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

[cgg13]

Yes and thanks dx for your help and advice

[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

[cgg13]

I suspect it is due to my low post count (which I am trying to make up by helping other caggerss, honest!)

 

I know you guys have had a bit of a disagreement here however please do not take it out on me!

[heliosuk]

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

[dx100uk]

you mean PM's

 

you should be able to send siteteam pm's even if normally pm's are disabled as far as im aware

 

n

[cgg13]

I think it is when I reach 30, which I should have done now.

 

Edit: Just tried to send you one Helios and apparently I can't so will have to go without the help at the minute

[cgg13]

Just an update, received another letter from the warranty company on Saturday stating they still can not overturn the decision as wear and tear is not covered etc etc. I am going to appeal to them one more time before taking this further.

[Conniff]

You can use the same letter as the last one, just add an header 'Letter Before Action' and a footer saying they have xx days to respond favourably and no further correspondence will be entered into.

[Hammy1962]

Yes but, what action is the letter before. There are those on here that think there is no claim anyway.

 

Other people shout SOGA, but an individual action under this act is unheard of. Local Trading Standards (useless) take these actions against the retailer who has not been involved so far. An 'Expert' would have to be involved and we've been through all that already.

 

So it's down to the Used Car Warranty. Which specifically states wear and tear is not covered, as evidenced by an 'Expert' again.

 

Mis-selling of the warranty? I don't think so. The OP knew what he was buying.

Unfair terms? Unlikely.

 

Challenge an 'Expert' in court? Well you can try..........

 

So, Conniff, exactly, what action?

 

H

[cgg13]

Cheers for the support Hammy (Do you work for one of these rip off merchants?)

 

I did NOT know what I was buying otherwise I would have not have bought it and would have looked elsewhere for a warranty.

 

How are the terms not unfair? They could probably be interpreted to say that absolutely nothing is covered as anything could be wear and tear over the service life of the vehicle, why sell a warranty for cars upto 80,000 miles? They could say anything is worn at that point.

And even if parts are worn, they could be worn due to debris floating around in the gearbox oil causing wear to other parts.

 

 

Why can't I go down the SOGA act? There was potentially a problem there when I purchased it and the car has not served me for a reasonable amount of time. I have contacted the retailer, they have not responded until now.

 

And for the record I am female not a 'he', and you are the only one who does not think I have a claim.

[Conniff]

This a letter letting you know if you don't address what has been laid out in this letter, the next one will be a summons. It is the term used to tell someone that this is their last attempt to settle before a court summons is issued.

 

 

Wear and Tear etc, let them argue it out in court as the buyer has low mileage on his side. Any 'Reasonable' person would expect a gearbox to last double what I has here.

[dx100uk]

and a car second hand or not more than 12mts use!!

 

dx

[dx100uk]

No finance unfortunately (was trying to save money! Paid balanced on credit card)

 

and something else that slipped through

 

you paid part by credit card

that means THEY are equally responsible!!

 

section 75. cca refers.

 

dx

[dx100uk]

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/31/creditcards-31.htm

[Hammy1962]

Sorry for the Gender mix up

 

No I don't work for a Warranty Company, but I work for a company, in Warranty.

 

I might be the only one on here who doesn't think you have a claim but at least I'm honest about it, everyone else just wants to you sue, grabbit and run. When on a purely technical level your gearbox failure is just not covered by the terms of your warranty. Nobody is trying to wriggle out of paying, it's not covered. There are many repairs up and down the country which are as a result of a sudden mechanical breakdown and they would be covered.

 

Conniff's post above is equally as unhelpful. Quote 'the next one will be a summons' for what, exactly, again. It's all-right Conniff bleating 'Let them argue in Court', but if you lose and it comes to costs your are fully stuffed.

 

Your only faint hope of success is to wear people down so they submit out of boredom, the retailer or the warranty company may offer a 'Goodwill' gesture but that will be it. Don't be egged on by the folks on here who have no personal interest in your problem.

 

H

 

ps, The credit card people will want an 'expert' opinion. I think we might have covered that previously.

[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.

[cgg13]

Thank you for the advice guys.

 

So, what would be the best course here:

 

Contact the warranty company again

If no joy

Contact the car supermarket for the mis selling of the insurance and for the vehicle not lasting a reasonable amount of time

If no joy there,Look into FOS complaints and section 75?

[dx100uk]

I would be getting the section 75 going today.

 

get them onboard they are equally responsible for selling you a pup car.

 

I've seen several complaints [though not all vehicle related] dramatically change tac

once the creditcard people get onboard.

 

they are duty bound to investigate all this.

 

dx

[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?

[dx100uk]

as far as I know hel theres no time limit on section 75 to worry about here

 

theres a 120 [ish] day limit on chargeback [debit card]

 

but section 75 is diff to that.

 

i've certainly read info where claims have been made up to 18mts after purchase.

 

like the way you are thinking on the gearbox.

[Hammy1962]

'on the basis that the inspecting engineer might not have been qualified to make his assumption'

 

And what evidence do we have to support this? A personal opinion maybe, plus a dislike for his employers, but nothing substantial enough for a court.

 

H

[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.

[Hammy1962]

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

[scaniaman]

Has it ever been verified that the box was serviced in accordance with Manufacturers service sheet, and has the oil been checked to verify that it is correct grade?

[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