Definition of full service history and impact on Kia warranty

gcoopermax

Found two Kia cars, both same model, from two different Kia dealers. This Kia model has  7-year transferrable warranty and the servicing interval is 10k miles/12 months and if the services done are not within these intervals, the claim may be rejected if it is attributable to late service. To me it seems like a loophole to reject claims when service is late even by few tens of miles or few weeks.

Of the two cars I found, (both 3 year old), first is 39k miles and comes with full service history, within the recommended intervals. Second car is just over 30k miles, comes with 3 services but all services are either few hundred miles over recommended mileage intervals. Last service is also a few months late. The first car is about £400 cheaper.

Called Kia and they said that warranty is not voided but claim may be rejected if service was not done within specific intervals. Any advice on which one I should go for?

Nobbie1967

The first one every time. The point of a warranty is reassurance that you are covered. If your engine went pop in the second car, there is every chance they would blame the late oil changes, particularly if it was towards the end of the warranty period.

EssexExile

The first one has been serviced on time and is cheaper, no contest really.

CliveOfIndia

So the first car has a proper service history, within the specified intervals, is £400 cheaper and has - near as makes no difference in the real world - similar mileage ?  All other things being equal, the first car is a no-brainer.

Of course, two apparently identical cars can be very different beasts, depending on the sort of driving they've done (mostly town or mostly motorway, for example), and whether they've been driven by a mechanically-sympathetic person or a boy-racer.  But that aside, I'd be tempted by the first one.

It's not unreasonable for a manufacturer to require that servicing is carried out correctly in order to honour any warranty claims, if the lack of servicing contributes to the problem.

sheslookinhot

gcoopermax said:

Found two Kia cars, both same model, from two different Kia dealers. This Kia model has  7-year transferrable warranty and the servicing interval is 10k miles/12 months and if the services done are not within these intervals, the claim may be rejected if it is attributable to late service. To me it seems like a loophole to reject claims when service is late even by few tens of miles or few weeks.

Of the two cars I found, (both 3 year old), first is 39k miles and comes with full service history, within the recommended intervals. Second car is just over 30k miles, comes with 3 services but all services are either few hundred miles over recommended mileage intervals. Last service is also a few months late. The first car is about £400 cheaper.

Called Kia and they said that warranty is not voided but claim may be rejected if service was not done within specific intervals. Any advice on which one I should go for?

That seems inconsistent. So if the warranty claim was say £500 they could reject it ? Seems like a useless warranty.

CliveOfIndia

sheslookinhot said:

gcoopermax said:

Found two Kia cars, both same model, from two different Kia dealers. This Kia model has  7-year transferrable warranty and the servicing interval is 10k miles/12 months and if the services done are not within these intervals, the claim may be rejected if it is attributable to late service. To me it seems like a loophole to reject claims when service is late even by few tens of miles or few weeks.

Of the two cars I found, (both 3 year old), first is 39k miles and comes with full service history, within the recommended intervals. Second car is just over 30k miles, comes with 3 services but all services are either few hundred miles over recommended mileage intervals. Last service is also a few months late. The first car is about £400 cheaper.

Called Kia and they said that warranty is not voided but claim may be rejected if service was not done within specific intervals. Any advice on which one I should go for?

That seems inconsistent. So if the warranty claim was say £500 they could reject it ? Seems like a useless warranty.

It's a bit of a get-out clause.  If the problem that occurs could realistically be attributable to the late service , then they could reject the claim.  It's always going to be a hard one to prove if push comes to shove - but to save hassle, it's got to be far easier in this particular scenario to go for the car with the full service history.

born_again

A missing service would not exclude certain items from a warranty claim. Such as infotainment unit (within 36 months or 60k)
But with many manufactures. Do not give them any chance of a get out clause.

Kia as a rule of thumb allow 1000 miles or 1 month late on servicing. But far better not to go that far.

Mildly_Miffed

There is not a single manufacturer out there who will not restrict or void warranty coverage when servicing hasn't been done to time and spec. Not one.

There's a bit of leeway - often a thousand miles and a month - but it'll be applied consistently.

Another vote here for "Why on earth wouldn't you be looking at the first one over the second?"

gcoopermax

The only preference for second was the lower mileage (31k vs 39k). Perhaps this difference is not large enough to justify the risk?

What struck me as well is that the deligence with which the owner serviced the first car. They serviced it with few hundred miles remaining for the next milestone. Not sure if this means they took care of the car and drove sensibly. 

FIRST CAR (REG May 2021):

1st : 07/03/2022 9826 miles KIA dealer

2nd : 28/10/2022 19115 miles KIA dealer

3rd : 16/06/2023 29377 miles KIA dealer

4th : 17/05/2024 39175 miles  KIA dealer


For second car, seems like they didn't bother after second year. The last service was actually done by the KIA dealer who is selling the car.
SECOND CAR (REG Jan 2021):

1st : 5-1-22 10,857 miles KIA Dealer

2nd : 4-1-23  20,463 miles KIA dealer

3rd : 7-5-24 30,795 miles KIA dealer

CliveOfIndia

gcoopermax said:

The only preference for second was the lower mileage (31k vs 39k). Perhaps this difference is not large enough to justify the risk?

The difference between those two mileages is neither here nor there.

born_again

Kia franchised dealers like many others can have long lead times for servicing. I always book mine 2 months in advance of due date, so I can get the date I require. Many people wait till a week before, then wonder why they are told, can't do it for a month.

Which Kia is it?