Where do I stand with my car warranty?

visidigi

the historical issue of the repeated failure is grounds for an extension to the warranty - even though it runs fine now, like I say the milage per failure is a real calculation which matters here - BMW can extend it if they choose to.

The biggest problem with the extended warranty on BMW's which you pay for are that they cover less than a manufacturers warranty and there is an excess to be paid in most cases.

The OP needs to push for an extension to the warranty between now and the end of the three years standard - thats the window of opportunity here...

unholyangel

Flyboy152 wrote: »

As BMW had already paid to repair the car, after the OP had purchased it, they had accepted contractural liability under the terms of their warranty.

Really? Do you have a preceding case you can quote to back that up?

Read his first post, they deny liability.

If he has been driving the car while faulty then they can in fact void his warranty. But it doesnt change that the car is now working fine.

If the faults became apparent soon after buying it, the OP should have asked the dealer for a refund due to it not being satisfactory quality. They are now bust and he does not have the same rights with the manufacturer as he had with the dealer and any "rights" he does have with the manufacturer are conditional.

As hintza said, his best option is to get an extended warranty. Or even sell the car on. Its unfortunate i agree. But with the dealer being bust his options are severely limited.

techguy81

The dealer went bust within a month of me buying the car and before the problem had occurred with me. Unfortunate I know, but chances are I would've gone straight to BMW anyway, after all I didn't have any warranty with the dealer. There was a seven-day right-to-change-your-mind period but everything was still rosy at this point. In fact there was a very minor issue (failed reverse light switch) that cropped up within days of purchasing, which I flagged up with the dealer. They offered to get me into a local garage (not BMW) but in the end I opted to go straight to BMW who sorted it FOC under the manufacturer warranty.

BMW are not denying liability as such since they are restoring the car to a working condition every time, they are just quite happy to let myself and others suffer repeated premature failure of injectors and coils and then call it unfortunate.

In contrast, the car I had before this, a Ford, never suffered a single injector/coil failure in seven years of ownership.

Flyboy152

unholyangel wrote: »

Really? Do you have a preceding case you can quote to back that up?

Read his first post, they deny liability.

If he has been driving the car while faulty then they can in fact void his warranty. But it doesnt change that the car is now working fine.

If the faults became apparent soon after buying it, the OP should have asked the dealer for a refund due to it not being satisfactory quality. They are now bust and he does not have the same rights with the manufacturer as he had with the dealer and any "rights" he does have with the manufacturer are conditional.

As hintza said, his best option is to get an extended warranty. Or even sell the car on. Its unfortunate i agree. But with the dealer being bust his options are severely limited.

They are not denying liability in terms of their warranty, they are rejecting the OP's request to swap the car and quite rightly they have told the OP that they have no contractual obligation to do so.

I have suggested to the manufacturer that the vehicle is not fit for purpose and that they should help me into an alternative car; the manufacturer rejects this and calls it an "unfortunate occurrence". They also suggest if I have any complaint with the car I take it up with my "contractual partner" (not possible anyway as they no longer exist).

They still have a duty to repair the car, if it is deemed that the car has an inherent fault and is subject to a recall.

unholyangel

Flyboy152 wrote: »

They are not denying liability in terms of their warranty, they are rejecting the OP's request to swap the car and quite rightly they have told the OP that they have no contractual obligation to do so.



They still have a duty to repair the car, if it is deemed that the car has an inherent fault and is subject to a recall.

Ok so you first state they have accepted contractual liability and are now saying they dont have contractual liability........

I have never once said he shouldnt have it fixed if it is a manufacturing fault. I'm saying his car works at present. None of us can see into the future so for all we know, the car is fine and the original fault has now been permanently fixed. I hope thats the case as it would mean a lot less hassle for the OP.

Flyboy152

unholyangel wrote: »

Ok so you first state they have accepted contractual liability and are now saying they dont have contractual liability........

I have never once said he shouldnt have it fixed if it is a manufacturing fault. I'm saying his car works at present. None of us can see into the future so for all we know, the car is fine and the original fault has now been permanently fixed. I hope thats the case as it would mean a lot less hassle for the OP.

They have accepted contractual liability within the terms of the warranty. By doing so they are accepting that any inherent faults that become apparent in the future are also their liability. However that liability does not extend to the replacement of the car for another, that would be the responsibility of the seller.

unholyangel

Flyboy152 wrote: »

They have accepted contractual liability within the terms of the warranty. By doing so they are accepting that any inherent faults that become apparent in the future are also their liability. However that liability does not extend to the replacement of the car for another, that would be the responsibility of the seller.

Repairing the vehicle and accepting liability are 2 completely different things.

We also dont know 100% this is an inherent fault. I'm not a mechanic, i only know the basics but i know that the way people drive can have an adverse effect on their vehicles condition. If only a few people (out of everyone who bought the same model) have had the same problem, it is very possible there are outside factors. If it has been experienced by a large number, then its more likely to be inherent.

The rover 25 for example, the earlier models had a fault with the head gasket. It was widespread and not limited to just a handful of owners/cars.