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

[cgg13]

Hi Everyone,

 

Just looking for a bit advice here.

 

We have a 2008 (58) plate Vauxhall Zafira (purchased September last year from a car supermarket) and

 

on the 13th (definitely unlucky for us!) we broke down 100 miles away from home.

Not to worry, we had a warranty (or so we thought!)

 

Our car got recovered to a garage where

 

the problem was diagnosed as gearbox failure and the gearbox repair specialist sent his report to the warranty company

(which stated that the 'pinion bearing failed and damaged 6th gear and gearbox housing').

 

The warranty company (the RAC) didn't seem to do anything until I called them

who claimed they were waiting for contact details of the gearbox specialist

(who had already sent them his report with his contact details on the top!).

 

After I chased this up they eventually decided they were sending an assessor out 3 days later.)

 

The assessor turned up,

looked at the car and gearbox,

and then the report came back...

 

you guessed it 'wear and tear' and not covered.

 

Now,

not only do I expect a gearbox to last longer than 5 years and 79,000 miles,

if you google M32 gearbox it will show you how common the boxes are to go

- obviously a manufacturing default somewhere along the line, and nothing to do with wear and tear.

 

Not only this I feel completely ripped off by the warranty company,

as it appears that any possible problem would come back to wear and tear.

 

I appealed the decision

got what looks to be a standard letter back saying they could not overturn the decision.

(I think it is a standard letter and the heading does not even get the vehicle's fault correct!).

 

I have appealed this again

 

I am just looking for some basic advice on where I stand with this,

and if I have any chance with getting my money back for the repair

(we had to have the repair carried out as I need vehicle and it had already been 4 weeks without the car!).

The repair cost £1200-£1300.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Ps. Having done alot of research I found another thread on here regarding requesting documents from vauxhall

so I contacted vauxhall and requested the documents,

they did originally ask me to take my car to a vauxhall garage

however once I said the car was repaired now

I just got an email back saying they would not release those documents to the public.

Edited October 25, 2013 by cgg13

[Conniff]

Sorry, the mileage is there.

 

79 if very unlikely to be FWT. It doesn't mean it isn't, but very unlikely.

 

Did their assessor sign the document and has he put his title/qualification to give his opinion ? ?

 

It's much easier to sue for money that bits of a gearbox.

 

You need the full typed out report from the gearbox specialist on company headed paper, they might make a charge for it.

Edited October 24, 2013 by Conniff

[cgg13]

Sorry, the mileage is there.

 

79 if very unlikely to be FWT. It doesn't mean it isn't, but very unlikely.

 

Did their assessor sign the document and has he put his title/qualification to give his opinion ?

 

Sorry, what does FWT mean? Edit: Guess it is fair wear & tear? How can you determine this? Very annoying as I know it isn't!

 

Assessor's name in printed with MIMI & AAE, which as far as I can see does not mean in any shape or form he is a mechanic or gearbox specialist.

 

Whilst 79,000 is high, the warranty can be purchased upto 80,000 miles and it is valid for unlimited mileage after.

 

On another note, the report also stated we had driven for a 'considerable' amount of time with a problem, what is classed as 'considerable' and how were we meant to know it was faulty when the gearbox is not a serviceable part.

 

Edit again: I already have the report from the gearbox specialist that claims bearing failure.

Edited October 24, 2013 by cgg13

[dx100uk]

as usual shows what a waste a warranty really is.

 

if its less then 12mts since purchase

then I cant see how YOU mileage has caused this.

 

SOGA claim against where you brought it.

 

or atleast get then to contribute.

 

reclaim that useless warranty payments

 

dx

[Conniff]

Can you pm me his name please ?

 

I want to check his qualifications

[cgg13]

as usual shows what a waste a warranty really is.

 

if its less then 12mts since purchase

then I cant see how YOU mileage has caused this.

 

SOGA claim against where you brought it.

 

or atleast get then to contribute.

 

reclaim that useless warranty payments

 

dx

 

It was just under a year since we purchased it that we had the issue, we have done 11,000 miles in the car, I have just read the SOGA that states after 6 months we should still expect the car to last us for a reasonable amount of time (and having paid £7621 we obviously did expect this!)

 

Can you pm me his name please ?

 

I want to check his qualifications

 

Message sent thank you.

[Hammy1962]

Can you also PM me his name as well.

 

Conniff, what is there to check? The professional Register Maybe!!!!!

 

MIMI - Member of the Institute of the Motor Industry.

 

His second set of post nominal letters will be AAE (Advanced Automotive Engineer) not AEE. This used to be, in the good old day's, LAE (Licentiate of Automotive Engineering).

 

If he is using the post nominal letters with authority and correctly he is most certainly more than a 'mechanic' and will have forgotten more about gearboxes than most on this section of the Forum..............................apart from me and Heliosuk of course.

 

These two are stock qualifications for independent engineers.

 

Interesting.

 

For information, as if anyone is interested!! There are also :-

 

I.Eng - The Institute of Engineers

MSOE - Member of the Society of Engineers

MIRTE - Member of the Institute of Road Transport Engineers

MIAgrE- Member of the Institute of Agricultural Engineers

Eng.Tech - Engineering Technician

LCGI - Licentiateship of the City and Guilds Institute

 

And for the really sad, did you know you should not use a stop (period) between capitalised post nominal letters.

 

H

Edited October 24, 2013 by Hammy1962

[cgg13]

Can you also PM me his name as well.

 

Conniff, what is there to check? The professional Register Maybe!!!!!

 

MIMI - Member of the Institute of the Motor Industry.

 

His second set of post nominal letters will be AAE (Advanced Automotive Engineer) not AEE. This used to be, in the good old day's, LAE (Licentiate of Automotive Engineering).

 

If he is using the post nominal letters with authority and correctly he is most certainly more than a 'mechanic' and will have forgotten more about gearboxes than most on this section of the Forum..............................apart from me and Heliosuk of course.

 

These two are stock qualifications for independent engineers.

 

Interesting.

 

H

 

? I am lost as to what you mean by interesting - do you think he does know about gearboxes or not?

 

And yes sorry I got the letters wrong.

[Hammy1962]

Interesting for me.

 

Yes, he almost certainly knows about gearboxes....... a lot.

 

Back to the post though, most 'Used' warranties specifically exclude 'Wear and Tear'.

 

They are, effectively, MBI's (Mechanical Breakdown Insurance) which covers against sudden mechanical failure of a covered part. For instance an alternator failure but not, often, the bearing.

 

I'm afraid, on the limited information we have the engineer may be right, if it's worn through the gearbox housing it wasn't a sudden mechanical failure.

 

Who is he?

 

H

Edited October 24, 2013 by Hammy1962

[dx100uk]

all the better then.

 

which means it was SOLD with the wear & not been done in by the OP.

 

SOGA .

 

dx

[Hammy1962]

Na, 79K, 11K by the OP, it could have worn out in the last 3000 miles and would have been noisy for ages.

 

H

[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.

[dx100uk]

certainly agree on the warranty bit, total waste of money always is. always said that on any 'product'.

 

I still don't sit happy what the fact that under soga,

on a second hand vehicle,

that has been purchased less than a year ago,

that is it not 'unfair nor unreasonable' for the purchaser

to expect the product to be free from fault.

 

the fault does not necessarily need to be one there at the time of build,

but 'a fault or the inherent cause of this subsequent fault' was present when sold 2nd hand.

 

under 6mts, the burden of the above fall to the retailer.

outside of 6mts, the burden falls to the buyer,

 

- that being, that at the time of sale, such damage was already done [or inherent in the vehicle]

that it was liable to fail.

 

now, where this fits in with 'fair wear and tear over 11k miles finally cause it to fail

is in my mind debatable.

 

if the part was not so far gone, then it surely wouldn't matter how far the owner drove

it was inherently already there, so at some point was bound to fail.

 

ok you could say that about any part or any product, but

I would not expect a second vehicle seller to be totally free of some responsibility under soga

 

I also wonder if this car is on finance

and if so what part the finance company need to play in this.

and they should too

 

dx

[cgg13]

Thanks for your comments, although I am still going to fight my case as I am still not impressed that I am £1500 down (includes price of warranty) after only owning the car for a year. And I still don't think 79ok is a decent life for a gearbox!

The report says (from memory) that a bearing path is worn, the pinion bearing has worn and detached. The other bearings are worn however not to the scale of the defective one. (The rest are probably worn due to the metal debris floating about in the gearbox oil).

 

 

 

I was told these warranties were a waste of time however didn't believe it...now I do!

 

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

[Hammy1962]

The trouble is, Used Vehicle Warranties have a bad name. They can, and often do, save the owner money. Those of us who deal with the trade daily see many instances when a warranty covers and pays exactly what it is meant to. The trouble only starts when a claim is refused and then the anarchists start with the 'waste of money' argument.

 

As with any insurance, it's a gamble.

 

If you didn't have it you would still be stuck with a bill, the fact you have it and can't use it in this instance doesn't make it useless.

 

SOGA, despite the obsession on here, won't help. If it goes to court the 'expert' witness is likely to be an engineer.............................back to the start!!

 

H

[cgg13]

So back to the warranty.

It covers the gearbox, which part of the gearbox will it cover that won't be worn due to use?

 

When we purchased the warranty we checked the gearbox and engine were covered, we were shown a cover sheet that said All Mechanical, All Electrical components covered, what's not covered 'Wear and tear' items (eg burnt out clutch)

 

I know if we didn't have it we would be stuck with the bill, you seem to be missing the point that we did have it though expecting us not to have to fork out £1300 after paying over £7k for the car a year ago.

 

And the gearbox specialist report states failure rather than wear, and if you google M32 gearbox you will see 6th gear has a habit of failing.

 

Now, support me or not I will be fighting this, so if anyone has anything to help me in my case please let me know.

 

Thank you.

 

Edit: The warranty can be found on carshops website

Terms state

'Mechanical Breakdown - the sudden and unforseen failure of a warranted part, not by wear and tear, normal deterioration, or negligence, or warranted parts that have reached the end of their working life due to age or usage'.

 

Doesn't this mean anything can be classed as wear and tear?

Ps.We had no warning (I am OCD about noises in the car!)

Edited October 25, 2013 by cgg13

[Conniff]

Car Warranties are now and always have been a complete waste of money. They are used to give a buyer confidence that the car they are buying is a good car and so con the interested party into paying good money for what turns out to be a piece of junk.

 

Don't let those who say they are in the trade tell you any different, car selling is the most justly complained about trade in the world. If the seller can hide something and fool you into believing that it's just an engine cover ratline and not a serious mechanical problem that is about to develop into something expensive, then he will.

 

Whatever anyone say, never ever trust a used car salesman no matter who they work for.

[Conniff]

I would now be writing to the dealer who sold you the car telling them they have sold you a worthless warranty and the parts they showed to make me believe I would be covered aren't covered at all despite it saying they are.

 

 

You can now inform him that you wish a contribution towards the gearbox plus a refund of the whole premium you paid for the warranty.

[Hammy1962]

Whatever anyone say, never ever trust a used car salesman no matter who they work for.

 

Or somebody you have, and never will meet, on an anonymous internet forum just for complaints.

 

H

Edited October 25, 2013 by Hammy1962

[dx100uk]

there is a clear case under soga.

 

the cause that led to the fault was [inherent] when purchased.

 

 

 

and don't forget to claim the 8% stat int you are entitled too

on every one of those warranty payments you made.

[Hammy1962]

I've tried twice now to give a sarcastic answer to this but it's not appearing.

 

Do CAG employ an anti-sarcasm filter now?

 

H

[dx100uk]

nothings been changed hammy that I can see

 

we don't operate like that as you know

 

dx

[Hammy1962]

OK, only joking, but where to go now then cgg13?

 

I really dont think the is any mileage (11K) in an action using SOGA as it would involve court and an expert witness.

 

NaDA not going to happen.

 

H

[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.

[cgg13]

You and hammy have pointed out that there would have been signs of impending failure

 

but how would I know if any of the signs were there?

 

Especially if the car had been having these signs since purchasing it a year ago

- I would just think it was something the car did having not experienced gearbox failure in the past!

 

By the way there were no signs (as far as I know) and I have read that sometimes they go with no warning.

 

And again I will say the parts were worn due to metal debris floating around in the gearbox oil,

not by normal wear and tear,

 

if it was normal wear and tear all gearboxes would be going around this mileage.

 

And the cars got 79k for the record, not 89k.