The big ends gone on my STI 5. Unfortunately WH provide the warranty. My chosen dealer has stripped the engine and said they can't determine the fault - one of those things. They've spoken to WH who are inspecting the car. WH have said they probably won't pay as it's down to wear and tear!!
WH are gonna look at the car tomorrow morning, so I need some ammo if they do stick by that.
I can't see how they can actually say that it's wear and tear - would've thought that was acceptable at 100k miles.
What recourse have I got? In their warranty schedule it says they don't cover general wear & tear items, and periodic repair items. This sounds like things in the service schedule.
Any thoughts by anyone - I know the general consesus about WH is that they're shafting b4st4rds.

Cheers

 

Craig,
I cannot possibly see how they can claim that an engine luching itself in such a low mileage is w & t! Surely if the big ends have failed, then they have failed quite dramatically?

Perhaps you need to speak to Anders / Pete Croney etc and see if they can pressurise the warranty company with a better prognosis than "dunno mate"!

Mike R

 

Surely if the big end has gone in a small mileage the dealer should be able to advise if its wear or tear or not.


AllanB

 

Have they seen if failure was result of the piston slap problem which sems so prevalent? Number 3 isn't it?
Ask Stef as he had big end go recently and his garage must have pointed out the problem.
Chuck

 

Pop down to Warranty Holdings and speak to them direct. There in Waltham Abbey (junc 26ish off the M25)

I was offered a job there once. Turned it down as I didn't like the feel of the place. At the end of the day WH is owned by a f*ck off rich Arab (can't remember which one but he's got more money than you can shake a stick at) and he uses it (WH) as a money machine (in my opinion).

Nope - didn't like it there at all.

[This message has been edited by Taff (edited 21-06-2000).]

 

Was that 6 or 7.5k?

 

Service book (UK) states that you are allowed 1000 miles grace on each service to retain warranty.

Craig,

robski

 

Robski

You don't know what I'm doing to it

 

Hello,

I seem to remember that someone posted a reply about a simial topic stating that WH dont cover "wear and tear OR Defects cause by manufactuer" or something. He then asked exactly what the policy did cover and said he was going to check up with this with the local traideing standards company. Also if the dealer sold the car with warrenty even through a third party you have some comeback on the dealer as you made the cheque out to them.

Keep at it and mention Traiding standards/BBC Watchdog/Local press if it gets sticky....

 

Craig,

mail me!

robski

 

"May have been low on oil"
Isn't the burden of proof on them? What gives them the impression that it has been low on oil?

"Have no intention of ever paying up" would seem more appropriate looking at this thread.
In the interests of balance, does anyone have *anything* good to say about WH?
KF.

 

Warranty Holdings have turned the claim down. Apparently, sometime during the cars life it "may have been low on oil", so they're not gonna pay. What a load of b0llox. How do I disprove this?

 

Er, well I guess that WH are looking after their shareholders.

Like KF says, a warranty company cannot simply say it may have been low on oil, or it may have been in a condition to invalidate its warranty at some time.

My advice: (I bet you can't wait) - if they told you it may have been low on fuel on the phone, just go along with it like you understand and ask them to pop you a note in writing - saying things like that will make them look stupid if it comes to court/press article. Citizens advice bureau may be able to help - or the insurance ombudsmen (I don't know if warrantees are covered by the ombudsmen, but it is basically insurance you have with WH).

Good luck

 

Craig,

I think what others have said is essentially correct - the warranties are insurance backed, and thus the ombudsman should be able to help.

In particular, the onus is on the insurer to show that you have been negligent with respect to oil. So I'd say you <I>don't</I> have to disprove the car was low on oil, they have to prove it in the first place.

Obviously every case is different, but take a look at:

 

Alastair.
Thanks for that - it looks spot on. They'res no way in million years these ****ers are getting out of this!!

Cheers

 

What a surprise - Warranty Holdings aren't a member of the IOB. I can see me getting completely shafted on this.

 

Craig,
Speak to the ombudsmen to see if warranty companies are governed by them - I would have thought they'd have to be - don't take WH's word for it.

 

Trigaaar,

On looking at the site in more detail, it appears membership is voluntary, and they only have power over members.

I thought it would have been compulsory and/or regulatory in some fashion, like OFTEL or whatever...

Apparently it's not, and you can certainly see why WH aren't members

Craig - sorry for the bad lead - I'd have thought the general principles might still apply, but it would be a matter of contractual law rather than one for the IOB.

And presumably that route is messy, expensive and time consuming. Perhaps that's what WH rely on, knowing most people don't have the resources to take them on?


Hope you get them to pay...

Alastair

 

Yep, no statuatory requirement to be part of an onbudsman. Its the same for a lot of other industries tho, e.g. Travel Agents do not HAVE to be part of one. Often as well, companies threatn to withdraw from the Institute if they are not happy with them getting involved in cases.

re warranty holdings. It may not necessarily be that its directly an insurance policy. They dont all work in exactly the same way. They may have a policy in place to cover them for any very expensive bills, and be paying the smaller ones directly from the cash they collect. Just having the insurance policy covering them incase they get stung on one very large claim which is beyond dispute.

Is not the best bet to consider another expert to have a look at the parts. e.g. graham goode, scoobysport, PE, powerstaions etc etc. If one of them will go on the record as saying its very doubtful that it was low oil, you may have a better chance if you say you will take it to court.

robski

 

Craig,

I think GT was referring to me. My clutch failed at 10k, not worn, no sign of abuse, etc', just slipped under full load.

WH agreed it was covered, if it was faulty. They then reneged.

They have a clause to cover EVERY possible claim, and have a reputation of only paying out via the dealers who sell their policies. Allegedly :-), before they allow a claim, they work out the value of the business the dealer puts through them. If a dealer is giving them £20k + a year, it makes sense to allow some claims !!!!!!!. This came from a WH rep'.

MY outcome: I ended up speaking to one of the directors, who was unable to give me ONE example of under what circumstances they would honour a claim. I stated that they had sold me a product that was unsuitable for it's intended service, and got my money back. Not Ideal, but better in my pocket, than theirs.

It goes like this, No cover for,

W&T, manufacturing fault, + the usual,

Now if something wears out, they won't pay. If it fails before they would concider it W&T, it's a manufacturing fault, they won't pay.

They are without doubt, a bunch of crooks. It was going to uneconomical for me to pursue them for a clutch, but worth you speaking to a solicitor.

Mark.

 

Craig,
Earlier this year I made a claim to Warranty Holdings on my wifes car a Mitsubishi Spacewagon, The Automatic Gear Box had failed in fact the splines on the clutch castle drum had completely stripped. I said that I wanted to take to a main dealer and they said they would only pay #28.00 per hour and suggested I take the vehicle to their recommended repairer Essex Automatic Transmisions in Harlow. This I did, they stripped the car down and an "independent" engineer (ACE Automotive Consulting Engineers) appointed by WH inspected the gearbox and parts. The repairer contacted me after his visit and said all had gone well the engineer seemed satisfied and if I gave them permision to go ahead with the work which would cost #1116.25 they would have the car ready for the weekend by which time they should have faxed approval from WH.
I gave approval and on the friday went to pick up the car only to be told that WH had turned down the claim on the basis that there engineer had stated that failure was due to Wear and Tear.
I needed the car back and had to pay up but I rang WH and said that I disagreed with their findings and as an engineer the complete wearing away of a spline drive could in no way be classified as wear and tear it was a catastrophic failure of the material which appears to be the only thing covered by their warranty. I advised them that I would be taking the matter further and I took away the only parts the repairer had kept so they could be inspected by my own "Independent Engineers" (I used Vehicle Inspection Services (SE) R.B.Woods in Kent Tel 0860 391182 Fax 0580 241578 as recommended by the AA)
He prepared a report (It Cost #95.00) stating that on inspection of the parts available the failure was due to material/ Hardening failure and was not wear and tear.
I submitted the report to the Customer Relations Dept PO Box 246 Eleanor House, Eleanor Cross Road, Waltham Cross,Herts.EN8 7ZE Tel No 01992 654000 Fax 01992 654433
After 3 weeks of hearing nothing I started chasing to see what they were doing about it
They said they had rejected the claim and if I wanted to take the matter further I would have to take the matter to theit Customer Relations Manager Mr Alan Stungo who turned out to be the only helpfull person I had spoken to at WH he advised that because our engineer had only been able to inspect limited parts from the gear box his report was not valid I countered this with the fact that their appointed repairer had disposed of all other parts before we had chance to study them. He then went away to consult others!! and came back the following day and made an offer of #750.00 towards the repair this was based on the maximum payout on the insurance any one incident #1000.00 and that as it was a reconditioned gearbox with 12months guarantee from the supplier there was some element of "Betterment"
I agreed to the settlement and recieved a cheque 3 days later.
So the moral is keep at them, thats what I did and I gradually wore them down.
Make as much fuss as you can so they want to get rid of you.

Sorry its a bit long winded but hope the contact names and addresses help. If you need further info contact me by Email

Best of Luck
John Moore

 

Thanks John - will let you know!!