated; any blanket denial of cover no longer applies.
At a stroke, the nonsense that saw warranty policies being denied because, for example, non-Porsche wiper blades were fitted, or a dash camera was 'permanently' wired are swept away. Of course, if the wiper motor failed or the cabin electronics started to play up after fitment of the parts I mentioned above then a claim could still be rejected - as you might reasonably expect.
But the removal of the 111 inspection as an additional layer of gatekeeping, leaving only the governing clause in the policy, means the position is very clear; warranty provisions will stand unless the fitment of non-Porsche parts can be established as being a contributory factor to the failure that is being claimed under the warranty.
Am I right in this interpretation? Is so, this represents - at last - a very welcome and sensible change in approach.
James
Does this then open you up if you have, say, non-N tated tires and the engine goes pop to them denying the claim. Where does the burden of proof fall?The change in insurance provider to Real Garant took place at some time in 2019 so this move, to remove the need for the 111-point inspection, does not seem to be directly linked to that. And interestingly, a quick read-through of the RG T&C's throws up Clause 2 as of importance, and Clause 2 (d) in particular.
I quote (this from RG T&Cs dated October 2019):
"What is not covered?
2. A claim made under Your Policy for the repair or replacement of a defective system of component shall be invalid to the extent that the defect results from any of the following:
(a) ...
(b) ...
(c) ...
(d) Non-Genuine Porsche parts have been fitted to your Vehicle"
So, at last, there now has to be a link between the fitment of any non-genuine Porsche part and the part that failed for warranty to be invalidated; any blanket denial of cover no longer applies.
At a stroke, the nonsense that saw warranty policies being denied because, for example, non-Porsche wiper blades were fitted, or a dash camera was 'permanently' wired are swept away. Of course, if the wiper motor failed or the cabin electronics started to play up after fitment of the parts I mentioned above then a claim could still be rejected - as you might reasonably expect.
But the removal of the 111 inspection as an additional layer of gatekeeping, leaving only the governing clause in the policy, means the position is very clear; warranty provisions will stand unless the fitment of non-Porsche parts can be established as being a contributory factor to the failure that is being claimed under the warranty.
Am I right in this interpretation? Is so, this represents - at last - a very welcome and sensible change in approach.
James
Cheib said:
Wouldn’t be surprised if this is to free up workshops which have less capacity because of Covid.
This is exactly the reason. The change is temporary and only applies to vehicles which have an existing warranty due to lapse. If the warranty has lapsed or it is a standalone warranty the 111 Point Check still applies.Our Macan went in for an extended warranty check on the afternoon of 29th September and was collected on 2nd October. This was to Hatfield. I was charged the full cost of the 111 point check plus the warranty extension. It was in warranty at the time of the extension.
Does anyone have experience of being told that the 111 point check was not required prior to 29th September?
Does anyone have experience of being told that the 111 point check was not required prior to 29th September?
Depending on when the official change was ( hope you find out ) , the next question would be “ when did your OPC have notification that things were changing “.
If your warranty still had time to run , then you could have a reasonable expectation that your OPC would call you to suggest postponing your warranty renewal in light of an impending rule change in your favour. Then again ...... ?
If your warranty still had time to run , then you could have a reasonable expectation that your OPC would call you to suggest postponing your warranty renewal in light of an impending rule change in your favour. Then again ...... ?
Gassing Station | Porsche General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff