warranty direct Nightmare

PM

Hi took out a policy for my BMW last year November and soon after my timing belt broke which left my car in the garage. After my garage sent all the documents the guy are Warranty Direct asked them to take the head off so an assessor could check engine. After months they still didn't approve the claim.

They started blaming garage and then told them strip engine down completely - following this time dragged on till 8th feb when Warranty Direct finally decided it was down to wear and tear and therefore would not cover as it happened within 90 days.

I paid 3k for car to be repaired and after couple weeks of driving few hundred miles I realised car wasnt picking up power etc. I took it to garage and was told turbo has now gone. :mad:

Phone Warranty Direct thinking November till March was well over 90 days yet now am being told by Warranty Direct they are checking legality as 90 day clause may still apply. They say as car was off road for months whilst they decided on rejecting first claim the 90days hasnt lapsed..... Not sure what I have been charged for if Im not covered.... They will be decide on wether turbo is covered today (we live in hope)!

Can anyone help with advice?

motorguy

If you have documented evidence that the timing belt was changed to manufacturers recommendations and it is within that, then its premature failure NOT wear and tear.

fivetide

The turbo I am afraid is more than likely going to be wear and tear it is difficult to prove otherwise. I'm assuming you took out a policy for a car you already own and don't have a dealer you could fall back on?


If the service history for the car isn't up to scratch then they could say everything is wear and tear. You could argue that they have sold you a policy which is useless to you.

captainawsome

It's not a belt, it's a chain (2.0l Diesel engine built after 2007 by any chance?) therefore it doesn't have a service life so should have been covered (unless you have missed oil changes). In theory a turbo can go at any time depending on how it's failed, I would argue its also not a serviceable item and shouldn't be classed as wear and tear, I would also argue that as you have kept to manufacturers service schedule for oil services (providing you have, obviously) it should not have failed.

Don't forget that these aftermarket warranties arnt still around because they like to pay expensive claims, they are experts at loopholes and wriggling out of paying claims so you may have an uphill battle on your hands. Personally I dont think they're worth the paper they're written on, but good luck anyhow.

PM

Yes it's a 2008 diesel 520

It's a long report here are some extracts

The engineers report states following

We can confirm that the chain that runs from the crankshaft to the diesel pump has failed. The chain has broken through one of its links and showed no signs of any excessive wear this is a monoplex chain and the remaining chains apparent were in a serviceable condition. The remaining links on the affected chain were also still serviceable with no signs of elongation or any excessive wear.

After a 2nd inspection to the above vehicle, now in its further dismantled condition, it is our opinion that the failure of the drive chain from the crankshaft to diesel pump was, the result of an overload in the drive assembly and or fatigue failure. This condition has been seen before on other vehicles circa this mileage on those vehicles and fuel pump seizure was ruled out as a cause for the chain overload on those vehicles. We consider the most probable cause is that the chain deteriorates in service until a situation is reached that valve to piston contact can develop slowing the valve gear via the pump until the link is overloaded and fails. Other possible causes are that fatigue fractures develop in the link plate leading to the same failure. We would have to consider due to elapsed mileage from sale that these conditions were likely to have been developing at sale / policy inception. We noted during our examination we have not seen any compelling evidence to suggest the fault is due to a manufacturing defect. There was no evidence of any further excessive wear to the tensioners, guides and slippers.

Conclusion
We would conclude that the failure was either a result of chain deterioration and or fatigue. We would have to consider due to the elapsed mileage from sale that these conditions were likely to have been developing at sale / policy inception.

captainawsome

As I said, not worth the paper the policy is written on. These are con artists pure an simple and I still can't believe the get away with spouting BS like this and rejecting claims one after the other. Sorry to hear about that, are you left with the bill for the repair now?

fivetide

PM wrote: »

Conclusion
We would conclude that no matter the reason we would find a way to say it was wear and tear and not covered.

That's why the turbo will be the same. It'll be down to oil starvation due to blocked lines which are .wear and tear.

Warranty Direct - you could waste hundreds. Make sure you're not covered!

NeverEnough

Absolutely no point in Warranty Direct warranties - bunch of sharks whose pleasure it is NOT to pay!! Only way to get a decent warranty is to have an extended manufacturers warranty - BMWs extended warranty is actually excellent.