Warranty claim refused

[OldTrout]

My claim for replacement shock absorbers on my extended warranty has been refused.

Lexus Swindon have been dealing with it for me and got a reply today "The reason they have said this is because your warranty covers for unexpected failure of electrical and mechanical components, since this issue was raised on an MOT as an advisory indicates that it is a failing component that you have been made aware of which is reason why they are said it to me wear and tear."

So (a) failure was not unexpected, and (b) because I knew about it it is wear and tear.

"They" whoever they are, have a very strange way of arguing their case.

I don't think the word unexpected occurs in the warranty. The car was under warranty when the MOT advised me that the shocks had a misting of oil and this misting had developed into a leak by the major service before the warranty expired. (I took out a two year renewal a couple of days before the old one expired.)

As shocks on the 450h are a known problem they are not unexpected!

What to do next? Ask for the decision in writing and then take it to ombudsman?

[royoftherovers]

Ask for it in writing, then appeal, then the Ombudsman John.

Incidentally, it was presumably unexpected because the eventual failure had been flagged up at a major service, then/so, had a claim been made when first noticed at that service it would have been accepted because it was not expected ??? (if you get what I mean)

 

Regards

John

 

 

[Shahpor]

I think what they are saying is that if it fails suddenly, then the part is faulty, but if it is a gradual decline, then it is wear and tear.

It does beg the following questions though:

Aren't failing dampers an MOT failure?

Also, why didn't you get them replaced when you had the MOT done?

The problem is the following passage from the warranty T&C's:

"(k) not continue to drive the protected vehicle after you become aware that a Protected Part has suffered a Mechanical or Electrical Failure save for the purpose of taking it to a Service Centre for diagnosis and/or correction. If You are in any doubt as to whether You should drive the Protected Vehicle to the nearest Service Centre without causing damage to it ,You should request the Service Centre or, where applicable, Lexus Roadside Assistance to recover the Protected Vehicle"

So you see, it is a potential problem getting them to fix it now.

Having said that, you lose nothing by pursuing it.  I would speak to the warranty company directly (0330 100 3247) and request everything they have on your case so far.  Going forward, make sure everything is in writing (Or, if you do speak to them on the phone, record it) and don't take no for an answer.

Also, I am not sure what the dealers position on this is, but if they are willing to help, any information they can provide for your case would be helpful.  Find out exactly what the wording on the report they sent to the warranty company said.  We had a situation on the forum recently where a claim was refused until the wording from the dealer was changed to specifically state 'not wear and tear'.  The claim was then accepted.

If you have no luck, make a formal complaint.  Then, if it not resolved to your satisfaction within 8 weeks (from the complaint date), go to the Ombudsman and open a case.

The problem is that you can't really have the car fixed before the matter is resolved.  Well, you could if you let the dealer replace the dampers, and then try to get reimbursed, but I hate to think how much that would cost.

[OldTrout]

Thanks John and Shahpor.

When the "light misting of oil" was noted on all four dampers in the MOT in February  I did raise it with the service manager at Swindon Lexus. He said that this was not a warranty item but it would be if they failed. I replied that they had better fail whilst the warranty was still in place. Now that some at least have failed the  Swindon Lexus regional manager for extended warranties says it's wear and tear. 

Presumably if my MOT date had been just before the service they would have been replaced. Perhaps the moral here is to buy with 12 months MOT not six.

I have asked for copies of the report and the reply.

In the meantime I have also asked for a quote for replacement of all four dampers and prepared a stiff drink.

Britprius has mentioned possibility of refurbishing the dampers. Apart from labour the costs are likely to be trivial.

I live in hope.

[royoftherovers]

So, the Lexus Service Manager was wrong? He led you to believe that a failure was covered by the Warranty and the Lexus Regional Manager says that a failure is wear and tear !!

An unacceptable situation me thinks. What on earth have you been paying the warranty payments for then? The failure is mechanical and not specifically excluded under the warranty terms. Wear and tear is in my view an excuse, not a reason.

Appeal and if unsuccessful go to the Ombudsman with the facts and quote all of the members on this Forum who have had them replaced under Warranty.

Best of Luck, John

 

Regards

John

[OldTrout]

Thanks John.

As to all the people who have had replacements under warranty, who are they? Nobody has replied to say they have yet.

Anyone had dampers replaced on 450h under warranty?

 

[Britprius]

I should have more detail on repair at the end of this week. The shaft seal is the weak link. Provided that the hard chrome on the shafts is not damaged and the shafts are straight, and there are no dents in the tube refurbishment is looking very doable. These shocks are of the monotube design so the internal bore of the tube is part of the working of the hydraulics.

If anyone is having there shocks replaced insist on keeping the old units. If there is enough interest, and a few spare old units to go at it is possible I may be able arrange an exchange repair scheme. Apologies if I am breaking any forum rules in saying that.

The alternative is for me to show the intended method, and let people do it themselves. It does however require access to high pressure Nitrogen gas refill equipment putting it a little beyond the home DIY'er 

John.

[sorcerer]

3 hours ago, OldTrout said:

When the "light misting of oil" was noted on all four dampers in the MOT in February  I did raise it with the service manager at Swindon Lexus. He said that this was not a warranty item but it would be if they failed.

I am not a lawyer but the way I read that is that if, whilst they were carrying out the MOT in February, it was discovered then that the shocks had completely failed, then it would be a warranty item. However, they had not completely failed at that point in time and were still functioning and continuing to do their job, so they notified you of the "light misting of oil" and it became your choice to continue using them rather than replace them, ergo wear and tear rather than failure covered by warranty.

As I said though, IANAL and may be talking complete rubbish. Also, as Shahpor said you'll lose nothing but time in fighting them so I sincerely wish you well and truly hope that you win your case.

[passman53]

2 hours ago, OldTrout said:

Thanks John.

As to all the people who have had replacements under warranty, who are they? Nobody has replied to say they have yet.

Anyone had dampers replaced on 450h under warranty?

 

Hello,

I purchased a warranty in March last year on the advice of the service manager at my local dealer. Six months later it went in for a service when I was advised I needed one  rear shock absorber and a new water pump. I asked if these items were covered and after 20 minutes got a phone call back to say Lexus warranty had confirmed both items were covered and the job was done the same day. I did ask about replacing the pair of shocks but as only one was leaking that was all that could be changed.

So  whilst agreeing I only needed one changing It was done with no quibble.

I must say I think the wear and tear argument is very poor and not what I would expect. Best idea is to have the MOT done elsewhere.

Pete

 

[Sherra]

I had one front shock replaced under warranty about 6mths after it was reported as light misting on MOT advisory.

[royoftherovers]

Are you keeping detailed notes John ?

 

Regards

John

[Shahpor]

Well, if Peter and Paul have had theirs replaced under warranty, I can't see how they could possibly refuse yours John.

It seems that particular regional manager needs a lesson on what wear and tear means.

[OldTrout]

Many thanks Peter and especially Paul whose situation was like mine (except I have four not one).

I have emailed Swindon again citing precedent to press the case.

Thanks John. Yes, I am keeping all the emails (stored locally and backed up hourly). Nothing has been done by phone. (I am about 80dB down with my hearing so phone is hard and unless recorded would tax my memory too.)

[doog442]

Surely 'light misting' is an indication of the unit failing in its own right. Although the shocks may continue to function and can pass an MOT they have technically failed from the moment the misting has occurred or been identified.

If a water pump was to develop a leak it would be replaced under warranty as mentioned above. You don't wait until the pump actually gives up and strands you in the middle of nowhere.

The fact the advisory was noted on an MOT is actually decent evidence. If they want to argue over the use of the word unexpected then surely it was unexpected when it was noted on the MOT.  

 

[cruisermark]

Lexus should be honouring the repair and carrying it out without any fuss.

The shocks have been one of the weakest parts of the GS450H and most have been plagued by them failing - just been on auto trader and 50K ish mileage  07 plate has come up and guess what one of the shocks is misting - for a premium brand thats not good.

I have been thinking about buying a GS450h for a while  - on one hand i have my current LS430 which has been fine for the 4 years i had it  - on the other i could go and buy a GS450h with a risk of expensive repairs. I only want it because the CVT excites me and I just want to try something different.

 

[IS200D]

18 hours ago, cruisermark said:

On 16/09/2016 at 6:21 PM, OldTrout said:

My claim for replacement shock absorbers on my extended warranty has been refused.

Lexus Swindon have been dealing with it for me and got a reply today "The reason they have said this is because your warranty covers for unexpected failure of electrical and mechanical components, since this issue was raised on an MOT as an advisory indicates that it is a failing component that you have been made aware of which is reason why they are said it to me wear and tear."

So (a) failure was not unexpected, and (b) because I knew about it it is wear and tear.

"They" whoever they are, have a very strange way of arguing their case.

I don't think the word unexpected occurs in the warranty. The car was under warranty when the MOT advised me that the shocks had a misting of oil and this misting had developed into a leak by the major service before the warranty expired. (I took out a two year renewal a couple of days before the old one expired.)

As shocks on the 450h are a known problem they are not unexpected!

What to do next? Ask for the decision in writing and then take it to ombudsman?

What a ridiculous situation. You go to the expense of a warranty and instead of the peace of mind its supposed to give, you get this grief. I'd be chasing them for compensation for the hassle, let alone making them honour their warranty. I hope this gets resolved to your satisfaction asap.

[OldTrout]

Update:

I sent a claim by email directly to the warranty company on Monday 3rd October, I have yet to receive even an acknowledgement.

I said other LOC members have had shock absorbers replaced under warranty and one claim in particular was very similar to mine. (Thanks Paul.)

I also argued that as soon as the oil seal starts to leak - misting - the shock absorber has failed. It may take some time (days/weeks) for the oil to leak out completely and render the shock absorber totally useless but it has failed.

As others have said where is peace of mind in all this?

I will contact Lexus customer Services next week if I have heard nothing.

John

 

[OldTrout]

Received an acknowledgement and summary this afternoon. They say they aim to resolve the matter within 20 working days.

Watch this space.....

[Carl911]

The warranty decision system is certainly very inconsistent.

obviously the decision is never the actual Lexus dealer itself as all claims go to Lexus warranty direct. 

I know this as when I have had warranty work done the dealership has to request authorisation.

as far as the dealers are concerned ed they love warranty work as they get paid the same as if you paid out if your own pocket. 

Its all money in the bank for the franchise.

hope your outcome is positive.

[Shahpor]

6 hours ago, Carl911 said:

as far as the dealers are concerned ed they love warranty work as they get paid the same as if you paid out if your own pocket. 

This might not necessarily be the case.

According to a service rep I spoke to at a dealership, they only get 50% of their typical labour charge for warranty work.

Still, I wouldn't be complaining if I was 'only' charging £84 an hour.

[steve2006]

New post here, albeit a different Lexus model but with a leaking shock absorber being replaced under warranty.

Another case to use in your battle.

 

[derkins]

Battled extensively with my dealer & AA warranty over a failed shock...both denied it was covered as it's not specifically listed as a warranty part...I argued that it was also not specifically mentioned in the exclusions either.

In the end as I NEEDED it done, the dealership provided me with a full strut assembly from the same year car (used, warranted - and the bare minimum they could do) and I paid to have it swapped out locally. Nobody won...but I got it fitted at a local garage I get on well with.

[royoftherovers]

That happens so many times Derkins. Warranties (many, but not all,) are often not worth the paper they are written on.

Car buyers often forget or are ignorant of, the Stautory Warranty which exists when buying a used car.It is the Sellers (Dealer) resonsbibility to correct matters at his expense if the problems appears within the first 6 months of purchase. It is free.

A good Indy however, is worth his weight in gold and will often apply preventive maintenance, so as to minimise potential problems.

Make a point of reading on a regular basis "honestjohn.co.uk" and you will realise how fortunate we are to drive a Lexus , which  although not infallible, goes wrong far less often than other makes of car.

 

Oh, and welcome to the Club!

 

Regards

John

[Britprius]

5 hours ago, royoftherovers said:

That happens so many times Derkins. Warranties (many, but not all,) are often not worth the paper they are written on.

Car buyers often forget or are ignorant of, the Stautory Warranty which exists when buying a used car.It is the Sellers (Dealer) resonsbibility to correct matters at his expense if the problems appears within the first 6 months of purchase. It is free.

A good Indy however, is worth his weight in gold and will often apply preventive maintenance, so as to minimise potential problems.

Make a point of reading on a regular basis "honestjohn.co.uk" and you will realise how fortunate we are to drive a Lexus , which  although not infallible, goes wrong far less often than other makes of car.

 

Oh, and welcome to the Club!

 

Regards

John

While I agree with you generally on the reliability of Lexus cars. The shock absorbers used on Toyota/Lexus cars "KYB" are not reliable.

My last car was a Prius on which the rear shock absorbers were replaced under guarantee at 30,000 miles because they were leaking oil. The car then did a further 100,000 miles without problems till I sold it for the Lexus GS450H.

The GS has now had according to the records I have two complete sets of shocks in 115,000 miles. All because they were leaking! Now either the shocks are not up to the job, or the fitment on the GS is putting a load on them they were not designed to carry, the fitment is allowing contamination from road grit to destroy the seals.

Having dismantled some GS shocks the internal components are in good order with just the seal being at fault. On some the chrome shaft has an area of chrome about 3/16 inches wide around the shaft eaten away. This area seems to co-inside with the position that the seal sits when the car is stationary or moving on a smooth surface.

The seal has two lips facing in opposite directions. One down to stop oil leaving the shock, and the other up to wipe away water and dirt off the shaft. If this upward facing seal allows any dirt or moisture past it this contamination is trapped between the two seal lips a distance of about 3/16 inch. It is this contamination that I am convinced that is eating away the chrome surface.

Once the chrome surface is damaged the oil in the shock absorber can be pushed out as the seal rides over the damaged area buy the high pressure nitrogen charge, and pressure caused by the normal action of the shock in use.

Surly the shock absorber manufacturer KYB, and Toyota/Lexus must by now know of this problem. However they seem happy to let customers pay the price when perhaps a small redesign of the seal "that must cost pennies" or more suitable protection from contamination would extend the longevity of the components. This seal is also fitted in such a manner that makes it impossible to replace under normal circumstances.

John.

[royoftherovers]

30 minutes ago, Britprius said:

While I agree with you generally on the reliability of Lexus cars. The shock absorbers used on Toyota/Lexus cars "KYB" are not reliable.

My last car was a Prius on which the rear shock absorbers were replaced under guarantee at 30,000 miles because they were leaking oil. The car then did a further 100,000 miles without problems till I sold it for the Lexus GS450H.

The GS has now had according to the records I have two complete sets of shocks in 115,000 miles. All because they were leaking! Now either the shocks are not up to the job, or the fitment on the GS is putting a load on them they were not designed to carry, the fitment is allowing contamination from road grit to destroy the seals.

Having dismantled some GS shocks the internal components are in good order with just the seal being at fault. On some the chrome shaft has an area of chrome about 3/16 inches wide around the shaft eaten away. This area seems to co-inside with the position that the seal sits when the car is stationary or moving on a smooth surface.

The seal has two lips facing in opposite directions. One down to stop oil leaving the shock, and the other up to wipe away water and dirt off the shaft. If this upward facing seal allows any dirt or moisture past it this contamination is trapped between the two seal lips a distance of about 3/16 inch. It is this contamination that I am convinced that is eating away the chrome surface.

Once the chrome surface is damaged the oil in the shock absorber can be pushed out as the seal rides over the damaged area buy the high pressure nitrogen charge, and pressure caused by the normal action of the shock in use.

Surly the shock absorber manufacturer KYB, and Toyota/Lexus must by now now of this problem. However they seem happy to let customers pay the price when perhaps a small redesign of the seal "that must cost pennies" or more suitable protection from contamination would extend the longevity of the components. This seal is also fitted in such a manner that makes it impossible to replace under normal circumstances.

John.

Many thanks John.Very informative.

If you are only half right then it would suggestt hat the "shocks" are not fit for purpose and should be replaced under Warranty without further question.

 

Regards

 

John