Claim against well known Warranty Provider UPHELD
Discussion
B_Tank88 said:
What happened here then?
It's like all traces of anything have vanished on the internets.
They settled out of court, but he had to pull his story (blog) in return for a brown bag (one assumes)It's like all traces of anything have vanished on the internets.
We are not allowed to name the company on this forum - but many know who they are.
I think I'm pretty much the only voice not congratulating the op for his win.
What the op did was mechanically so unsympathetic as to be culpable. Yet operating a car in a way likely to do it harm is regarded as not his fault apparently.
Yes I did read the original thread and made my views known there, and no, nothing about the verdict changes my mind. I guess in future the warranty company must assume the driver knows nothing about engines.
On the plus side though I have had far more deserving warranty claims refused which is why I stopped using them. So not too upset to see a warranty company get its comeuppance.
What the op did was mechanically so unsympathetic as to be culpable. Yet operating a car in a way likely to do it harm is regarded as not his fault apparently.
Yes I did read the original thread and made my views known there, and no, nothing about the verdict changes my mind. I guess in future the warranty company must assume the driver knows nothing about engines.
On the plus side though I have had far more deserving warranty claims refused which is why I stopped using them. So not too upset to see a warranty company get its comeuppance.
julian64 said:
I think I'm pretty much the only voice not congratulating the op for his win.
What the op did was mechanically so unsympathetic as to be culpable. Yet operating a car in a way likely to do it harm is regarded as not his fault apparently.
Yes I did read the original thread and made my views known there, and no, nothing about the verdict changes my mind. I guess in future the warranty company must assume the driver knows nothing about engines.
On the plus side though I have had far more deserving warranty claims refused which is why I stopped using them. So not too upset to see a warranty company get its comeuppance.
Not that I want to rake up old ground but how do you see it as being the OP's fault? IIRC, he was told by the manufacturer to drive it carefully then the situation got worse when he took it to a garage to be repaired. As far as I can see, he followed advice offered by the absolute best people to offer advice then had forged information used in declining a claim. What the op did was mechanically so unsympathetic as to be culpable. Yet operating a car in a way likely to do it harm is regarded as not his fault apparently.
Yes I did read the original thread and made my views known there, and no, nothing about the verdict changes my mind. I guess in future the warranty company must assume the driver knows nothing about engines.
On the plus side though I have had far more deserving warranty claims refused which is why I stopped using them. So not too upset to see a warranty company get its comeuppance.
RazerSauber said:
julian64 said:
I think I'm pretty much the only voice not congratulating the op for his win.
What the op did was mechanically so unsympathetic as to be culpable. Yet operating a car in a way likely to do it harm is regarded as not his fault apparently.
Yes I did read the original thread and made my views known there, and no, nothing about the verdict changes my mind. I guess in future the warranty company must assume the driver knows nothing about engines.
On the plus side though I have had far more deserving warranty claims refused which is why I stopped using them. So not too upset to see a warranty company get its comeuppance.
Not that I want to rake up old ground but how do you see it as being the OP's fault? IIRC, he was told by the manufacturer to drive it carefully then the situation got worse when he took it to a garage to be repaired. As far as I can see, he followed advice offered by the absolute best people to offer advice then had forged information used in declining a claim. What the op did was mechanically so unsympathetic as to be culpable. Yet operating a car in a way likely to do it harm is regarded as not his fault apparently.
Yes I did read the original thread and made my views known there, and no, nothing about the verdict changes my mind. I guess in future the warranty company must assume the driver knows nothing about engines.
On the plus side though I have had far more deserving warranty claims refused which is why I stopped using them. So not too upset to see a warranty company get its comeuppance.
I also suggested that I couldn't see how the engine could lunch itself without some sort of warning on the dash considering the problem the op was having. The op denied any warning.
Its possible the op was genuine in both respects.
RazerSauber said:
Not that I want to rake up old ground but how do you see it as being the OP's fault? IIRC, he was told by the manufacturer to drive it carefully then the situation got worse when he took it to a garage to be repaired. As far as I can see, he followed advice offered by the absolute best people to offer advice then had forged information used in declining a claim.
Pretty much this, IIRC.julian64 said:
I think I'm pretty much the only voice not congratulating the op for his win.
What the op did was mechanically so unsympathetic as to be culpable. Yet operating a car in a way likely to do it harm is regarded as not his fault apparently.
Yes I did read the original thread and made my views known there, and no, nothing about the verdict changes my mind. I guess in future the warranty company must assume the driver knows nothing about engines.
On the plus side though I have had far more deserving warranty claims refused which is why I stopped using them. So not too upset to see a warranty company get its comeuppance.
But if you read all the original deleted thread you would know it was trailered you a bmw main dealer in France (where initial issues occurred), it was deemed safe by a bmw main dealer to drive. What the op did was mechanically so unsympathetic as to be culpable. Yet operating a car in a way likely to do it harm is regarded as not his fault apparently.
Yes I did read the original thread and made my views known there, and no, nothing about the verdict changes my mind. I guess in future the warranty company must assume the driver knows nothing about engines.
On the plus side though I have had far more deserving warranty claims refused which is why I stopped using them. So not too upset to see a warranty company get its comeuppance.
The cause of the engine failure was deemed not to be linked to what happened initially in France.
julian64 said:
I think I'm pretty much the only voice not congratulating the op for his win.
What the op did was mechanically so unsympathetic as to be culpable. Yet operating a car in a way likely to do it harm is regarded as not his fault apparently.
Yes I did read the original thread and made my views known there, and no, nothing about the verdict changes my mind. I guess in future the warranty company must assume the driver knows nothing about engines.
On the plus side though I have had far more deserving warranty claims refused which is why I stopped using them. So not too upset to see a warranty company get its comeuppance.
Sorry, but with a lifetime of working in the motor industry I simply don’t agree with you.What the op did was mechanically so unsympathetic as to be culpable. Yet operating a car in a way likely to do it harm is regarded as not his fault apparently.
Yes I did read the original thread and made my views known there, and no, nothing about the verdict changes my mind. I guess in future the warranty company must assume the driver knows nothing about engines.
On the plus side though I have had far more deserving warranty claims refused which is why I stopped using them. So not too upset to see a warranty company get its comeuppance.
The OP had the car trailered to a Main Dealer. He was told to drive it back to the U.K. and he did. The dealer didn’t offer a definitive diagnosis and as such the warranty provider wasn’t going to replace anything with a report clearly stating what was wrong.
If the warranty provider has a problem, it was with the dealer in France, not the OP.
mitch_ said:
julian64 said:
I think I'm pretty much the only voice not congratulating the op for his win.
What the op did was mechanically so unsympathetic as to be culpable. Yet operating a car in a way likely to do it harm is regarded as not his fault apparently.
Yes I did read the original thread and made my views known there, and no, nothing about the verdict changes my mind. I guess in future the warranty company must assume the driver knows nothing about engines.
On the plus side though I have had far more deserving warranty claims refused which is why I stopped using them. So not too upset to see a warranty company get its comeuppance.
Sorry, but with a lifetime of working in the motor industry I simply don’t agree with you.What the op did was mechanically so unsympathetic as to be culpable. Yet operating a car in a way likely to do it harm is regarded as not his fault apparently.
Yes I did read the original thread and made my views known there, and no, nothing about the verdict changes my mind. I guess in future the warranty company must assume the driver knows nothing about engines.
On the plus side though I have had far more deserving warranty claims refused which is why I stopped using them. So not too upset to see a warranty company get its comeuppance.
The OP had the car trailered to a Main Dealer. He was told to drive it back to the U.K. and he did. The dealer didn’t offer a definitive diagnosis and as such the warranty provider wasn’t going to replace anything with a report clearly stating what was wrong.
If the warranty provider has a problem, it was with the dealer in France, not the OP.
Warranty company - If some idiot in BMW told you to drive a sick car half way across France then it is their fault if it lunches itself.
BMW - our advice comes without any liability and therefore nothing to do with us.
OP - I can't be expected to have any sympathy for the car or know anything about engines.
I think you can see how the warranty company might think of themselves as more than a little hard done by.
The warranty company told him to go to a BMW dealer local to him, as I recall, so the BMW dealer became an an effective agent of the warranty company. The warranty company’s issue should be with the dealer that gave incorrect advice.
Had he followed the path you suggest, I doubt the warranty company would have paid for any of it as they only pay for failed, not failing parts.
Not saying it’s a straight case, but the OP did do what was asked of him.
Had he followed the path you suggest, I doubt the warranty company would have paid for any of it as they only pay for failed, not failing parts.
Not saying it’s a straight case, but the OP did do what was asked of him.
Except out of PH most drivers have no idea about the workings of cars or engines and have no idea how to even check the oil never mind anything so unless the dash tells them to do something then they think all is well, the warranty provider doesn’t state that you need to be a fully qualified mechanic and I guarantee if the OP had gone against the BMW dealers advise done his own thing and still had the same failure that would be an immediate get out for warranty provider. The worse part for me was the way the warranty provider was so shady and making up evidence to refuse the claim, pretty disgraceful to be honest. Even the NDA is a shady trick to hide their awful service.
Edited by Glenn63 on Tuesday 7th January 09:14
Monkeylegend said:
Have you not read the thread and drawn your own conclusions from what's been said? 
I have read the thread, but I can't draw a conclusion.The blog is gone, all references to the company are gone, but I don't know if they paid out or not. To me it went all quiet all of a sudden.
B_Tank88 said:
I have read the thread, but I can't draw a conclusion.
The blog is gone, all references to the company are gone, but I don't know if they paid out or not. To me it went all quiet all of a sudden.
They settled in some form or another to the acceptance of the OP, which included removing the naming of them etc - presumably via an NDA.The blog is gone, all references to the company are gone, but I don't know if they paid out or not. To me it went all quiet all of a sudden.
julian64 said:
mitch_ said:
julian64 said:
I think I'm pretty much the only voice not congratulating the op for his win.
What the op did was mechanically so unsympathetic as to be culpable. Yet operating a car in a way likely to do it harm is regarded as not his fault apparently.
Yes I did read the original thread and made my views known there, and no, nothing about the verdict changes my mind. I guess in future the warranty company must assume the driver knows nothing about engines.
On the plus side though I have had far more deserving warranty claims refused which is why I stopped using them. So not too upset to see a warranty company get its comeuppance.
Sorry, but with a lifetime of working in the motor industry I simply don’t agree with you.What the op did was mechanically so unsympathetic as to be culpable. Yet operating a car in a way likely to do it harm is regarded as not his fault apparently.
Yes I did read the original thread and made my views known there, and no, nothing about the verdict changes my mind. I guess in future the warranty company must assume the driver knows nothing about engines.
On the plus side though I have had far more deserving warranty claims refused which is why I stopped using them. So not too upset to see a warranty company get its comeuppance.
The OP had the car trailered to a Main Dealer. He was told to drive it back to the U.K. and he did. The dealer didn’t offer a definitive diagnosis and as such the warranty provider wasn’t going to replace anything with a report clearly stating what was wrong.
If the warranty provider has a problem, it was with the dealer in France, not the OP.
Warranty company - If some idiot in BMW told you to drive a sick car half way across France then it is their fault if it lunches itself.
BMW - our advice comes without any liability and therefore nothing to do with us.
OP - I can't be expected to have any sympathy for the car or know anything about engines.
I think you can see how the warranty company might think of themselves as more than a little hard done by.
A mate needed to borrow my Cayenne at the last minute to complete a transport job after his usual tow car failed. I was reluctant to let him as it had recently had one of the two turbos replaced under manufacturer extended warranty after an actuator failure. I assumed the second wasn't too far behind but he wanted it anyway as he was desperate and lo and behold after driving to France pulling a heavy trailer it predictably let go virtually at the destination.
He took it to a local dealer who advised him it was safe to continue. I said 'balls to that, with 1500 miles on it since the fault registered or if it lunches something bigger (which it might pulling a trailer that far) the UK dealer could tell me to get stuffed'
I thought it highly likely that something else would have gone wrong driving it that distance in limp mode with a known fault. He agreed but his argument was 'but the local dealer have said it's fine to drive so they can't tell you to get stuffed'
In the choice between him having to recover it or me risking a time consuming (with no car) and potentially costly legal interchange with the manufacturer's warranty insurance company on a 130,000 mile old car with a known fault, he recovered it.
On top of the fact that both my mate and I are knowledgeable enough to know it was risky, I was also dubious about the motivation of the local dealer with having to drop everything in a full workshop to carry out major surgery for warranty rates on a leggy foreign car that they'll likely never see again. Especially in a foreign country and without anything in writing so probably with no realistic legal recourse for any porkies they might tell either.
Most people can't be expected to be cynical enough or know better than the dealer so I don't necessarily disagree with the OP's actions, and he deserved to win, but the question for me is was it all worth it for the sake of the recovery cost and some short term inconvenience.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff