Gearbox Bearing Failure - Warranty won't pay out as say it is wear and tear

[heliosuk]

Agreed Hammy!(and by the way you have forgotten to quote C Eng etc etc which trumps the ones you have given).

 

This is what makes a mockery of these used car warranties.

 

They are as pointed out by Hammy, an insurance policy against a sudden catastrophic failure of a particular part.

 

Quite often you will see that these policies do not even cover consequential damage.

 

Also as soon as the car is driven out of the showroom it is subject to wear and tear.

 

Some peoples interpretation of SOGA is that the sale of a used car must mean that it is brand new and things won't go wrong..

..er no....they will purely based on the fact that things wear.

 

Now....the longer a part is in service the less chance statistically that it will fail due to a manufacturing defect.

 

Whilst most components are tested to 150,000 miles, it goes without saying that the manufacturer will cover themselves for a limited mileage, usually around 60 to 100K today.

This is based on data they know about with regards patterns of ownership etc.

This is where the warranty companies home in and offer "extended Warranties" with limitations.

 

In this case, the failure mode exhibited must have been apparent, as Hammy says , for some time.

It is somewhat inconceivable that the warning signs were not there and is inevitably due to wear and tear as confirmed by the assessor.

 

I cannot see anywhere to go with SOGA other than to pursuit a miss selling of an insurance policy

and to prove the fault existed before purchase is pure nonsense.

[heliosuk]

It wouldn't necessarily be an action under SOGA anyway as this would be against the retailer. As is frequently pointed out, under the act the onus would be on the buyer to prove the fault was inherent. Now unless you are a qualified engineer you wouldn't be in a position to make that call yet one already has stated the failure was caused by wear and tear, and another two (hammy and myself) have pointed out that there would have been warning signs of the impending failure.

 

If any action were to take place then it would have to be under a challenge to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy which is where the actual issue lies and that the same T&C's are unfair based on the fact that any extended warranty is unfair as the car has wear and tear as soon as it leaves the showroom as new.

 

Therefore you cannot argue that the fault was inherent as all cars by definition have inherent durability problems. As pointed out earlier, the longer the time a car and or constituent part is in service the less likelihood it was faulty in the first place.

 

Where you could conceivably have a convincing argument is that at 89K miles you have been deprived of 40% of it's design life so expect that to be repaid but again that could be countered by the fact that whilst it's design life might be 150K they don't expect any liability after 80% which brings you down to being deprived of 26%.

 

Again, the used car retailer cannot be held liable for this after the time and mileage in service.

 

So the conclusion must be going after the insurer for unfair terms not the dealer under SOGA.

[heliosuk]

Er....I don't think so dx. You don't know why the pipe was modified exactly, it could have been a commonisation strategy with Ford by ZF to cut costs which is demanded year on year. It could have been a resource issue as a sub supplier has gone bust. It does not necessarily mean an admission of liability. Ford have used the same said gearbox and they don't have an issue. Further, to say it is a common problem is fundamentally wrong as you are only taking into account the reported cases of it going wrong. You need to compare like with like, repairs per thousand gearboxes in service for the exact same failure mode. Further the manufacturer can change the spec to suit themselves as and when they want.

 

So I still don't see where you are going with a pursuit of a claim under SOGA. The new car dealer when sold initially or the subsequent used car dealer could not have known if there was an issue with the box or not. Based on your hypothesis that the fault was inherent then you'd stop the whole of car production world wide let alone the used car market.

 

No......the issue here is that the terms and conditions of the insurance policy are unfair and it is that which should be pursued.

 

There is a clue though in what cgg13 has posted in that with respect to engineering gearbox language, a pinion bearing is generally taken to be the bearing which supports a right angled shaft driving the sun gear. In this case the bearing that has actually failed is a main shaft support bearing.

 

Still stand by and from reports read that it would have been whineing like a banshee before failing but then perhaps it's masked by the propensity for the DMF to fail on this car as well.

 

YIKES........heading for cover now.

[heliosuk]

It's not a manufacturing fault. If anything from what you say it is a design fault.

 

You really need to challenge the warranty company here as the report is contradictory. However you have only published a concise section of it.

 

The pinion bearing cannot be a ball bearing and then referred to as a taper. It's either one or the other. (Actually a taper in your case). Further, to say it had separated is an indication of a catastrophic failure and they should pay out if you are adamant that there was no warning in terms of whine etc.

 

Personally I take all DEKRA reports with a pinch of salt as they just sit on the fence and get paid a lot for doing so and ain't worth the paper they are written on.

[heliosuk]

We need to see the full report to make an objective assessment but you need to leave out the personal details such as your address, the examiners name etc.

[heliosuk]

Please upload the full PDF file not a screen dump. You are not making this easy for any one. Again there is an anomaly in the 3rd JPG. We need to see the full report.

[heliosuk]

The pictures would be useful as well.

 

So page 3 of the dx pdf is page one of the report. This is the instruction to the engineer to examine and what they are interested in seeing.

 

So it asks 5 questions.

 

1. What has failed and why? The report is clear on what has failed but does not address the question as to why.

2. What is the condition of the bearings? Is pretty succinct though contradictory in that it refers to the same said bearing as being a taper roller bearing and a ball bearing. The report failure mode is consistent with a roller bearing failure but not a taper roller. It can either be one or the other. A taper roller seldom disengages from the outer cage or race purely on the fact it is a taper. Therefore it must refer to a ball bearing which is possible.

3. What is the condition of the baulk rings and hubs? This is largely an irrelevant question in relation to the fault complained of. As the bearing has collapsed then the wear patterns would be on the selector forks and would be expected.

4. What is the condition of the residual oil? Well has been self explanatory but has not addressed the question of the quality of the oil.

5. What earlier action by the driver could have prevented or lessened the affect of the damage? Well this appears to have just been ignored.

 

The rather interesting thing is that the report in it's recommendations and conclusions gives the impression that it is not actually the report submitted by the inspecting engineer. I'm sure given the criticism it's not the same thing that he wrote. However, I'm very critical of DEKRA and the capability of their staff. You only have to follow through their web site to see how they recruit and the qualifications are just not the same as when the likes of Hammy, Connif and myself got them. Even a salesman can get MIMI now.

 

I still don't believe there was no warning, but giving the benefit of the doubt that the OP did not hear anything and having an OCD against noise it is quite clear that the report is biased, wholly unreliable from an engineering point of view and might have been written on Andrex for its worth.

 

Send me a full report via PM as a PDF and I'll send you a suitable response challenging it which will be enough to make them change their minds.

[heliosuk]

Withdrawn as advised by the site team

Edited October 27, 2013 by heliosuk
As advised by the site team

[heliosuk]

Well I have tried to send a response as promised to use to you tonight cgg and copy DX out of courtesy but it seems I cannot send a response.

Edited October 30, 2013 by ims21
missed words

[heliosuk]

DX..if this is the case when can cgg accept PM's and attachments?

[heliosuk]

Well I have looked at the report and asked some questions as well amongst my colleagues. It's all led to the same conclusion...there is no case to answer as regards the retailer apart from an apparent miss selling of the warranty. However this is also debateable as the warranty is an insurance policy against sudden mechanical failure. What is wrong with the policies sold is that inherently from the date of the original sale from the manufacturer wear and tear exists. Therefore to insure an underwriter must inevitably take on a certain amount of risk that the box will fail early and must base the price charged for the policy on data as to the reliability of the box. In this case it is indeterminable to gauge the reliability as there is no comparison data available apart from a small amount of data based on web complaints. This is not an indication that there is a problem with the box, it's only an indication of people prepared to moan openly. It does not also reflect the number of people who have had no problem.

 

However, I have looked at the report and the pictures. Given the age and mileage of the box and the failure mode along with the general design which I have studied, I think there are more than sufficient grounds to challenge the DEKRA experts report and that a sudden failure did occur. The report clearly indicates this and is consistent with what the OP has described given the design.

 

The report is far from clear, is contradictory and clearly biased given that he was given a set of questions.

 

I do not know why people put so much faith in DEKRA reports. They are not independent, are frequently not carried out by qualified people and must be biased by the nature of the questions asked.

 

Sorry.. the so called expert has got it wrong in this instance. It's a clear cut case of a taper roller collapsing leading to excessive end float. This would have given no warning. Had it been a roller bearing then the issue would be different.

[heliosuk]

A section 75 would not necessarily be appropriate due to the length of time of ownership.

But it's worth a punt though.

 

The big thing is proving that it is not wear and tear.

 

I'd personally kick it back to the warranty company at the moment on the basis that the inspecting engineer might not have been qualified to make his assumption,

was not given the full facts

and that inherently a gearbox develops wear and tear from the time it is produced.

 

If on the assumption that a box has a sign off durability of 150K miles

and is usually tested to far in excess of that,

that this box has a full service history,

gave no warning signs of impending fail due to the type of bearing,

 

how can it be classed as wear and tear?

[heliosuk]

Purely on the basis that the inspecting engineers qualifications are based on a NVQ level 4 . He could have been a salesman all his life, know nothing about the mechanical side of things but the IMI still classifies him as MIMI and AAE. Now a proper engineer qualified to make a decision would surely use BSc CEng or IMech e.

 

It's not like it used to be. In this case an engineer has made a call on a failure without examining the root cause and that is fact. What he is suggesting therefore is that all gearboxes fail due to wear and tear which is a pretty generalised statement and is a known fact. The issue is that he has not taken it further to find out why it has failed.

 

DEKRA's reports if to be considered as valid are nonsensical. They employ people not qualified to make objective qualified decisions and is marketed as being the be all and end all of technical excellence and I would allege they are in fact trading off the back of the official Government agency DEFRA. They never supply any objective evidence.

 

Quite clever really to make money. For DEKRA reports read nebulous. Has zero effect if challenged.

[heliosuk]

Well, before this gets deleted, I for one am surprised at your qualification snobbery.

 

Just like my Mother, you assume anyone without a degree is a nobody and not qualified to have an opinion worth anything.

 

I also thought you were against the sue, grabbit and run approach of dx and Conniff which chokes up the legal system.

 

Mark my words, if the OP takes this to court she'll lose, and we won't get to hear about it on here!

 

H

 

It's certainly not Qualification Snobbery at all. Just look at the IMI sites entrance qualifications and take into account the dumbing down of the qualifications in the last 20 years. As I point out, the inspecting engineers qualifications based on the entry requirement today hardly make him an expert without some other qualifying statement. It is clear as well from the report he submitted that he doesn't know what he is doing. He has carried out a superficial examination only. If he wanted to get a true report then for a start where is the data to support his subjective report. He has not measured clearances of the assembled shafts has he, which would determine if it was a sudden failure or wear and tear. He has not taken a sample of the residual oil for analysis. He has mis described the parts affected as well and contradicted himself.

If I put this report in front of my senior management team they'd send me for counselling.

 

Now in my book and like you having 30 years at the pointy end of the business, I would hardly call this report as prima farce evidence that it is wear and tear so am surprised somewhat at your response.

 

It is true that I am against the knee jerk and irresponsible reactions of some and this post is a case in point. It shows that once the full facts are available then the right modus operandi can be employed.

 

In this case I am confident that a proper assessment of the failure by another independent consultant engineer will show that this is not due to wear and tear but a sudden collapse of the taper roller bearing due to the design.

 

As it happens, I have rather a lot of ZF engineers around at the moment so will show the report to them tomorrow and see what they think.

 

Keep smiling Hammy, I'm sure there will be a lot more coming in soon from what I've heard on the early morning news this week and the OFT.

 

Edited November 7, 2013 by ims21

[heliosuk]

I'd need to see what you have sent back. Essentially if the inspecting engineer had done his job properly then he'd have measured the clearances between the hubs and or the selector forks. If all were consistently out of spec then it can be concluded that it is wear and tear. The support bearings though, which he refers to incorrectly as a pinion bearing show clear signs off collapse. If examined correctly which you cannot do by eye sight you will probably see a hairline crack in the cage. Sometime you can see it but this is usually when the box has seized and blown itself apart. What is not apparent though is when it is all assembled together and not visible then the crack opens up as the surfaces are then loaded or not if it has failed. It is this which should have been tested for.

[heliosuk]

Have sent a suitable response cgg