Anyone dealt with cowboy third party warranty companies ?

[RazerSauber]

Zumbruk said:

IME, they all wear spurs and smell of horse poo.

Took me a second this, I wondered what Tottenham fans had to do with warranties

OP, definitely find out if diff needs any sort of service and make sure it was maintained in line with that schedule too.

[Canon_Fodder]

An obvious point perhaps but has the car been serviced according to the manufacturers guidelines?

The FOS (or SCC) will consider what is 'reasonable' regarding 'wear and tear' so there's no need to worry that it's a catch-all exclusion for the wty co.

[Gdgd]

Yes, everything has been serviced and adhered to. That was the first angle they looked at to avoid paying out.

I spoke with them this morning and was basically told because there is no evidence of a "sudden mechanical failure" the claim is void. Follow up email below:


Good morning

Based on the information provided by your repairer, there is no sudden mechanical failure and as such xxx Warranties cannot approve the repair requested on your vehicle.

Kind regards

xxxx
Crap warranty co LTD.

P.S are we allowed to name and shame companies here today to stop other PH'ers falling foul?

[Canon_Fodder]

A generic response, as expected, you now proceed immediately to invoking their formal complaints procedure.

[Durzel]

Would be interested to read the warranty terms - i.e. is it explicit that the failure must be "sudden" ? They seem to think it is.

[Pegscratch]

I'd reply stating that it "suddenly" started making a noise and if that isn't a "sudden" failure then ask them what qualifies?

[Durzel]

Pegscratch said:

Durzel said:

I would be very surprised if Audi do any fluid changes on the diffs during scheduled maintenance.

Every two years on most of their Quattro vehicles.

Are you sure that's not the transmission? I can't find anything that confirms any work on the diffs in the 8 years of invoices my previous Audi TTRS S-Tronic Quattro had.

[Pegscratch]

Durzel said:

Are you sure that's not the transmission? I can't find anything that confirms any work on the diffs in the 8 years of invoices my previous Audi TTRS S-Tronic Quattro had.

"Haldex Service".

[Gdgd]

Starting the complaints procedure now, I'll keep you all informed for some mild entertainment.

The r8 front diff shared with the LP560 is a non service item and as advised by Audi is sealed for life i.e no fluid change needed.

[Durzel]

Pegscratch said:

Durzel said:

Are you sure that's not the transmission? I can't find anything that confirms any work on the diffs in the 8 years of invoices my previous Audi TTRS S-Tronic Quattro had.

"Haldex Service".

Being a bit pedantic, but as far as I know the Haldex is something that is bolted on to the diff to do torque bias. It is essentially a hydraulic pump.

But yeah, that requires servicing and sometimes goes wrong.. remember mine going iffy just inside warranty

[Durzel]

Gdgd said:

Starting the complaints procedure now, I'll keep you all informed for some mild entertainment.

The r8 front diff shared with the LP560 is a non service item and as advised by Audi is sealed for life i.e no fluid change needed.

Best of luck.

[Pegscratch]

Durzel said:

Being a bit pedantic, but as far as I know the Haldex is something that is bolted on to the diff to do torque bias. It is essentially a hydraulic pump.

But yeah, that requires servicing and sometimes goes wrong.. remember mine going iffy just inside warranty

You're wrong. The Haldex on your TT is the rear differential. On "bigger" Audis they use more traditional differentials. The "Haldex" bit of it is just the proprietary clutch-based mechanism that attaches it to the prop.

Edited by Pegscratch on Thursday 4th March 15:46

[Durzel]

Pegscratch said:

Durzel said:

Being a bit pedantic, but as far as I know the Haldex is something that is bolted on to the diff to do torque bias. It is essentially a hydraulic pump.

But yeah, that requires servicing and sometimes goes wrong.. remember mine going iffy just inside warranty

You're wrong. The Haldex on your TT is the rear differential. On "bigger" Audis they use more traditional differentials. The "Haldex" bit of it is just the proprietary clutch-based mechanism that attaches it to the prop.

Edited by Pegscratch on Thursday 4th March 15:46

Fair enough, consider me educated

[Pegscratch]

Durzel said:

Fair enough, consider me educated

NP.

In any event it looks like the front diff on the R8 is neither the Haldex based unit (not surprised here) used in the smaller transverse engined cars nor the traditional unit serviced every couple of years on the longitudinal motors (more surprised, as to all intents and purposes the R8 started life as a back-to-front RS4).

[guitarcarfanatic]

Durzel said:

Would be interested to read the warranty terms - i.e. is it explicit that the failure must be "sudden" ? They seem to think it is.

This is a principle of insurance. It has to be unforeseen, sudden and unexpected.

Failure is their word, possible as that's what the policy states. Is there a glossary defining failure in the policy book? I would remind them that the Oxford Dictionary states that failure means "the fact of something not working, or stopping working as well as it should". Your differential has suddenly and unexpectedly failed - it no longer functions in the way it should and this occurred in a sudden and unexpected way. There was a defined moment where the differential started to make noise, indicating failure.

Play that back to them, and escalate to the FOS if needed. Perhaps remind them that insurance is a contract of utmost good faith - you are adhering to that principle. You are unsure they are...!

[TonyF1]

If it’s likely a warranty claim you should ALWAYS take it to a main dealer and not your local specialist. Processing warranty claims is a huge part of what they do day in day out. Almost certain they would have said broken needs replacing and you wouldn’t have the headache.

[NDA]

I had a similar issue a few years ago - the warranty company refused to pay for a gearbox failure saying it was 'wear and tear'.

I had the work done and sued the warranty company in the Small Claims Court - and won.

It struck me that most legal people (judges, magistrates etc) are quite reasonable people and if you put a reasonable case to them, they will find in your favour. In my case the car was sold with a 'Peace of Mind Guarantee' - which was anything but.

[Durzel]

NDA said:

I had a similar issue a few years ago - the warranty company refused to pay for a gearbox failure saying it was 'wear and tear'.

I had the work done and sued the warranty company in the Small Claims Court - and won.

It struck me that most legal people (judges, magistrates etc) are quite reasonable people and if you put a reasonable case to them, they will find in your favour. In my case the car was sold with a 'Peace of Mind Guarantee' - which was anything but.

Would be interested to know how that case played out.. did they go all the way and turn up at court etc?

As you say judges are probably quite pragmatic about this sort of stuff, at least in small claims. The fact they called their policy "peace of mind" and it had semantic exclusions probably didn't help matters!

[KTMsm]

NDA said:

I had a similar issue a few years ago - the warranty company refused to pay for a gearbox failure saying it was 'wear and tear'.

I had the work done and sued the warranty company in the Small Claims Court - and won.

It struck me that most legal people (judges, magistrates etc) are quite reasonable people and if you put a reasonable case to them, they will find in your favour. In my case the car was sold with a 'Peace of Mind Guarantee' - which was anything but.

The problem is that a warranty isn't to cover wear items - eg brake pads or clutches, if a car has done 100k it's reasonable to assume a gearbox / diff could also break due to wear and wouldn't be covered but what about 60k or 80k ?

My issue with Warranty Companies is that it isn't very clear exactly what is or isn't covered

[NDA]

Durzel said:

NDA said:

I had a similar issue a few years ago - the warranty company refused to pay for a gearbox failure saying it was 'wear and tear'.

I had the work done and sued the warranty company in the Small Claims Court - and won.

It struck me that most legal people (judges, magistrates etc) are quite reasonable people and if you put a reasonable case to them, they will find in your favour. In my case the car was sold with a 'Peace of Mind Guarantee' - which was anything but.

Would be interested to know how that case played out.. did they go all the way and turn up at court etc?

As you say judges are probably quite pragmatic about this sort of stuff, at least in small claims. The fact they called their policy "peace of mind" and it had semantic exclusions probably didn't help matters!

They didn't turn up - which was annoying having prepared for my moment in court. My claim was immediately upheld.