AA Breakdown Cover Complaint. Can Anyone Help?

AdrianC

kyle6432 wrote: »

I luckily had the foresight to join the AA for the breakdown and repair cover

...

My car was sitting in the garage for a week before the AA called to say they required my service and MOT documents, I sent these to them. Another week later although the garage has diagnosed and priced the problem (blown turbo=£649+VAT) the AA called me to say they are sending an independent assessor to inspect the fault.

A day later the AA called me (strangely asked if I accepted the call being recorded) and said the assessor found that the damage was caused through wear and tear. It was a very heated phone call. I will point out that when explaining the turbo failure the AA adviser stated to me that 90% of turbo's fail is because of wear and tear, so although the AA cover your turbo they do not cover ANYTHING that is wear and tear, shrewd and sneaky move. They then informed me that I was liable for all garage costs that are outstanding as they would not be covering anything. Needless to say I have filed a complaint and no matter the outcome I will be cancelling my cover

Your post makes no sense whatsoever.

Did you purchase AA breakdown/recovery cover?
Or did you have an AA mechanical warranty?

If the former, then they did their bit by recovering you from the roadside to the garage. There would be no expectation of them covering repair costs.

If the latter, then I challenge you to find any aftermarket mechanical warranty that covers wear and tear items. Quite simply, they do not exist. If a turbo failed prematurely because of a faulty component then it would have been covered.

kyle6432

AdrianC wrote: »

Your post makes no sense whatsoever.

Did you purchase AA breakdown/recovery cover?
Or did you have an AA mechanical warranty?

If the former, then they did their bit by recovering you from the roadside to the garage. There would be no expectation of them covering repair costs.

If the latter, then I challenge you to find any aftermarket mechanical warranty that covers wear and tear items. Quite simply, they do not exist. If a turbo failed prematurely because of a faulty component then it would have been covered.

How does my post not make sense? They advertise breakdown and repair cover - I purchased it, not just roadside assistance. The cover states that if and when I break down the AA will attend to fix the vehicle by the roadside, if it can't be fixed they will tow me to a garage and cover the parts and labour cost up to £500 (minus £35 excess).

There are certain exclusions to the policy such as they do cover the clutch but not the mechanical plates or if the car hasn't been serviced regular it will void cover.

My point was my car was serviced and maintained properly and the mechanical component failed, hence if it fails then the AA are to cover me those costs. It's a misleading service in the fact that generally anything on a car that stops functioning can be determined as wear and tear. The AA state that they cover the repair of a turbo failure, the agent advised that 90% of turbo failures are wear and tear, so technically they cover 10% of turbo failures. Very shrewd service.

AdrianC

kyle6432 wrote: »

How does my post not make sense? They advertise breakdown and repair cover - I purchased it, not just roadside assistance.

OK, thank you for the clarification on that. "Joining the AA" normally refers to roadside assistance, not purchasing a warranty.

My point was my car was serviced and maintained properly and the mechanical component failed, hence if it fails then the AA are to cover me those costs.

Have you read the Ts & Cs?

http://www.theaa.com/staticdocs/pdf/loans/car_warranty.pdf
"Claims arising from the following are not covered under this insurance:
•Wear and tear"

It's a misleading service in the fact that generally anything on a car that stops functioning can be determined as wear and tear.

Nowhere even close. If that were true, no warranty - even on a new car - would ever be required. Parts can and do fail prematurely because of mechanical, assembly or material failures. That's what a warranty covers.

But a turbo on a car old enough and high enough mileage for you to get change from a grand and a half? Not a hope - unless it'd been provably replaced fairly recently.

Whether used car mechanical warranties are worth the cost is another question, of course.

jimjames

AdrianC wrote: »

Whether used car mechanical warranties are worth the cost is another question, of course.

Interesting article in Which magazine this month asking exactly that question.

Conclusion seems to be that you'd be far better off putting the warranty premium into a savings account in the event that you have a problem so you can cover the cost.

AdrianC

jimjames wrote: »

Interesting article in Which magazine this month asking exactly that question.

Conclusion seems to be that you'd be far better off putting the warranty premium into a savings account in the event that you have a problem so you can cover the cost.

You could argue it either way, of course.

On the one hand, the warranty companies have to make a profit from the premiums they take in minus the cost of paying out claims, the cost of investigating claims, the cost of administration, the cost of sales. So <wild guess> their payouts are probably in the region of 50p in the pound taken in.

On the other hand, most warranties come with used cars bought from the trade, so the premium is not coming out of your pocket directly - would you benefit from not receiving it? And, of course, it's all a gamble. All it takes is one big payout for you to be quids in over the lifetime of several car purchases.

My personal experience is that I've only ever bought one used car with a warranty - and it paid out for a water pump that was leaking. And replacing that required replacement of the cambelt and tensioner, which I'd have otherwise paid for. The previous owned of the car I'd had before that had blown the engine - which was rebuilt under the used-car mechanical warranty. Those were years ago, though. So, personally, I'm quids in (directly and indirectly). Would I go out of my way to get one, though? No.

At the end of the day, remember it's an insurance policy. No more, no less.

kyle6432

AdrianC wrote: »

OK, thank you for the clarification on that. "Joining the AA" normally refers to roadside assistance, not purchasing a warranty.



Have you read the Ts & Cs?

"Claims arising from the following are not covered under this insurance:
•Wear and tear"



Nowhere even close. If that were true, no warranty - even on a new car - would ever be required. Parts can and do fail prematurely because of mechanical, assembly or material failures. That's what a warranty covers.

But a turbo on a car old enough and high enough mileage for you to get change from a grand and a half? Not a hope - unless it'd been provably replaced fairly recently.

Whether used car mechanical warranties are worth the cost is another question, of course.

I did indeed read the T&C's and I was on the phone for long enough quizzing the agent selling me the product. The age of the car wasn't an issue in "their" eyes and thats why the premium reflected the age/make/model of the car.

For an update I had another garage diagnose the part that failed and they indeed have come back to me to say the part has failed due to a mechanical malfunction. So the AA's reccomended garage diagnosed the part the same as my own garage. Convienient how the AA's independant assessor found a different outcome....

AdrianC

kyle6432 wrote: »

The age of the car wasn't an issue in "their" eyes and thats why the premium reflected the age/make/model of the car.

By which, of course, they mean the expectation of how much they'll pay out - balancing their actuarial history of failures against the likelihood of them being due to wear and tear and thereby excluded.

For an update I had another garage diagnose the part that failed and they indeed have come back to me to say the part has failed due to a mechanical malfunction.

Well, yes, the car has mechanically malfunctioned due to a mechanical malfunction. If it hadn't, it wouldn't need working on in the first place... Are they a garage, or politicians?

The question is whether that mechanical malfunction due to a premature component failure, or due to the component reaching the end of it's service life?

For a turbo on a <£1500 car to fail, there is a much much much higher likelihood of it being the latter. Or, rather, a presumption of the latter with a much much much smaller probability of it being provably the former. Good luck...

kyle6432

AdrianC wrote: »

By which, of course, they mean the expectation of how much they'll pay out - balancing their actuarial history of failures against the likelihood of them being due to wear and tear and thereby excluded.



Well, yes, the car has mechanically malfunctioned due to a mechanical malfunction. If it hadn't, it wouldn't need working on in the first place... Are they a garage, or politicians?

The question is whether that mechanical malfunction due to a premature component failure, or due to the component reaching the end of it's service life?

For a turbo on a <£1500 car to fail, there is a much much much higher likelihood of it being the latter. Or, rather, a presumption of the latter with a much much much smaller probability of it being provably the former. Good luck...

Politicians? Personally I hate that the AA and garages use the term "Diagnose".

The turbo itself was well within it's service life. You seem to be a bit of a backer for the AA. I only hope you don't go through the same issues as me. The part failed, the garage had the turbo in bits and confirmed it did not fail due to wear and tear, the inner working parts are in good order (before it broke).

My claim/case should not rely on the balance of probabilities and the price of the car is irrelevant, if the AA have an issue with cars at acertain price or age then they should not offer the policy. After two very experienced mechanics gave their verdict I' am clearly inclined to side with them.

AdrianC

kyle6432 wrote: »

Personally I hate that the AA and garages use the term "Diagnose".

<shrug> It's exactly what they're doing - diagnosing a fault and (where it's relevant) the cause of it.

The turbo itself was well within it's service life.

Really?

What age and mileage? Turbo diesel, I presume? Full service history? Original turbo or replacement? So far all you've told us is that it's a £1400 Megane. A quick look on Autotrader confirms that we're probably talking 10yo/100k miles. Exactly what sort of life expectancy would you predict for a turbo?

You seem to be a bit of a backer for the AA.

Not at all. I'm a realist when it comes to persuading a used-car warranty to pay for an expensive part on a cheap old car, especially a part that - assuming it doesn't fail almost immediately - is almost certain to live until it dies of old age and wear.

The reality is that older turbos DO die of wear and tear. Frequently, and very rarely because of anything else.

The part failed, the garage had the turbo in bits and confirmed it did not fail due to wear and tear, the inner working parts are in good order (before it broke).

So what, in their expert opinion, caused it to fail? Foreign object damage? Lubrication failure? Cracked housing? Turbos are very simple - if precisely built - things.

---lee---

For balance, my last experience of the AA:

I arrived at work and emereged from the cab to the stench of diesel - opened bonnet and started engine to see diesel pouring out of my fuel lift pump. I rang the AA. 15 minutes later, the patrol arrived. Correctly diagnosed a leaking lift pump.

Offered to take me home to collect a spare lift pump that I had in my garage (round trip of about 25 mins). Fitted and tested the pump in under 10 minutes.

I was well happy! Cost of repair £0.

PS. I have a spare clutch in my garage also, but I would not expect the patrol to change that at the side of the road!