Warranty Direct Claim refused - M5 engine seized

Warranty Direct Claim refused - M5 engine seized

Author
Discussion

Sa Calobra

27,488 posts

147 months

Wednesday 7th November
quotequote all
Reminds me why I've never bought a warranty.

I've heard they pay out for small jobs but small jobs I can cover. It's an engine that I'd want cover on. I imagine they have a theoretical max claim they'd pay out but they'll never admit that.

MB140

1,245 posts

39 months

Wednesday 7th November
quotequote all
It’s a shame there is no independent regulating and arbitration system for all these warranty companies. There effectively a legalised rip off system.

I do remember reading a thread where some old boy took one of them to court cost £10k in legal bills for a £2k repair or something like that. He won in the end but it was a big gamble.

Nice to have the money to back it up. Bit like the thread ongoing where some finance company tried to rip off a young lady to the tune of £30k on a private plate. Only to find out here family have pretty much unlimited financial resources and the legal bill so far is £50k ish.

Best of luck op. I hope you win but my dealings with these companies has only ever been terrible at best.

eltax91

7,777 posts

142 months

Wednesday 7th November
quotequote all
They are regulated by the financial conduct authority are they not?

OP - what's the latest?

slipstream 1985

6,051 posts

115 months

Wednesday 7th November
quotequote all
eltax91 said:
They are regulated by the financial conduct authority are they not?

OP - what's the latest?
A toothless entity.

echazfraz

283 posts

83 months

Wednesday 7th November
quotequote all
slipstream 1985 said:
eltax91 said:
They are regulated by the financial conduct authority are they not?

OP - what's the latest?
A toothless entity.
Ouch, sounds like his trip to get fillings didn't go well then either.

Good luck OP, my partner had a warranty claim on her TT rejected by this shower for similarly nonsensical reasons.
Advertisement

Lord Flasheart

Original Poster:

79 posts

46 months

Wednesday 7th November
quotequote all
i believe they're regulated by the FCA (which is not toothless at all) but the process is to go via the Financial Ombudsman Service. Chatting to my brother earlier this week (he's a loss adjuster) and he seems to think the FOS very much favour the consumer, which is a good thing.

They got back to me saying they'd hopefully have an answer for me this week. if nothing then its the ombudsman.

as a matter of principle i dont over-insure anything, insurance company retention rates are (i believe) 70%+ of total premiums paid, so over the long term it never pays to insure.......but for my car, watch, house, etc, i'm happy paying away circa £500 a year to protect me from a £20k+ bill

TwigtheWonderkid

27,379 posts

86 months

Wednesday 7th November
quotequote all
Bennyjames28 said:
These warranty companies are the biggest con going, I predict one day they will be the next PPI.
Interest only mortgages are set to be the next PPI. ( I never knew interest only mortgages just paid the interest only on the mortgage, they should rename the product to make it clearer). rolleyes

So they might be a future PPI, but not the next one.

dibblecorse

4,498 posts

128 months

Wednesday 7th November
quotequote all
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Bennyjames28 said:
These warranty companies are the biggest con going, I predict one day they will be the next PPI.
Interest only mortgages are set to be the next PPI. ( I never knew interest only mortgages just paid the interest only on the mortgage, they should rename the product to make it clearer). rolleyes

So they might be a future PPI, but not the next one.
Hope so .... oh hang on, I was the mortgage broker that sold it to me ..... ooops .... lol

TwigtheWonderkid

27,379 posts

86 months

Wednesday 7th November
quotequote all
Lord Flasheart said:
as a matter of principle i dont over-insure anything, insurance company retention rates are (i believe) 70%+ of total premiums paid, so over the long term it never pays to insure
Firstly, retention rates are the proportion of customers retained at renewal. I think you mean loss ratio.

Secondly, whilst as a whole insurers need to take in more than they pay out (otherwise they wouldn't be in business), for an individual it often pays to insure. Just asked anyone whose house has burnt down or has had a fault car crash with serious tp injuries. Many people, in a single claim, receive many times what they will ever pay in over their entire lifetime.

swisstoni

7,182 posts

215 months

Wednesday 7th November
quotequote all
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Lord Flasheart said:
as a matter of principle i dont over-insure anything, insurance company retention rates are (i believe) 70%+ of total premiums paid, so over the long term it never pays to insure
Firstly, retention rates are the proportion of customers retained at renewal. I think you mean loss ratio.

Secondly, whilst as a whole insurers need to take in more than they pay out (otherwise they wouldn't be in business), for an individual it often pays to insure. Just asked anyone whose house has burnt down or has had a fault car crash with serious tp injuries. Many people, in a single claim, receive many times what they will ever pay in over their entire lifetime.
Or not, in this case.

TwigtheWonderkid

27,379 posts

86 months

Wednesday 7th November
quotequote all
swisstoni said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Lord Flasheart said:
as a matter of principle i dont over-insure anything, insurance company retention rates are (i believe) 70%+ of total premiums paid, so over the long term it never pays to insure
Firstly, retention rates are the proportion of customers retained at renewal. I think you mean loss ratio.

Secondly, whilst as a whole insurers need to take in more than they pay out (otherwise they wouldn't be in business), for an individual it often pays to insure. Just asked anyone whose house has burnt down or has had a fault car crash with serious tp injuries. Many people, in a single claim, receive many times what they will ever pay in over their entire lifetime.
Or not, in this case.
It may not have paid to insure in this case, but to say it never pays to insure is just nonsense.


swisstoni

7,182 posts

215 months

Wednesday 7th November
quotequote all
TwigtheWonderkid said:
swisstoni said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Lord Flasheart said:
as a matter of principle i dont over-insure anything, insurance company retention rates are (i believe) 70%+ of total premiums paid, so over the long term it never pays to insure
Firstly, retention rates are the proportion of customers retained at renewal. I think you mean loss ratio.

Secondly, whilst as a whole insurers need to take in more than they pay out (otherwise they wouldn't be in business), for an individual it often pays to insure. Just asked anyone whose house has burnt down or has had a fault car crash with serious tp injuries. Many people, in a single claim, receive many times what they will ever pay in over their entire lifetime.
Or not, in this case.
It may not have paid to insure in this case, but to say it never pays to insure is just nonsense.
Maybe the op will get lucky next time eh?

Sod off. You are an insurance industry stooge and have been for as long as I can remember.

Johnniem

2,118 posts

159 months

Wednesday 7th November
quotequote all
Bookmarked. I wish the OP every good luck and I am fairly sure that with a little tenacity and clear thinking on the OP's part, the matter will be dealt with by the warranty company. By the sound of it, they have already erred fairly badly on their description of their alleged chain of events. Unless the Beemer garage in France were misunderstood by the OP (or lie about what they told the OP) they can hardly challenge that he was told to drive home, albeit at a leisurely pace. He made it home didn't he? Without engine seizure? QED.

It is for the warranty company to unravel lines of fault/responsibility. I do, however, agree that the warranty insurers are merely fighting their corner as hard as they can and throwing out any nonsense to put the OP off. If push comes to shove, employ a solicitor. They will break before you know it!

JM

texasjohn

3,682 posts

167 months

Wednesday 7th November
quotequote all
They are usually pretty good when it comes to claims but I had a nasty shock recently, relating to the BMW Insured Warranty.

BMW Insured Warranty (Allianz) cancel my warranty policy as they determined I'd not had the car properly serviced at its most recent service visit (I used an independent who decided that the spark plugs weren't due as they'd been changed 18 months and 26k before, plus iDrive / keyreader wasn't demanding that scope of work).

Shortly after the car failed to the tune of £3000; Waterpump, VVT system and DME (ECU).

I exhausted the warranty company complaints procedure and then engaged FOS. Allianz did everything possible to drag this out for as long as they could. Amusingly, their warranty claims manager, an ex-BMW service manager, also declared that the independent garage had failed to change the fuel filter: On a 335i the fuel filter is in the fuel tank and isn't a service item!

The ombudsman ruled in my favour and I'm now pursuing Allianz for costs (including interest at 8%).

The key thing that helped FOS rule in my favour was two simple statements I got out of BMW UK, in writing, simply stating that "the car is subject to a condition based servicing system" and that because of this "the spark plugs may, or may not, have needed changing at the service". Get anything relevant that you possibly can out of BMW, in writing. It may help when this inevitably goes through the FOS loop.


Julian Thompson

573 posts

174 months

Wednesday 7th November
quotequote all
What does surprise me is that after all this time these manufacturers and warranty companies are allowed to reject claims on the basis of “servicing” not carried out when the “service” in question has absolutely nothing to do with the fault.

In this thread alone the chap with a faulty seat runner springs to mind - refused because a service was late. So that’s an oil change, then. Secondly the chap above - DME failure is absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with spark plugs that are still working whether or not they have been changed.

I’m far from an expert on insurance but I believe that regulation in that industry has stopped insurers from not paying out on a policy where a condition might not be met but where that condition was nothing to do with the claim. So for instance, say you have a flood in a building and upon inspection your burglar alarm doesn’t meet the requirements of the policy they would still have to pay out.

darreni

2,276 posts

206 months

Wednesday 7th November
quotequote all
texasjohn said:
They are usually pretty good when it comes to claims but I had a nasty shock recently, relating to the BMW Insured Warranty.

BMW Insured Warranty (Allianz) cancel my warranty policy as they determined I'd not had the car properly serviced at its most recent service visit (I used an independent who decided that the spark plugs weren't due as they'd been changed 18 months and 26k before, plus iDrive / keyreader wasn't demanding that scope of work).

Shortly after the car failed to the tune of £3000; Waterpump, VVT system and DME (ECU).

I exhausted the warranty company complaints procedure and then engaged FOS. Allianz did everything possible to drag this out for as long as they could. Amusingly, their warranty claims manager, an ex-BMW service manager, also declared that the independent garage had failed to change the fuel filter: On a 335i the fuel filter is in the fuel tank and isn't a service item!

The ombudsman ruled in my favour and I'm now pursuing Allianz for costs (including interest at 8%).

The key thing that helped FOS rule in my favour was two simple statements I got out of BMW UK, in writing, simply stating that "the car is subject to a condition based servicing system" and that because of this "the spark plugs may, or may not, have needed changing at the service". Get anything relevant that you possibly can out of BMW, in writing. It may help when this inevitably goes through the FOS loop.
I’ve always found the BMW insured warranty very good with no issues regarding claims.
I have though always has the car serviced on time at a BMW main dealer to avoid any questions with regard to what was done and when.

texasjohn

3,682 posts

167 months

Wednesday 7th November
quotequote all
Julian:

Couldn’t agree more. The fact that the spark plugs weren’t related to the failures was going to be my line of tack initially, but I found a better lever.

The VVT shaft failure could arguably be related to oil quality, grade or age. However, BMW UK paid out 100% goodwill on that specific item. Any hint of customer induced damage (CID) and I’d not have seen a penny contributed.

Water pumps are almost a consumable on that engine.

DME was just bad luck; I used to work for an engine controls business and part of my job was to investigate warranty claims. In my experience, ECUs rarely fail unless it’s a case of CID, or an inherent design defect. BMW UK contributed 80% of the cost of a new DME in my case.

If it hadn’t been for BMW UKs support in my battle with Allianz and goodwill towards the repair costs of a 9 year old 55000 mile car, I’d be driving a different brand of car today.

On the strength of their support I went out and bought a nearly new AUC M5. One with a service pack smile


Edited by texasjohn on Wednesday 7th November 22:53

texasjohn

3,682 posts

167 months

Wednesday 7th November
quotequote all
darreni said:
I’ve always found the BMW insured warranty very good with no issues regarding claims.
I have though always has the car serviced on time at a BMW main dealer to avoid any questions with regard to what was done and when.
Likewise. I’ve had loads of BMWs on that scheme over the years, no issues with the few claims I’d needed to make via BMW dealership workshops. Until this occasion, when I used an independent for a service as the terms of the policy allow us all to do.

When I spoke to Allianz’s warranty claims manager on the phone it was very evident that he had a real issue with ‘BMW specialist’ competitors taking aftermarket business away from the BMW network. He didn’t hold back with his bias and, as the final decision maker, was in a position to apply this without any challenge.

If I’d have known he was going to express this prejudice so overtly, I’d have recorded the call and probably done something with it.

NB. My policy was cancelled by Allianz a couple of months before the failures occurred, so it wasn’t even like a potential claim was on the table at that point in time.

Edited by texasjohn on Wednesday 7th November 22:26

northwest monkey

6,178 posts

125 months

Thursday 8th November
quotequote all
Julian Thompson said:
I’m far from an expert on insurance but I believe that regulation in that industry has stopped insurers from not paying out on a policy where a condition might not be met but where that condition was nothing to do with the claim. So for instance, say you have a flood in a building and upon inspection your burglar alarm doesn’t meet the requirements of the policy they would still have to pay out.
There are still some odd things though - I had a break in at a rental a couple of years back & made a claim for a new front door and back window (in one way, out the other). The insurance company were very good, but before they paid out they wanted to see a copy of the Landlord Gas Safety certificate for the property. Not quite sure what that had to do with anything, but there you go!

KPB1973

129 posts

35 months

Thursday 8th November
quotequote all
I don't know whether this helps - but what message did iDrive show you when it went into limp mode?

Mine (2011 E92 M3) said I could carry on driving under reduced power, and get it checked by a BMW service centre (sic)

If your car said the same - and you did indeed get it checked by a BMW service centre - then you followed manufacturer's instructions and weren't negligent.

Admittedly the BMW message is vague because it doesn't put a distance / timescale on the 'get it checked' bit, but that's not your fault...there's probably also something to back this up in your owner's handbook.

I raise this as every bit of document-able evidence might help your case.