Health Check vs Diagnostic - warranty claim
Discussion
Hi All,
I'll keep this brief if possible.
I have a used car with an aftermarket warranty (I know...).
The process is to do a diagnostic on the car and then provide the warranty company with a report with pricing for them to pay up.
I recently made a claim for worn/damages bushes which has been rejected.
The basis for rejection is that the warranty company doesn't cover health checks, it only covers diagnostic test. they're also saying that as it's a health check the problems are advisory, not critical (or words to that effect).
Spoke with the garage and their take is that a diagnostic is connecting a car to a computer to identify faults. As this is suspension related, a diagnostic isn't really the way forward. The garage's words to the claim company, was "client brought the car in for a check as there were issues".
I'm writing to the warranty company of course to point this out, but has anyone experienced something similar?
Seems to me that they're just rejecting as a first point of action hoping I'll go away.
Thoughts appreciated.
Thanks!
I'll keep this brief if possible.
I have a used car with an aftermarket warranty (I know...).
The process is to do a diagnostic on the car and then provide the warranty company with a report with pricing for them to pay up.
I recently made a claim for worn/damages bushes which has been rejected.
The basis for rejection is that the warranty company doesn't cover health checks, it only covers diagnostic test. they're also saying that as it's a health check the problems are advisory, not critical (or words to that effect).
Spoke with the garage and their take is that a diagnostic is connecting a car to a computer to identify faults. As this is suspension related, a diagnostic isn't really the way forward. The garage's words to the claim company, was "client brought the car in for a check as there were issues".
I'm writing to the warranty company of course to point this out, but has anyone experienced something similar?
Seems to me that they're just rejecting as a first point of action hoping I'll go away.
Thoughts appreciated.
Thanks!
I can see where the warranty company are coming from.
On a recent health check it was noted that I had worn bushes. It was marked as an advisory, but I was told I didn't have to do anything about it, as they could look worn for years without causing any problems. As such, the health check only notes the visible condition, not whether they need to be replaced. A diagnostic, on the other hand, would determine their performance and whether they actually need to be replaced.
In that sense I think the garage and warranty company are getting hung up on terminology. Perhaps then you could get the garage to simply confirm in writing that the bushes are worn to an extent that they affect the handlng and safety of the car, and that they need to be replaced. An MOT failure for worn bushes would probably do it too.
On a recent health check it was noted that I had worn bushes. It was marked as an advisory, but I was told I didn't have to do anything about it, as they could look worn for years without causing any problems. As such, the health check only notes the visible condition, not whether they need to be replaced. A diagnostic, on the other hand, would determine their performance and whether they actually need to be replaced.
In that sense I think the garage and warranty company are getting hung up on terminology. Perhaps then you could get the garage to simply confirm in writing that the bushes are worn to an extent that they affect the handlng and safety of the car, and that they need to be replaced. An MOT failure for worn bushes would probably do it too.
Artsy said:
Possibly but it's got the items listed as
Anti roll bar bushes
Anti roll bar link bushes
As being covered.
In any case the reason for rejection is calling the checkup a health check instead of a diagnostic so I was wondering if there is an actual difference.
Isn't the 'diagnostic' simply the process of you taking it to a garage and saying "I'm having such & such problem, please find out what the cause is.", so that the garage can 'diagnose' the problem.Anti roll bar bushes
Anti roll bar link bushes
As being covered.
In any case the reason for rejection is calling the checkup a health check instead of a diagnostic so I was wondering if there is an actual difference.
Not a dealer 'diagnostic' which might just be to read out the error codes, or the health-check where the garage is looking for issues that you may not even know about?
Also, I'd assume 'failed' anti roll bar bushes or anti roll bar link bushes might be covered, but not some that are just past their best.
Artsy said:
Would knocking from the bushes when accelerating count as failed or worn?
If it's an advisory, then it hasn't failed.Same as a dealer would advise you replace your tyres at 3mm during a healthcheck. They haven't failed (yet), they're just be worn!
Of course, most sensible owners would replace a badly worn component before it fails.
If it needs a diagnostic for the warranty company to pay out, then ask them to clearly define it (or see if it's defined in the documentation).
What does the warranty document say about what is covered and isn't...and what are the exceptions. It may list almost every part as being covered, but only if they've failed and not just worn out (which is stupid, but that's how some warranty companies work). Other companies may include wear & tear on specific component (but usually not friction materials or maintenance items).
I wouldn't be surprised if they then refuse on the worn vs failed clause once you've jumped through their first hoop.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff