Car engine failure: warranty claim rejected

4743hudsonj

Tbh you know what you need to.

That clause on durability is what you would use but as some of the more sensible posters have already said including myself, you will need to prove that this is a manufacturing defect at your own cost. Then take them to court with the report.

Depending on the size of the claim, you will need to go to different courts, under 5k and your ok as providing the reports in your favour you will hopefully win and get your new engine and costs paid.

Now you will have serious serious decisions to make if the claim will be over 6k as you will need a lawyer and added costs. And the prospect of losing would bear heavy financial costs.

Oh and then theres the risk of th report not going your way.

I do really sympathise with you (providing its not your fault in the end, its a forum so i cant believe everything people say) its a bad situation to be in.

smokieUK

Thanks for the constructive post 4743, if I may call you that :-)

As you say, I think I now know what I need to do, so have to decide whether it is proceeding with.

Hintza

OP what you are suggesting is that the service should be optional and the enginge should be covered regardless. Have you thought through the implications of what you are suggesting?

To you it might be a £5-£10k case to the motor industry it is a billions of £ case if precedent is set in the courts. If by some fluke you won, the case would be appealed and this could bankrupt you.

Your tilting at windmills.

custardy

it is a nightmare,lets be honest the late service is unlikely to have contributed to the fault(s)
however it gives the dealer a great get out clause and puts the onus heavily back on you
not a good position to be in even with on time servicing but it would have been easier to argue your case

Idiophreak

moonrakerz wrote: »

I do FULLY understand - if you have negated any claim you might have had under warranty, the dealer will immediately claim (with some justification) that this same lack of proper care of the vehicle led to it's current failure.

I really don't think you're doing all you can to be constructive, here.

You say "with some justification" - but what justification is that, exactly?

It seems quite clear to me.

OP's saying there was an inherent fault with their motor, which means whether it was serviced or not is irrelevant. If the doors had fallen off the car, should the OP accept "you were 5k miles late on a service" as a good reason for the manufacturer to refuse to stick them back on?

If your TV said "10 year warranty - as long as you send it to us for servicing every six months" - does that relieve them of their obligations under SOGA?

Where you say "with some justification" is absolutely key. If "this same lack of proper care of the vehicle led to it's current failure", then the OP hasn't a leg to stand on. If, however, the "lack of proper care" was completely irrespective to the current failure, the dealer has *no justification* in saying that.

The problems the OP faces are 1) How to prove that the lack of timely servicing didn't cause the failure. Will be tough, I think, to find a mechanic who'll write that lack of timely servicing wasn't, at least, a factor in the failure 2) The costs of taking the thing to court 3) Convincing the powers-that-be that the car should be repaired under SOGA.

In reality, you'd like to think that once the OP had a mechanic's report blaming a manufacturing fault, a simple letter from a lawyer saying "we have this report - see you in court" would most likely be enough to get the thing repaired free of charge, but you can never tell.

In terms of advice, OP - I don't really have any...It's going to cost you a fair amount of time and money to determine whether this kind of claim is even a remote possibility. I'd have thought you'd be better off, in the first instance, keeping on at Ford about it, speaking to the regulator and possibly involving the press.

Idiophreak

Hintza wrote: »

OP what you are suggesting is that the service should be optional and the enginge should be covered regardless. Have you thought through the implications of what you are suggesting?

To you it might be a £5-£10k case to the motor industry it is a billions of £ case if precedent is set in the courts. If by some fluke you won, the case would be appealed and this could bankrupt you.

Your tilting at windmills.

The servicing clauses in warranty agreements are there for a good reason - manufacturers can't be expected to build cars that will perform without maintenance. They shouldn't, however, be able to use "missed a service" as a get-out for any claim, irrespective of whether the service being missed was pertinent or not.

You think that £billions are paid by consumers who's cars are faulty, through no fault of their own, but happened to be late for a service?

Hintza

Idiophreak wrote: »

You think that £billions are paid by consumers who's cars are faulty, through no fault of their own, but happened to be late for a service?

My point is if precedent were set then the cost to the car industry could be huge and they won't be keen on that happening so will probably be quite willing to throw some serious money at a case like this.

Anyway it is all speculation, the OP need to get a full report by someone qualified (and the qualifications of that person will have to stand up in court) the OP will the most probably need proper legal advice as I suspect that this might be too big or tricky for the small claims court.

Edit:- Sorry, missed your slightly earlier well constructed reply Idio

jonnyd281

Idiophreak wrote: »

The servicing clauses in warranty agreements are there for a good reason - manufacturers can't be expected to build cars that will perform without maintenance. They shouldn't, however, be able to use "missed a service" as a get-out for any claim, irrespective of whether the service being missed was pertinent or not.

You think that £billions are paid by consumers who's cars are faulty, through no fault of their own, but happened to be late for a service?

Planned maintenance (servicing) is there to extend the life of machines, and in this case the planned maintenance is 7000 miles overdue, that is a lot of running hours so in this case I don't think it can be seen as being a "get-out for any claim" in this case. Perhaps we should have hours run meters on the cars and have the engine serviced after every so many hours run (in which case at 45 mph average speed the OP is 155 hours overdue for a service). Some of the kit I work with I would be in serious trouble if I was that much over the service schedule.

lincroft1710

I'd love to know which model and specifically which engine.

mc33033

Hi SmokieUK

A bit late in coming to this but you might want to consider:

1) Oil analysis testing - plant and aircraft engines have their oil tested regularly, get a sample tested to see what failed and why, will let you know if you should bother with a tear down. Very detailed analysis available at short notice.
2) Lancashire Textiles (Jersey) Ltd v Thomson Shepherd & Co Ltd. If a SOGA fault then the trader/warranty may not be able to argue contributory negligence.3) I'd be amazed if you could not get a replacement engine from a breakers for well within the small claims limit, even if you were in Scotland. If you gave engine details others could assist sourcing.

HTH