Engine: 2.5: 44k engine blown, warranty company not interested

[daveyonthemove]

Originally Posted by luggsey

You should have gone to court, I'm pretty sure that exclusion would have been un enforceable.

In hindsight I should have, but I needed my car back on the road and Christmas was approaching, so I got an indy garage to sort it for me. Cost £1500 but I couldn't afford not to get it done.

[TheLeeds]

It might sound obvious, but go through the wording of the policy document carefully and see exactly what it says it covers and what it doesn't. Check what the exceptions are, and see if any of them fit the circumstances of this engine failure.
The policy will form part of your contract with the warranty company. If after this, you believe the warranty covers the defects which have now appeared, you could write to the company and say you believe them to be in breach of contract for failing to honour the warranty. Beyond that, it depends. For a money claim in the county court, you need to have had a quantifiable loss, such as a garage bill for the supply and fit of a replacement engine, or repairs to the old one. Issuing county court proceedings based on what you think it might cost if they were held liable by the court would be more complicated and probably more expensive.

If the warranty company is rejecting the claim, you'd be entitled to ask them to state exactly which part of the policy they believe entitles them to do so. Ask them and see what happens, then quote the relevant part of the policy wording on here if you like, and see what others reckon.

Another possible solution might be going the Financial Ombudsman Service route, assuming it works the same or similar way for Scotland. FOS can and does get involved in disputed insurance claims. A warranty is an insurance policy so it might be worth looking into.

Worth noting here that insurance companies are in the business of taking money from customers, but avoiding giving it back unless they really have to. Many claims which are initially rejected are subsequently settled once a company realizes the customer isn't going to lie down and take it.

Sometimes an insurer will let a client issue proceedings, then initially defend those proceedings, only to settle a few weeks before the hearing date. This is effectively a game (and a potential abuse of process) to see who will bottle it first. Don't be the one who folds.

[jjkenya]

The latest is that I have spoken to the Quality Department, who handle complaints. They have been acceptably frank that the procedure from here on in is as per FSA regulation and they have sent me a document setting out the process. Fine.

I must say that so far they have not complied with any of their self imposed time deadlines to contact me (3-5 days for the report turned out to be closer to 12, and 5 days to hear from the complaints team was actually 6). Nonetheless, they have agreed to send me a copy of the report from the engineer, and also to accept my contentions to the report in writing. I have stated clearly that the low oil is a non-starter, as the turbo should have gone first, there was no warning light, and the dipstick had oil on it when the garage inspected it. The "sooting up" seems to be the sticking point, but I am struggling to see how anything but a lab analysis can resolve this. My garage are also willing to write to them to contest the findings, as they think it's all a joke.

The scary bit is that the complaints team's decision is final and they will review the case once before determining, and obviously they have no incentive to want to pay given that they work within Mapfre...

Will keep you posted. Thanks for all the feedback so far.

[Bendolfc]

If they aren't responding within the timeframes they specify, your best bet is to get an engine oil anaysis done and assuming the analysis shows the oil is to spec and fine then send them a LBA giving them 30 days to pay up for the repairs plus your costs, if nothing after than issue small claims proceedings.

[TheLeeds]

Originally Posted by jjkenya

The scary bit is that the complaints team's decision is final..... Thanks for all the feedback so far.

Although the complaints team may not know this, their decision is not final at all. A court decision is final. But the people in the office who have dealt with this so far may not realize. Someone more senior and with sufficient authority to override the original decision, will probably get involved if this case is escalated, due to the potentially serious financial implications for the company if they reject a valid claim.

[NigelDay]

Originally Posted by TheLeeds

Although the complaints team may not know this, their decision is not final at all. A court decision is final. But the people in the office who have dealt with this so far may not realize. Someone more senior and with sufficient authority to override the original decision, will probably get involved if this case is escalated, due to the potentially serious financial implications for the company if they reject a valid claim.

I'd still be tempted to go down the County Court route. It costs a small amount and, once the claim is filed, they may well back down, simply because it will cost them to defend it (as they will, in all probability, hire their own solicitor to defend the case).
The Judge will be interested in the detail of the Contract and where you say it should pay up, and where they say they should not pay up. Fundamental to this is the supporting evidence from an Independent Engineer.
As others have said, their 'complaints system' is not final.

[jjkenya]

The complaints department, who normally have up to 8 weeks to respond, have already responded, declining the claim. They are basing it on the assessor's report which I paste verbatim for any "engine gurus" to comment on:

“Information available is limited. However, the evidence seen in this inspection is consistent with poor piston ring performance mainly in No1 cylinder. A combination of unfavourable operating conditions is likely to have resulted in poor cylinder sealing along with improper combustion in No1 cylinder. “Bore wash” due to unburnt fuel passing the piston has undoubtedly occurred and this implies very unfavourable conditions in No1 cylinder, including the possibility of abnormal transient forces due to poor lubrication and/or the ingestion of soot clumps from the inlet manifold.

A combination of accelerated general wear and some additional stress due to poor No1 cylinder performance has then resulted in failure of No1 big-end bearing. Loss of oil supply to other bearings has then occurred, leading to general bearing damage around the engine. Disproportionately accelerated bearing and cylinder wear is seen, along with the strong suspicion of fuel injector and combustion issues.

Therefore: The cause of failure in this case is the build-up of general soot contamination in several areas of the engine due to a persistently unfavourable engine operation regime and despite and otherwise generally acceptable reported service schedule. This is the result of several years of persistently unfavourable operating conditions, culminating with an abnormally short engine lifespan. We would also draw your attention paragraph 2 observations ECU data"

They add that:
The Insurer will not cover claims caused by, or arising from or in connection with the following:

5e) progressive failures;

14. any Mechanical or Electrical Breakdown resulting from : -
e) lack of coolant, lubricant or hydraulic fluids;
g) ingress of foreign matter into fuel, lubricants or cooling system;

The next "step" is the FSA and Ombudsman... I wonder if anyone thinks it's worth it?

[luggsey]

I read the engine went bang despite being serviced.
Just what your warranty should cover.

[phil1968]

Originally Posted by luggsey

I read the engine went bang despite being serviced.
Just what your warranty should cover.

I concur

[NigelDay]

Originally Posted by phil1968

I concur

If you go to Court, keep the case simple. Car serviced - with the evidence to prove it. This alone goes a long way to proving your case.