Warranty claim refused

[OldTrout]

Thanks guys for the continuing interest and suggestion. I'm not giving up!

I am presently editing my letter following advice from friend who has some experience of complaints.

He suggests sending to CEO in Japan with copy to UK CEO and mentioning that some LOC members have had shock absorbers replaced under warranty. I will add that there has been vigorous discussion of failure of Lexus to address known problems like shock absorbers and damaged reputation.

Lexus dealers and The Warranty Company may well be independent but they all use the Lexus logo so any misbehaviour counts against the Lexus brand.

I do not have details of previous work done on my car. I will try and find out if shock absorbers have been replaced before. If they have, then they have failed twice in 113k.

John

ps Why do we use "shock absorbers" rather than "dampers"?

[C Mclean]

ps Why do we use "shock absorbers" rather than "dampers"?

 

Americanisms creeping everywhere and hiding in your trunk....

[Britprius]

We use the term shock absorbers because they absorb kinetic energy "sudden movements of the suspension from road irregularities, shocks", and turn it into heat. The greater the shock the greater the amount of absorption that takes place.

Veteran vehicles were fitted with dampers consisting of a circular braking mechanism that damped the movement of the suspension and spring almost like a slipping clutch, but had a greater effect on small suspension movements, and less effect on large faster movements. I guess in the US the term damper stuck.

John.

[Shahpor]

1 hour ago, royoftherovers said:

Seems that we have dissimilar documents Shahpor. Mine was issued to me in September 2016 when I last renewed my Lexus Extended Warranty.

Anyway, I have found the wording you referred to on page 6 of my document.  Wear and Tear does not appear to be defined within the Warranty Document, so this led me to the Dictionary definition of wear and tear......

 

Interesting.  I didn't actually pull out my document, I just downloaded the PDF from the Lexus website.

John, can you have a look at the T&C's here and see if the document has changed?

You also make a good point about the fact that almost anything can be classed as wear and tear on an almost 10 year old car.

In theory, the extended warranty should offer the same level of cover as a new car one.  With the obvious exclusions for interior trim, wheels, etc..

The inspection carried out prior to acceptance of the warranty should also count for something.  I actually had an issue with mine because the dealer suspected my front calipers were seized.  In fact there were, so I repaired them along with fitting new discs and pads.  Anyway, the guys at the dealer told me that until the problem was rectified and the car re-inspected, the car would be covered by the warranty with the exception of the front brakes.  I had it checked afterwards and was given the all clear.

So, this begs the question, how long is the inspection valid for with regards to wear and tear items?  What I mean is, if, for example, I have the car inspected and the dampers are given the thumbs up, and they fail the next week, doesn't that mean they failed suddenly?  Or does a misting of oil automatically mean wear and tear regardless of how long ago it was inspected?

What is interesting is that brake calipers are covered (I had one of my rears replaced), and seeing as the dealers don't grease the pins, it is a matter of when, not if, they seize.

Now, I am assuming that the reason the extended warranty is available only until 10 years or 140,000 miles is that after that time the failure rate of components would keep increasing, and it could reasonably be explained that the cause is wear and tear since no part will last forever.  If that is the case, then shouldn't all non obvious wear and tear items (such as brakes, tyres, batteries, etc..) be covered since Lexus appears to have deemed them robust enough to last the 10 years/140,000 miles?

Anyway, enough rambling.  I suspect we will not get to the bottom of this, but it would be nice to perhaps get some clearer guidelines.

[royoftherovers]

55 minutes ago, OldTrout said:

Thanks guys for the continuing interest and suggestion. I'm not giving up!

I am presently editing my letter following advice from friend who has some experience of complaints.

He suggests sending to CEO in Japan with copy to UK CEO and mentioning that some LOC members have had shock absorbers replaced under warranty. I will add that there has been vigorous discussion of failure of Lexus to address known problems like shock absorbers and damaged reputation.

Lexus dealers and The Warranty Company may well be independent but they all use the Lexus logo so any misbehaviour counts against the Lexus brand.

I do not have details of previous work done on my car. I will try and find out if shock absorbers have been replaced before. If they have, then they have failed twice in 113k.

John

ps Why do we use "shock absorbers" rather than "dampers"?

For the avoidance of doubt and misunderstanding, it should be noted that the Warranty Provider is Toyota (GB) PLC (Lexus Division) and the Warranty Administrator is TWG Services Ltd.

It should also be noted that the recognised and documented Appeals Procedure(COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE) should be exhausted prior to involving any 3rd party such as CEO`s.

 

Regards

John

Regards

John

[royoftherovers]

1 hour ago, Shahpor said:

Interesting.  I didn't actually pull out my document, I just downloaded the PDF from the Lexus website.

John, can you have a look at the T&C's here and see if the document has changed?

You also make a good point about the fact that almost anything can be classed as wear and tear on an almost 10 year old car.

In theory, the extended warranty should offer the same level of cover as a new car one.  With the obvious exclusions for interior trim, wheels, etc..

The inspection carried out prior to acceptance of the warranty should also count for something.  I actually had an issue with mine because the dealer suspected my front calipers were seized.  In fact there were, so I repaired them along with fitting new discs and pads.  Anyway, the guys at the dealer told me that until the problem was rectified and the car re-inspected, the car would be covered by the warranty with the exception of the front brakes.  I had it checked afterwards and was given the all clear.

So, this begs the question, how long is the inspection valid for with regards to wear and tear items?  What I mean is, if, for example, I have the car inspected and the dampers are given the thumbs up, and they fail the next week, doesn't that mean they failed suddenly?  Or does a misting of oil automatically mean wear and tear regardless of how long ago it was inspected?

What is interesting is that brake calipers are covered (I had one of my rears replaced), and seeing as the dealers don't grease the pins, it is a matter of when, not if, they seize.

Now, I am assuming that the reason the extended warranty is available only until 10 years or 140,000 miles is that after that time the failure rate of components would keep increasing, and it could reasonably be explained that the cause is wear and tear since no part will last forever.  If that is the case, then shouldn't all non obvious wear and tear items (such as brakes, tyres, batteries, etc..) be covered since Lexus appears to have deemed them robust enough to last the 10 years/140,000 miles?

Anyway, enough rambling.  I suspect we will not get to the bottom of this, but it would be nice to perhaps get some clearer guidelines.

Checked document with my copy Shahpor.Minor changes;

* 1.1 change of address of Registered Office.

* Warranty service charge......."12 months or " has been inserted before 365 days

* Former para 1.6 has been excluded  (minor change)

* Para 8.1 (f) "£20 " has been increased to "£25" 

* Last page..para 12 should be numbered 11.

All in all it is esentially the same document.

You and I seem to be thinking along the same lines,but it needs a suitable authority to declare the correct interpretation of the document.

This can be achieved quite simply in my opinion by the insertion of

"No  claims will be entertained in the event of the vehicle`s odometer exceeding 25,000 miles (12,500 pa ) following the date this policy was effected" 

The effect of this Shahpor is to give arguably 2 years free motoring.

 

Regards

John

[Shahpor]

That line you suggest to be included is a very good idea John.  After all, they do exactly the same with their new car warranties with the 60k or 3 year limit.

All they would need to do then is list all the parts that are specifically not covered, such as wheels, tyres, batteries, brakes, etc..

Of course, your idea is far too sensible for them to actually implement it.

[royoftherovers]

13 hours ago, Shahpor said:

That line you suggest to be included is a very good idea John.  After all, they do exactly the same with their new car warranties with the 60k or 3 year limit.

All they would need to do then is list all the parts that are specifically not covered, such as wheels, tyres, batteries, brakes, etc..

Of course, your idea is far too sensible for them to actually implement it.

Many thanks Shahpor.

If enough members read this thread, they may support or amend/improve our suggestions and we might then put it directly to TOYOTA GB (LEXUS DIVISION).

Regards

John

[OldTrout]

It would be good to have clarity.

For the claims man to say shock absorbers have reached the end of their useful life by a mere 113k miles and therefore we will not pay is clarity, but not going to go down well.

I notice that the Lexus on-line shop has just raised the price of the already overpriced 450h shock absorbers by 14%. The set of four are now over £1200.

John

[royoftherovers]

2 hours ago, OldTrout said:

It would be good to have clarity.

For the claims man to say shock absorbers have reached the end of their useful life by a mere 113k miles and therefore we will not pay is clarity, but not going to go down well.

I notice that the Lexus on-line shop has just raised the price of the already overpriced 450h shock absorbers by 14%. The set of four are now over £1200.

John

Your car may have done 113,000 miles John,but it was approved for Extended Warranty purposes immediately prior to you paying the full warranty premium.

In such circumstances the term "wear and tear" is unjust and inequitable and unreasonable and unfair and is nothing short of a cop-out!!

Did you email HJ as per my PM ?

 

Regards

John

[OldTrout]

John,

Many thanks. It had a major service at which leaking shock absorbers were noted. At that time it was on a warranty that came with it when I bought it. It was valid for three more days. I took out the two-year extended warranty that day. The first rejection of my claim was that it was a pre-existing condition because they thought I was on the new warranty rather than the old one. The salesman did not mention at the time that pre-existing conditions would not be covered. I know this is normal insurance practice but perhaps it should have been mentioned.

The second rejection of the claim did say that because I knew about the misting on shock absorbers at MOT time six months earlier, it was "wear and tear".

Not mailed HJ yet but will do. Thanks.

John

ps apropos "dampers" or "shock absorbers": the dampers exerts a force which depends on the speed damper piston. If the piston is not moving there is no force. In the equation of motion of the spring and damper unit, this force is called the damping term so "damper" is a good name. The name embodies its function. "Shock absorber" more accurately describes the coil and damper unit. I thought it probably was Americans riding roughshod over good English.

In the old days of thermionic valves, Brits called them "valves". This describe their function - they control the flow of current. The Americans called them "tubes" which describes what some of them looked like but gives no hint whatever of what they do. Fortunately, "tubes" did not catch on over here.

It's too late for this stuff!

[royoftherovers]

Thanks John.

 It had a major service at which leaking shock absorbers were noted. At that time it was on a warranty that came with it when I bought it. It was valid for three more days"

So the Warranty at that time should provide cover for a claim. 

 "I took out the two-year extended warranty that day. "

There must be an implied assumption that the dealer who provided this second warranty deemed the car suitable for cover and there could not have been any existing conditions therefore. So it seems to me that your claim must succeed under either the first warranty or the second warranty !!

 

Have a good nights sleep John.

 

Regards

John

[Shahpor]

13 hours ago, OldTrout said:

ps apropos "dampers" or "shock absorbers": the dampers exerts a force which depends on the speed damper piston. If the piston is not moving there is no force. In the equation of motion of the spring and damper unit, this force is called the damping term so "damper" is a good name. The name embodies its function. "Shock absorber" more accurately describes the coil and damper unit. I thought it probably was Americans riding roughshod over good English.

In the old days of thermionic valves, Brits called them "valves". This describe their function - they control the flow of current. The Americans called them "tubes" which describes what some of them looked like but gives no hint whatever of what they do. Fortunately, "tubes" did not catch on over here.

It's too late for this stuff!

I do love this forum

On a lot of other forums no one would know what apropos means, never mind taking the time to write the excellent explanation you have provided.

[Verbout]

56 minutes ago, Shahpor said:

I do love this forum

On a lot of other forums no one would know what apropos means, never mind taking the time to write the excellent explanation you have provided.

The smell of condescension, lovely.

[Shahpor]

3 hours ago, Verbout said:

The smell of condescension, lovely.

More exaggeration than condescension perhaps.  Certainly didn't mean any offense.

On the flip side, on a couple of other forums I visit, you would be called pretentious for using that word.

[royoftherovers]

5 minutes ago, Shahpor said:

More exaggeration than condescension perhaps.  Certainly didn't mean any offense.

On the flip side, on a couple of other forums I visit, you would be called pretentious for using that word.

Substitue "one might" for "you would" Shahpor.

Verbout seems to know his stuff !

 

Regards

John

[Shahpor]

Ok, somewhat embarrassingly, I am not sure I follow what you are saying there John?

[royoftherovers]

1 minute ago, Shahpor said:

Ok, somewhat embarrassingly, I am not sure I follow what you are saying there John?

"you" implies Verbout. "one" is any contributor.

Do not be embarrassed, my wife often tells me (and others) that I do not know what I am tlking about Shahpor !

 

Regards

John

[Shahpor]

Oh, I see.  Now that I have read my post, I can see the confusion.  I didn't actually mean what Verbout said could be called pretentious, I meant using the word apropos.  I also didn't mean to imply that I thought it was pretentious, just that it might be by others.

Well, you can tell your wife that you helped me clear up a verbal mess this time.

[royoftherovers]

17 minutes ago, Shahpor said:

Oh, I see.  Now that I have read my post, I can see the confusion.  I didn't actually mean what Verbout said could be called pretentious, I meant using the word apropos.  I also didn't mean to imply that I thought it was pretentious, just that it might be by others.

Well, you can tell your wife that you helped me clear up a verbal mess this time.

You are very welcome mi amigo !!

 

Regards

 

John

[Verbout]

2 hours ago, Shahpor said:

More exaggeration than condescension perhaps.  Certainly didn't mean any offense.

On the flip side, on a couple of other forums I visit, you would be called pretentious for using that word.

Just pulling your leg

[Shahpor]

2 minutes ago, Verbout said:

Just pulling your leg

Damn you! Making me think I am a elitist toff for no reason!

[Verbout]

That was a little storm in a teapot wasn't it?

[Shahpor]

A bit of a blip along the way, yes.

Perhaps we can meander this thread back onto the matter at hand then?  Wouldn't want to overshadow the important discussions going on here.

[GSLV6]

20 hours ago, royoftherovers said:

Thanks John.

 It had a major service at which leaking shock absorbers were noted. At that time it was on a warranty that came with it when I bought it. It was valid for three more days"

So the Warranty at that time should provide cover for a claim. 

 "I took out the two-year extended warranty that day. "

There must be an implied assumption that the dealer who provided this second warranty deemed the car suitable for cover and there could not have been any existing conditions therefore. So it seems to me that your claim must succeed under either the first warranty or the second warranty !!

 

Have a good nights sleep John.

 

Regards

John

This ^^^^

If an extended warranty was taken out, the only reason that it could be invalidated is if a pre-existing condition was not declared.  If the mot was an advisory rather than a failure, then it is not classed as a failed component under the terms of the warranty (surely?) and any subsequent leakage noted which is declared a failure under the terms of the pre-existing warranty, within that warranty period has to be honoured under the terms of the contract.  It just seems like a cop-out to argue anything else.

The flip side is that if these are the first shocker failures in 113K miles, then applying the measure of "reasonableness", which much of Common Law is based upon, one could argue (ie the assessor) that it is fair wear and tear as one would expect most motor vehicles to have a shock absorber replacement within 100K miles as they are consumable wear items.  However, the legal test isn't necessarily the same test at all because it is specifically covered under the terms of contract for the warranty itself and if that covers shock absorbers, then they have no choice but to honour the warranty.  I fail to see how they can't.

 

20 hours ago, OldTrout said:

 

In the old days of thermionic valves, Brits called them "valves". This describe their function - they control the flow of current. The Americans called them "tubes" which describes what some of them looked like but gives no hint whatever of what they do. Fortunately, "tubes" did not catch on over here.

It's too late for this stuff!

Actually John, happily, Thermomic Valve Amplifiers are very much still in production and still provide some of the best hifi sounds around.  Here's one that I recently commissioned for my set up.  It's a Radfdord STA25 Series 5 

The trendy audiophiles now refer to them as "Toobs" but I refuse to use a slang version of an Americanism, so use "Valves" .  What a pedant I'm becoming in my middle age!