Extended warranty claim and N rated tyres
Discussion
Twinfan said:
You don't get it. You cannot "void the warranty" in its totality. Each claim is a separate transaction and in your case whatever non-OEM parts you have on your car have not affected the two claims you made. Good for you. You gambled and won.
That may not always be the case for you in the event of a claim, or anyone else, given the policy wording and how it could be implemented. Suggesting everyone will "win" every time like you did is foolhardy.
Edited by Twinfan on Sunday 28th May 11:39
Twinfan said:
Here:
So that says that everyone will win every time does it ? That is a simple statement of fact as no prohibition exists within the contract, but it is also made clear that any non standard parts may invalidate a claim. Now if the warranty stated that it is invalid if any non genuine parts are fitted or non OPC servicing used then you would be right, but it doesn't does it.Baz99 said:
Fine, so we all accept that fitting non standard parts does not invalidate the warranty.
Baz99 said:
And this is the problem, you just don't seem able to grasp the fact that there is no clause in the contract forbidding use of non genuine parts or using non OPC servicing. Therefore doing so does not breach the contract. The contract has indeed been drafted by lawyers, probably the same as those who wrote your washing machine warranty. No company will accept liability for your negligence or actions and will insert clauses voiding the contract if it can be established that the problem rests with the parts you have had fitted or service that you have had done. Perfectly reasonable. The argument revolves around whether Porsche will refuse to honour the contract if they can pin any fault on any part or service. To do so would be unreasonable, we all rely upon both sides to a contract behaving reasonably and this ultimately is how the law would view any dispute. In my experience Porsche do behave reasonably and honourably. They have to, for where do you draw the line, must your tyres be fitted by an OPC, can you fit LED's into the cabin, do you have to use genuine OPC supplied wiper blades or battery, does the servicing have to be done within hours or days of it's anniversary? Would Porsche try to avoid liability for an engine failure for such things? In my experience they don't and despite numerous requests for evidence that they do none has been forthcoming. Obviously you must be sensible, fitting modified exhausts has to be risky, I haven't fitted stone grills because they could be blamed for affecting the cooling.
I have had two warranty claims and the OPC made no attempt to avoid responsibility, obviously they will assess the impact of any non genuine parts or servicing upon the fault facing them to establish any direct cause, but in my experience do so perfectly reasonably.
It's the paranoia on these forums that leads people to believe that doing anything to the car voids the warranty, this simply is not the case and is the point I am trying to make.
All of the above confirmed by Porsche GB.
I rest my case.
And that's the point that everyone has been trying to make, it's only YOUR experience, and thus there's every chance it's not the norm.I have had two warranty claims and the OPC made no attempt to avoid responsibility, obviously they will assess the impact of any non genuine parts or servicing upon the fault facing them to establish any direct cause, but in my experience do so perfectly reasonably.
It's the paranoia on these forums that leads people to believe that doing anything to the car voids the warranty, this simply is not the case and is the point I am trying to make.
All of the above confirmed by Porsche GB.
I rest my case.
I suggest you read this ;
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Porsche and their warranty provider/s didn't exactly cover themselves in glory with the 996/997 M96/M97 debacle, and if the above is anything to go by, neither do they with the fabled Mezger unit either. Read the above and you'll see what it took to bring Porsche AG to book. Very few owners would have the time, money and I suspect the necessary contacts to see such a case through to a satisfactory conclusion. And let's not forget this was a warranted, OPC serviced (and if I recall correctly, unmodified) car.
I'm guessing there's plenty of 996 and 997 owners whose cars were fitted with the problematical M96/97 engines who were royally shafted by Porsche when their engines failed catastrophically. Plenty of those will have been out of warranty and serviced by Porsche independents, as a result their claims will have been rejected wholesale. This despite there being a very obvious issue with the powerplants which Porsche knew about.
Others whose cars were maintained by OPC's will have either had their engines replaced or rebuilt under a goodwill offer from Porsche (or as frequently happened, a goodwill contribution towards the same).
Those who had their cars maintained by non OPC's will have been left financilally high and dry, despite the quality of servicing carried out by the best independents using OE parts frequently being superior to that of an OPC... Many will have abandoned the marque never to return. But if you could find them, I'm pretty sure they'd find your utopian perspective of Porsche and it's warranty policies, laughable.
Rest assured, if you give them (Porsche) or their warranty provider ANY grounds to reject a claim, they will. You may have been lucky to date, or as I suspect is more likely, have a good relationship with your OPC (it no doubt helps, but it's no guarantee you'll make a successful claim). Most warranty controllers are sticklers that do everything by the book, if they don't, they stand every chance of Porsche AG or its warranty provider rejecting a claim after the car has been repaired and taken away by its owner.
Once a satisfied customer has left the dealership in his/her recently repaired car thinking how wonderful Porsche AG are because they've fixed something FOC, good luck ringing him/her to request payment when Porsche rejects said claim.
What Slipptdiff said.
It's all about the OPC....Porsche GB will back the OPC in 90% of cases. IF the OPC denies your claim it's down to how tenacious you will be ad how much money yo might want to spend enforcing that contract...as indeed it is with any contract. They only as good as the lawyer you use to enforce it....
It's all about the OPC....Porsche GB will back the OPC in 90% of cases. IF the OPC denies your claim it's down to how tenacious you will be ad how much money yo might want to spend enforcing that contract...as indeed it is with any contract. They only as good as the lawyer you use to enforce it....
Oh do give it a rest fellas, the point is fitting non Porsche wiper blades, battery etc won't invalidate your warranty. You give one example of hassle over an engine that had apparently been over revved. I do not have a special relationship with my OPC and if any minor transgression was met with refusal to honour the warranty then presumably you would have many more examples to quote. The only part of your diatribe that is accurate is that you are guessing Slipy. I would advise you not to take out a warranty you would only have sleepless nights.
Edited by Baz99 on Sunday 28th May 22:12
Baz99 said:
Oh do give it a rest fellas, the point is fitting non Porsche wiper blades, battery etc won't invalidate your warranty. You give one example of hassle over an engine that had apparently been over revved. I do not have a special relationship with my OPC and if any minor transgression was met with refusal to honour the warranty then presumably you would have many more examples to quote. The only part of your diatribe that is accurate is that you are guessing Slipy. I would advise you not to take out a warranty you would only have sleepless nights.
It is a "nuisance" when the one bit of evidence provided rather calls into question both your viewpoint and highlights the questionable behaviour of the warranty provider.....But as ever, you've missed the point, again.
And even when the evidence you claim to have been wanting is presented, it's discounted ...
As for I'm guessing. FYi, the last car I ran with a Porsche warranty was an OPC supplied car in 2011 (it came with the car), I didn't run one for the previous six years, and haven't run one since. And the only reason a Porsche warranty would give me sleepless nights ? It's complete waste of money, and only bought into by deluded half wits such as yourself.
Here's my experience with the 997 GT3 with an OPC warranty :
"Your points regarding warranties are well made, however I've had mixed experiences with my GT cars. My 996 GT2 went in for a coolant leak, and ended up having all three radiators changed FOC, despite one clearly leaking as a result of impact damage from a stone. That was back in 2003-4 when the warranty conditions were slightly more lax. But .....
My second Gen 1 997 GT3 was purchased off Swindon and had the usual rattly front suspension, it was returned and I accompanied their chief technician on an extended roadtest, I already knew the various issues with the front suspension (I was a grease monkey in a previous life) and mentioned what I thought the problems may be. The CT was in complete denial, and said there were no known issues with any of the components I'd suggested. Suffice to say they ended up replacing one top strut mount....
Upon collecting the car, I drove it home only to find the noise was still there. Now lacking faith in Swindon's abilities, I took the car to my local OPC, and went out on roadtest with one of their technicians. The noise was duly noted and I left the car with them. As an aside, I asked for lift home (a 50 minute roundtrip) but was told no one was available to do so. As you can imagine, the whole process was starting to grate somewhat by now.
The following day I received a phonecall to say the car was stripped down, another worn strut top mounting was the culprit
and they weren't really sure why Swindon hadn't replaced both whilst they were "in there". It wasn't really a mystery to me, quite simply they're clearly a bunch of f*cking idiots.My local OPC went on to say they'd contacted Porsche warranty/Mondial only to be told the top mount was a wear item (ahh yes, that old chestnut again), and that the parts labour to replace along with a geo would be £700 + vat. I wasn't quite apoplectic, but I was very close.
A phonecall to Swindon (I've nothing better to do with my time) suggested I get my local OPC to ring them (Swindon) to enable them to give them the correct warranty claim code to claim for the worn top mount. And so it went on.
All the above left me thinking that I didn't really like the stance either OPC had taken, (especially Swindon as I'd bought the car off them) but also left me feeling I didn't like the corporate monster Porsche or indeed it's dealers/representatives had become. Accordingly I voted with my feet and decided that I'd return to my beloved 996's and indys would get my repair/servicing business from hereon.
I do like to improve/modify my cars, and thus having a warranty (for me) isn't the panacea it may be for others. Added to which, most of Demon's mythical £10K refresh is wear items/consumables, so a warranty on a 10 year old 997 GT3 is of little use unless something goes drastically wrong with the electrics, the engine, box or ABS (IMO). I'm not sure what a Porsche warranty runs to annually these days ? But I'd rather "risk it" and set the funds aside for a slush fund in the vent something did go horribly wrong."
You'll no doubt discount the above attempt at wriggling out of paying up as one off too.
Anyway, you're clearly deluded, and irrespective of how many individuals on here try and convince you your rationale is fundamentally flawed, you'll not concede your point. I only hope you don't find out the hard way that your faith in the warranty is grossly misplaced. And if you do,well tough sh*t, you've been warned.
Deluded? All I've done is point out and explain the legal wording and meaning of the contract. Your experiences are beside the point, so you didn't like the service, well that happens with all companies but they didn't try to avoid liability on the basis of a tyre or battery and am I to understand that eventually your top mounts were replaced under the warranty? By the way, I see no entitlement to a 50min lift home. 'Demon's mythical £10K refresh is wear items/consumables' what relevance has this ? Who are Demon?
The bottom line is that you believe that Porsche will use any excuse, no matter how obscure, to avoid liability, you have produced no evidence that this is so and I'm sure these forums would be full of complaints if Porsche refused cover blaming such things as batteries, tyres pads etc unless they can be legitimately blamed. I have direct experience that this is not the case. It's not me who is deluded.
The bottom line is that you believe that Porsche will use any excuse, no matter how obscure, to avoid liability, you have produced no evidence that this is so and I'm sure these forums would be full of complaints if Porsche refused cover blaming such things as batteries, tyres pads etc unless they can be legitimately blamed. I have direct experience that this is not the case. It's not me who is deluded.
Edited by Baz99 on Monday 29th May 08:21
Baz99 said:
Deluded? All I've done is point out and explain the legal wording and meaning of the contract. Your experiences are beside the point, so you didn't like the service, well that happens with all companies but they didn't try to avoid liability on the basis of a tyre or battery and am I to understand that eventually your top mounts were replaced under the warranty? By the way, I see no entitlement to a 50min lift home. 'Demon's mythical £10K refresh is wear items/consumables' what relevance has this ? Who are Demon?
The bottom line is that you believe that Porsche will use any excuse, no matter how obscure, to avoid liability, you have produced no evidence that this is so and I'm sure these forums would be full of complaints if Porsche refused cover blaming such things as batteries, tyres pads etc unless they can be legitimately blamed. I have direct experience that this is not the case. It's not me who is deluded.
I can't believe you're still struggling with the difference between your (hugely) limited experience and what has / could happen to other people in different circumstances.The bottom line is that you believe that Porsche will use any excuse, no matter how obscure, to avoid liability, you have produced no evidence that this is so and I'm sure these forums would be full of complaints if Porsche refused cover blaming such things as batteries, tyres pads etc unless they can be legitimately blamed. I have direct experience that this is not the case. It's not me who is deluded.
Baz99 said:
And this is the problem, you just don't seem able to grasp the fact that there is no clause in the contract forbidding use of non genuine parts or using non OPC servicing. Therefore doing so does not breach the contract. The contract has indeed been drafted by lawyers, probably the same as those who wrote your washing machine warranty. No company will accept liability for your negligence or actions and will insert clauses voiding the contract if it can be established that the problem rests with the parts you have had fitted or service that you have had done. Perfectly reasonable. The argument revolves around whether Porsche will refuse to honour the contract if they can pin any fault on any part or service. To do so would be unreasonable
Eh? What are you talking about? If they can point to a non-OPC part or service that has caused the fault it would be entirely reasonable for them to refuse to pay out. That's entirely the point!
Baz99 said:
we all rely upon both sides to a contract behaving reasonably and this ultimately is how the law would view any dispute.
Can you clarify the legal definition of 'behaving reasonably', as relevant to the Porsche Warranty, thanks!
Baz99 said:
In my experience Porsche do behave reasonably and honourably.
How many claims have you made?How do you define 'reasonably'?
Baz99 said:
They have to, for where do you draw the line, must your tyres be fitted by an OPC, can you fit LED's into the cabin, do you have to use genuine OPC supplied wiper blades or battery, does the servicing have to be done within hours or days of it's anniversary? Would Porsche try to avoid liability for an engine failure for such things? In my experience they don't and despite numerous requests for evidence that they do none has been forthcoming. Obviously you must be sensible, fitting modified exhausts has to be risky, I haven't fitted stone grills because they could be blamed for affecting the cooling.
Please can you provide the legal definition of 'sensible' as applicable to the Porsche Warranty?Baz99 said:
I have had two warranty claims and the OPC made no attempt to avoid responsibility,
Wow, an amazingly extensive experience on which to base your opinions!
Baz99 said:
obviously they will assess the impact of any non genuine parts or servicing upon the fault facing them to establish any direct cause, but in my experience do so perfectly reasonably.
It's the paranoia on these forums that leads people to believe that doing anything to the car voids the warranty, this simply is not the case and is the point I am trying to make.
All of the above confirmed by Porsche GB.
I rest my case.
I do hope so - repeating the same nonsense won't make it any less nonsense!It's the paranoia on these forums that leads people to believe that doing anything to the car voids the warranty, this simply is not the case and is the point I am trying to make.
All of the above confirmed by Porsche GB.
I rest my case.
Twinfan said:
You cannot "void the warranty" in its totality.
Just to add my two pence; you can void the Warranty in its entirety - it's called a 'block flag' - the system can be marked for various issues (mods / write off / damage / import / export) and if it applies the factory log it and the repairing centre will not be reimbursed for any claims - falling foul if due diligence checks aren't done prior to starting repairs. Rough example: Non-recorded accident damage; vehicle salvage repaired outside guidelines (repair area instead of replace); noted at 111, block flag - Warranty void.
If a Centre alerts, after consideration; the car can be blocked.
Well, despite my head spinning can I just ask:
How many owners on this forum have had a claim refused because their car, for example was not fitted with N rated tyres or a Porsche battery ?
Or is it just the case that Porsche will only RENEW the extended warranty AT THE TIME OF INSPECTION if your car is fitted with the above ?
How many owners on this forum have had a claim refused because their car, for example was not fitted with N rated tyres or a Porsche battery ?
Or is it just the case that Porsche will only RENEW the extended warranty AT THE TIME OF INSPECTION if your car is fitted with the above ?
Baz99 said:
Evidence guy's? You are convinced that Porsche will behave unreasonably and screw you.
I don't believe anyone has said that - I think there are simply saying that there is a significant risk that in some circumstances Porsche could argue that a non-OPC part was the cause of the issue and it would be difficult, if not impossible, for you to prove otherwise. At the least you will incur significant inconvenience and cost in trying to do so.Baz99 said:
Well, i have not experienced that and am still waiting evidence that this is their attitude.
Yes, your two claims are conclusive proof of your opinion...Baz99 said:
Sidicks, try constructing a cohesive case.
Given that your who case is based solely on your 2 claims, I'm not sure you understand what a 'cohesive' case is!Remind me of your legal qualifications, if you would...
sidicks said:
Given that your who case is based solely on your 2 claims, I'm not sure you understand what a 'cohesive' case is!
Remind me of your legal qualifications, if you would...
But my two claims are more than you are offering Sidicks. Remind me of your legal qualifications, if you would...
I have never claimed a legal qualification, so how can I remind you?
Pope said:
Just to add my two pence; you can void the Warranty in its entirety - it's called a 'block flag' - the system can be marked for various issues (mods / write off / damage / import / export) and if it applies the factory log it and the repairing centre will not be reimbursed for any claims - falling foul if due diligence checks aren't done prior to starting repairs.
Rough example: Non-recorded accident damage; vehicle salvage repaired outside guidelines (repair area instead of replace); noted at 111, block flag - Warranty void.
If a Centre alerts, after consideration; the car can be blocked.
Yes, as with any insurance, if the insurers discover problems subsequent to issuing the policy it can be revoked with suitable notification.Rough example: Non-recorded accident damage; vehicle salvage repaired outside guidelines (repair area instead of replace); noted at 111, block flag - Warranty void.
If a Centre alerts, after consideration; the car can be blocked.
Baz99 said:
But my two claims are more than you are offering Sidicks.
Like the other informed people on here, including some knowledgable legal types, I'm just pointing out the (massive) flaws in your argument:1) your own limited experience is meaningless
2) you still seem unable to understand who determines what is 'reasonable' and the implications thereof
3) you seem oblivious to the potential practical implications of your approach
Baz99 said:
I have never claimed a legal qualification, so how can I remind you?
Exactly!Edited by sidicks on Monday 29th May 10:12
Gassing Station | Porsche General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff