Warranty Direct Claim refused - M5 engine seized

Warranty Direct Claim refused - M5 engine seized

Author
Discussion

Sa Calobra

27,488 posts

147 months

Tuesday 4th December
quotequote all
Shocking just shows they hope people grow weary and give up.

ffhard

82 posts

64 months

Tuesday 4th December
quotequote all
OK, late into this one (as always) but first some background. I am a garage owner in business for 27 years with nearly 50 years experience as a mechanic. And I refuse to deal with warranty companies. Simple as that. If you have a problem I will happily fix it but I invoice YOU! Then you can take it up with warranty company and I wish you luck.
Many years back (it was a Peugeot 405 1.9 TD, that's how long ago) and the head gasket failed, as they usually did. That was the last time I invoiced a warranty firm.
They paid for the head gasket because that was what had failed. But NOT the head bolts, the timing belt kit, the anitfreeze, the oil and filter and none of the other gaskets because, as they said, until disturbed as part of the job none of those other parts had failed. They also deducted 20% off the labour charge because they were "trade". End result the poor owner got about a third of his bill actually covered and had to pay the rest himself.
So, warranty companies, I wouldn't p##s in their mouth if their teeth were on fire.

V8RX7

16,413 posts

199 months

Tuesday 4th December
quotequote all
ffhard said:
I am a garage owner in business for 27 years with nearly 50 years experience as a mechanic. And I refuse to deal with warranty companies. Simple as that. If you have a problem I will happily fix it but I invoice YOU! Then you can take it up with warranty company and I wish you luck.
Many years back (it was a Peugeot 405 1.9 TD, that's how long ago) and the head gasket failed, as they usually did. That was the last time I invoiced a warranty firm.
They paid for the head gasket because that was what had failed. But NOT the head bolts, the timing belt kit, the anitfreeze, the oil and filter and none of the other gaskets because, as they said, until disturbed as part of the job none of those other parts had failed. They also deducted 20% off the labour charge because they were "trade". End result the poor owner got about a third of his bill actually covered and had to pay the rest himself.
So, warranty companies, I wouldn't p##s in their mouth if their teeth were on fire.
A mate carries out automatic gearbox repairs - that's all he does and has been doing for 30+ years

He has regular dealings with various warranty companies including Warranty Direct who are no better / worse than any other.

In his experience it matters less what has gone wrong than who has sold the warranty.

Joe Bloggs garage selling 50 cars (and buying 50 warranties a year) - his customers are going to struggle to claim.

Huge dealer group selling 20,000 cars and buying 20,000 warranties - they will be looked after favourably


James_B

8,386 posts

193 months

Tuesday 4th December
quotequote all
TwigtheWonderkid said:
And it's still total nonsense.
It really isn’t. Over a long enough run you are absolutely guaranteed to lose more by insuring than not.

In statistics it’s known as the law of large numbers.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbe...

The only way you can have a positive return is if they consistently underpay the risk.

It’s why I self insure on anything where the cost of the event I’m insuring against would not cause any hardship.

B'stard Child

16,167 posts

182 months

Wednesday 5th December
quotequote all
James_B said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
And it's still total nonsense.
It really isn’t. Over a long enough run you are absolutely guaranteed to lose more by insuring than not.

In statistics it’s known as the law of large numbers.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbe...

The only way you can have a positive return is if they consistently underpay the risk.

It’s why I self insure on anything where the cost of the event I’m insuring against would not cause any hardship.
Been doing that since late 80's

If one of the cars dies it just gets parked till I can fix it

Advertisement

SidewaysSi

4,820 posts

170 months

Wednesday 5th December
quotequote all
Moral of the story is don't buy an overly complex car that you can't afford to fix.

The Mad Monk

3,907 posts

53 months

Wednesday 5th December
quotequote all
SidewaysSi said:
Moral of the story is don't buy an overly complex car that you can't afford to fix.
Quite agree. Much as I said on Friday 30th November:-








Quote
"I don't consider buying a warranty to be a wise purchase. By definition the warranty company must cover its costs, including paying for people to argue the toss with you about your claim. All those costs must be factored in, then add the company's profit, and the huge salaries and flash (reliable) cars that the company executives will drive.

It's a no-brainer.

Each month put away, say, £100 into a building society and you will have a fund which will pay for your breakdowns. Of course you can help yourself by buying reliable, not unreliable cars in the first place.

Putting it bluntly, that means buy Toyota, not Land Rover."

End quote.

I got told off by someone for writing that.

Truffles

509 posts

120 months

Wednesday 5th December
quotequote all
TroubledSoul said:
It certainly put me off buying an E60 M5. Plenty of horror stories about them. It's just too big a risk on a car like that and getting a warranty on one is difficult and/or pricey due to age now. I decided to leave it alone.
I had an E60 M5. Lovely drive but I was constantly in fear of what would break next. Twice it went into limp mode during an overtake, so I sold it thereafter.

I'm keeping the warranty going on my i8. Last year it had a coolant leak necessitating replacing part of the wiring loom at a cost of £4k to the insurance company. The policy cost this year is just over £1k with £100 excess or £1.3k with zero excess. I can't imagine why the zero excess policy makes sense as I would have to claim 3 times a year just to break even on the excess.

ToothbrushMan

1,398 posts

61 months

Wednesday 5th December
quotequote all
to them it matters not a jot if you "break even" but rather they are seemingly trying to offer you a premium discount of £300 if you agree to stump up the first £100.

Ninja59

1,937 posts

48 months

Wednesday 5th December
quotequote all
Sheepshanks said:
They're generally, maybe always, 3rd party warranties - the BMW one is Mondial.

On wife's VW Tiguan, the front lower arm console bushes were reported as starting to crack at its 3yr service, but dealer said didn't need changing yet. I said no problem, I've got the VW extended warranty. Ah, they said, it wouldn't be covered as it's wear and tear.

I kicked up a medium fuss and they did them under the original 3yr warranty.
Comprehensive warranty from BMW will cover "wear and tear" of such components as you highlighted and is one of the few that does.

It does not cover seals as I have found out recently, but it was cheaper not to use it because of the excess this time around.

Julian Thompson

573 posts

174 months

Wednesday 5th December
quotequote all
SidewaysSi said:
Moral of the story is don't buy an overly complex car that you can't afford to fix.
That really isn’t the moral of the story. These warranty companies offer extremely variable and inconsistent cover - they are experts at offering you an umbrella on a sunny day - just look at the range of responses on here. For that reason the real moral of the story if you insist on their being one is:

Buy a warranty happy to accept that you will treat it as a first line of defence against bills, but accept that you might still have to pay for it yourself, and on that basis do not buy a car where the biggest bill it could throw at you will be a problem or will upset you.

I personally would not buy an aftermarket warranty because I couldn’t do the above. If I’ve paid for the warranty to cover it and they wouldn’t I’d be too upset and it would hurt much more than not taking the warranty at all and then having to pay myself to pick up the bits when it goes wrong. I think it’s important to know your own personality and not try to be someone else just because that works for them.

Lord Flasheart

Original Poster:

79 posts

46 months

Wednesday 5th December
quotequote all
I bought an expensive car because i have the means to pay for the expensive bit (like circa £4k to get the brakes done, circa £1500 to get the tyres done, ad nausuem). I also have the means to pay for an engine or gearbox going KABOOM! but as i dont want to, i took out a warranty


Silverbullet767

9,990 posts

142 months

Wednesday 5th December
quotequote all
SidewaysSi said:
Moral of the story is don't buy an overly complex car that you can't afford to fix.
.
Mental, should I not buy a house because I don't have a large pot of cash to rebuild it should a lorry smash through the kitchen? Isn't that what insurance is for?

The Mad Monk

3,907 posts

53 months

Wednesday 5th December
quotequote all
Silverbullet767 said:
SidewaysSi said:
Moral of the story is don't buy an overly complex car that you can't afford to fix.
.
Mental, should I not buy a house because I don't have a large pot of cash to rebuild it should a lorry smash through the kitchen? Isn't that what insurance is for?
That is not a good analogy.

Home insurance companies pay out.

After market car warranty companies "seem" to move heaven and earth to avoid paying out.

InitialDave

4,042 posts

55 months

Wednesday 5th December
quotequote all
James_B said:
It really isn’t. Over a long enough run you are absolutely guaranteed to lose more by insuring than not.
I agree that the pricing of warranties and insurance is such that they will still make profit once the likely payouts are accounted for, but I'm not convinced you can say you'd always lose more. Given what my house and car insurance covers me for, for example, I don't think it'll ever be possible for me to pay enough in premiums to match a really big claim. I appreciate that this ties into your comment about only self insuring when you can afford the financial hit it might involve.

I agree that it's better to assess whether insurance and warranties are worthwhile on this basis, my annoyance is the artificial tilting of things by companies worming out of paying up.

A £100 premium that's priced on managing to wriggle out of paying genuine claims is less useful than a £300 premium that 100% WILL pay out, no hassle - but of course, then fewer people buy the warranty, and it all becomes a bit circular.

The logical thing is make the same assessment while accounting for the worming out of it factor, but it just feels wrong that consumers should have to do this.

Edited by InitialDave on Wednesday 5th December 10:48

Sheepshanks

15,761 posts

55 months

Wednesday 5th December
quotequote all
James_B said:
It really isn’t. Over a long enough run you are absolutely guaranteed to lose more by insuring than not.
That may well be true, but don't forget that many people these days live by paying for everything monthly and they don't have any spare cash. For those people, a car throwing up a hefty bill would be a disaster.

For everyone else, buying a warranty is really buying peace-of-mind. Where these policies fail is when they jerk people around at the point of making a claim so they do the reverse of providing peace-of-mind and instead caused a lot on angst.

julian64

12,558 posts

190 months

Wednesday 5th December
quotequote all
Sheepshanks said:
That may well be true, but don't forget that many people these days live by paying for everything monthly and they don't have any spare cash. For those people, a car throwing up a hefty bill would be a disaster.

For everyone else, buying a warranty is really buying peace-of-mind. Where these policies fail is when they jerk people around at the point of making a claim so they do the reverse of providing peace-of-mind and instead caused a lot on angst.
I think where these policies really fall down is that they are meant to cover unavoidable or unexpected breakdowns. They can't cope with someone who lacks mechanical sympathy and relies on a warranty to cover everything that may involve lifting the bonnet. They are possibly peace of mind budget wise, but they aren't carte blanch to drive a car into the ground and then expect the warranty company to pay out for a replacement.

The reason I don't have one is that the last three or four times my car stated to have a problem I stopped and worked out the problem, and took responsibility for what happened next. I don't want to pay a premium to lumped in with people who drive an ailing car halfway across France, and then expect an insurance company to validate my foolishness.

Sorry if this sounds harsh op, but regardless of what was said to you, don't you think you bear some responsibility here?

swisstoni

7,182 posts

215 months

Wednesday 5th December
quotequote all
Er, he informed the insurance company of the issue and on their advice took it to a BMW dealer (in France!) who said it was ok to drive home.
How exactly has the OP contributed to the thing seizing when being looked at back in the UK?

julian64

12,558 posts

190 months

Wednesday 5th December
quotequote all
swisstoni said:
Er, he informed the insurance company of the issue and on their advice took it to a BMW dealer (in France!) who said it was ok to drive home.
How exactly has the OP contributed to the thing seizing when being looked at back in the UK?
Not really sure how to answer that question. Assuming you are serious and I don't need a woosh parrot

Imagine it was your car and you DIDN'T have a warranty. Would you have driven it home?

InitialDave

4,042 posts

55 months

Wednesday 5th December
quotequote all
So if you ask a professional/specialist for advice, and follow it, it's your fault for listening to them when it goes wrong?

If your position is in that case you should take it up with them, well, he is. The mechanic was acting as an agent for the warranty company, they are underwriting his advice.