Warranty claim refused

[OldTrout]

Update: The Warranty Group are "unable to uphold my complaint". The reasons for this would seem to be "data protection" and "unable to locate we have ever received a full assessment of the faults with your vehicle". Amazing!

Further "We would require your repairing dealer to contact us to confirm the exact part which failed and the cause of your vehicles failure identified, to assess this retrospectively."

We seem to have a communication problem and we have not to have got to the shock absorber problem yet.

John

[Shahpor]

Well that is no good!

I assume you have contacted the dealer to get them to sent the info?

Also, if they never received a full assessment, on what basis did they deny your claim?  This is somewhat confusing.

Is this regarding a complaint against the company, or the warranty claim itself?

[OldTrout]

Yes I asked Swindon Lexus dealer to send through details which after a second asking they did allegedly. I emailed the Warranty Group to confirm they had received the details but I have received nothing. (My appeal went to the Warranty Group.)

I think part of the problem might be that claims are usually done by phone when the faults are found. Swindon Lexus had not serviced my car before and probably didn't know it was under warranty (although my desire to have car serviced and then extend the warranty should have given them a clue). They did not make a claim allegedly until the following week and I wonder now if they did if WG say they have no record.

However, whatever the reason the customer should not suffer for the failures of the system. Other claims are agreed and the repairs done very quickly - sometime even the same day. My faults were spotted at the end of August and I have still got nowhere.

Time to write to Lexus I think. What address do I use?

John

 

[OldTrout]

Update I have not yet written to Lexus but tried phoning the warranty company. (I prefer email to phone as I my deafness makes the phone difficult. However they don't respond to emails.) After some discussion with the man who wrote the letter I quoted here on November 2nd. I was transferred to "claims" for more discussion.

The outcome of this discussion was that I will be taking the car to Swindon Lexus on December 7th. for the claims assessor to assess.  He/she will then write a report and I will be informed in a couple of days or so.

Of course this is 3 months on from the service at which the problems were noted but I assume that once dead, dampers stay dead.

I would like to take with me the details of the two LOC posted who said they had dampers replaced under warranty. I will try and email them off list.

John

 

 

 

[Shahpor]

I am a little confused; What exactly are they assessing?

I thought the dealer already told them the dampers were leaking?  What exactly do they hope to discover by having an assessor look at it?

[OldTrout]

I am puzzled too. The service sheet has the leaking dampers statement but perhaps they want to see for themselves.

Maybe they have issues with Swindon Lexus service dept.?  Or are they hoping that now there will no sign of leaks as there is no fluid left?

If they just gave me all the money they are spending the job would have been done long ago.

 

 

 

 

 

[doog442]

On 26/11/2016 at 5:45 PM, Shahpor said:

I am a little confused; What exactly are they assessing?

I thought the dealer already told them the dampers were leaking?  What exactly do they hope to discover by having an assessor look at it?

They are avoiding paying for it . Yet again hardly a good advert for Lexus warranty. 

[cpk]

Just had my 100k service and Lincoln Lexus said the shock absorber needed replacing (it wasn't picked up on not a month before - mot not done at dealer). Damper was replaced under warranty. 

I've found Lincoln Lexus to be a very good dealer, efficient and trouble free. 

[OldTrout]

Thanks Chris,

That now makes five owners who have had replacement dampers under warranty. I have mailed each of them (I hope!) to get details which I will use if necessary with assessor.

Let's hope that the original refusal was just due to bad communication and incorrect information.

John

 

[Shahpor]

It is sounding more and more like the dealer was at fault.

Perhaps a little late, but couldn't you try a different dealer for a second opinion?

[OldTrout]

Update: Went for independent assessment today at Swindon Lexus. One hour there, four hours waiting, one hour back. Assessment took just a few minutes and confirmed that the dampers were leaking. Waiting time would have been reduced to under an hour by better communication. Am I picking up a common thread here?

I now await the written report and the response of the Warranty Group. I hope the response will be positive and the replacements can be done before we pass the four month point.

Damper problems aside I wafted back very pleasantly

 

[OldTrout]

Another update: Having heard nothing I rang the The Warranty Group this afternoon. A very helpful person looked up my details from my registration number. The independent engineer has reported that the shock absorbers have failed due to "in service wear and deterioration of the piston rod seals* so that's why the claim has been rejected". (Has a shock absorber ever failed for any other reason?) I assume she was reading the report.

I mentioned that others have had shock absorbers replaced under warranty but was told that every claim is considered individually. As I was dissatisfied she offer to escalate the problem. Someone will ring me back.

Interestingly the original claim on my record was 1st September. (Service was on 25th. August so very slow on part of Swindon Lexus.) This begs the question why my complaint was not upheld on the grounds of "data protection issues" and "we have no record". No mention either of the original reasons I was given for rejection of claim.

Also why was I not informed of the decision? Was anyone ever going to tell me?

Ownership of a Lexus should be hassle-free. That's one of the reasons we buy them isn't it?

Letter to CEO Lexus UK?

John

 

[Shahpor]

Sounds like nonsense to me.  Definitely time to start complaining to anyone who will listen.

As part of the complaint you should ask for all relevant documents to be provided to you.  If it goes to the ombudsman, you can insist on this for a small fee.

It does also sound like potentially bad service from Lexus Swindon, so you should include that in the complaint.

You are also right that blown seals is almost always the cause of failure.  You could also argue that because of the delay in getting the part inspected, addition wear could have been caused to the part owning to the failed seal, which could be what the engineer was seeing.  Although I am not sure this is a good idea since it might support the wear and tear argument.  Perhaps others have a view on this?

[Britprius]

From there own description of the problem any claim could or would come under the same heading. A wheel bearing would fail because of in service ware and deterioration of the bearing surfaces.

I guarantee if you inspect the piston rod with the car jacked up (weight off the wheels) you will find it is the piston rod chrome coating that has failed causing the seal not to work "leak" in that area. Careful inspection will show a dark ring round the shaft where the seal sits when the car is stationary. This is visible in the pictures below even after attempts to remove it with fine emery paper. The chrome is only about 1 thousand's of an inch thick and the area where the dark ring is will rust while the chromed area remains bright. The reduction in size in the ring area can be felt with finger tips.

If this is the case the piston rod failed then damaged the seal so the shock absorber shaft failed first "not the seal" I have seen this scenario on many leaking KYB shocks.

Sorry for the poor picture quality. It is difficult to capture on bright chrome.

John                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

[OldTrout]

Another update: The Warranty Group (TWG) did indeed ring me back a couple of days after I asked to escalate the problem. I spoke to the Lexus Claims Manager at TWG. He reiterated the engineer's report. We exchanged views for a while and I mentioned the other successful claimants. He said he needed the permission of the claimants to discuss other cases with me. However he then said that with his experience of nine years in the job a claim for one damper at <100k miles seemed very different to him from a claim for all four at 113k miles. One looks like a manufacturing defect as the other three dampers were OK; the other a case of dampers having "reached the end of their useful life". To me this implies that the design life is about 113k miles. The design life of the car 450h must be much higher a fact he agreed with as the 450h was a "flagship model". Many years ago Jaguars had a design life of 150k miles. I would be surprised if Lexus was less than 200k. In which case my dampers failed prematurely. Would other owners agree?

John

ps. I think the consensus on this forum is that the dampers are under specced on the 450h due to its greater weight and that is a design shortcomming.

[NemesisUK]

I wonder how many 450h dampers Lexus have replaced since the model's launch as a percentage of cars sold?

[Shahpor]

So what was the outcome of your conversation with the Claims Manager?

Also, since he claimed mileage is a factor, can we get a definitive answers as to when broken dampers go from failed to wear and tear?

[cruisermark]

I cannot believe this saga - this is p*** t*ke

This is common widely know problem and should of been sorted from the word go.

Another member (deanflyer) just bought a 56 plate (see thread Potential owner - any advice) and he has just had 2 replaced under warranty

Hats off to john for keeping his cool and perservering - hope you get it sorted mate - eventually!

[OldTrout]

NemesisUK: that figure would be very interesting especially if combined with mileage.

Shapor: We left it with me saying I would ask others in LOC to email him with permission to look at their cases with me. However on listening to the conversation againI doubt this would do any good unless somebody was over 113k miles. And yes I too would like his answer to your second point. It seems he thinks the changeover is less than 113k and I am thinking this may be the best route to follow. I wonder if Lexus are aware that the company that offer warranties on their cars think 113k miles is beyond the useful life  of dampers on one of its flagship cars?

cruisermark: It is indeed a strange sag. I think deanflyer's car had two dampers replaced before it was handed over to him so I guess the dealer covered that cost. Still one has to ask why two had to be replaced before 80k miles.

everyone: thanks for all your encouragement and support. I had a letter this morning from the General Manager, Customer Care Centre at TWG saying "I am glad we resolved your complaint, however if you fell we have not addressed all of your points then please get in touch and we will do our utmost to conclude matters to your satisfaction." I will be in touch with him and also with Lexus Customer Care.

Are the dampers on the GS300 just the same? Do they fail as often or even reach the end of their useful life.

In the if any of the readers of this thread can help with my other active thread I would love to hear.

John

 

[OldTrout]

Thank you to those who have posted on some of the other threads about dampers, reliability, failure to acknowledge a problem etc. Very good and interesting reading. I hope somebody at Lexus will take notice.

I have written a letter to Lexus UK CEO but I don't know who he or she is or the address. (I've searched at Companies House.) If anyone knows a name and address could they PM me please?

John

[royoftherovers]

On 12/30/2016 at 9:01 PM, OldTrout said:

Thank you to those who have posted on some of the other threads about dampers, reliability, failure to acknowledge a problem etc. Very good and interesting reading. I hope somebody at Lexus will take notice.

I have written a letter to Lexus UK CEO but I don't know who he or she is or the address. (I've searched at Companies House.) If anyone knows a name and address could they PM me please?

John

PM sent to you John.

Looking at the Lexus Warranty wording, my view is that it is not possible for a claim to be both a Protected Part and a Wear and Tear item.

In your case the claim cannot be described as Wear and Tear as the Suspension is a Protected Part, which is by definition, included.

 

Good luck.

 

Regards

John

[Shahpor]

Isn't the Protected Part bit concerning MOT cover?

That part of the warranty looks completely useless anyway.

[royoftherovers]

1 hour ago, Shahpor said:

Isn't the Protected Part bit concerning MOT cover?

That part of the warranty looks completely useless anyway.

Not as I read it Shahpor.

See page 4, under Mechanical or Electrical Failure......first line....."Protected Part or MOT Protected Part.

 

Regards

John

[Shahpor]

Not quite sure where you mean.

I did find this on page 4 though:

"2.2 We will not pay for the cost of repairing or replacing any Protected Part that suffers a Mechanical or Electrical Failure as a result of wear and tear."

So back to square one it seems.

[royoftherovers]

5 hours ago, Shahpor said:

Not quite sure where you mean.

I did find this on page 4 though:

"2.2 We will not pay for the cost of repairing or replacing any Protected Part that suffers a Mechanical or Electrical Failure as a result of wear and tear."

So back to square one it seems.

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......

"Wear and tear is damage that naturally and inevitably occurs as a result of normal wear or aging. It is used in a legal context for such areas as warranty contracts from manufacturers, which usually stipulate that damage from wear and tear will not be covered."

Which leads to the interesting question..How can THE WARRANTY PROVIDER (Lexus) say,

On the one hand that it will provide

"manufacturers equivalent cover for approved vehicles up to 10 years of age, with less than 140,000 miles on the milometer at point of sale"

whilst on the other hand say that,

"we will not pay for the cost of repairing or replacing any Protected Part that suffers Mechanical or Electrical Failure as a result of wear and tear."

There is little if anything that can be construed as wear and tear within a two year period on a new vehicle, but there is a whole host of matters that can be construed as wear and tear on vehicles that are 10 years of age or have covered 140,000 miles.

However in the case of the Lexus Warranty

Lexus;

* inspects (or is assumed to have inspected)  the vehicle prior to accepting it as eligible for warranty cover (and therefore had the opportunity to identify and inform the vehicle owner of matters that would be construed as wear and tear)

* charges the sum of £1095 for the inclusion of the vehicle under warranty cover, and

* offers "manufacturer equivalent cover for approved vehicles"

It is my contention therefore that it is unreasonable and inequitable  for Lexus to seek to escape its contractual obligations by referring to a form of words contained in one and a half lines of text on page 6 of a 12 page document and which in my view show a blatant disregard for its contractual obligations and for the owners of Lexus vehicles.    

I advise OLDTROUT and other Lexus owners if appropriate to 

*appeal any wear and tear decisions

*appeal to the Ombudsman if not satisfied,and

*seek legal advice if appropriate.

 

Regards

John