Warranty claim refused

[royoftherovers]

Hey Paul, how on earth did we move from Contractual matters to Audio ?

Can you fix my poorly 1970`s B&O 3000 SYSTEM ?

 

Regards

John

[GSLV6]

Probably!   Sorry for the thread drift!

[steve2006]

On 03/01/2017 at 10:43 AM, 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

The Yen is weakening ( was around 126.00 now 147.00 to the pound) so they have increased prices to compensate no doubt.

[steve2006]

1 hour ago, GSLV6 said:

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.

 

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!

 

There was one exception regarding valves in that the old TV screens were technically valves but were always referred to as CRTs or Cathode Ray Tubes.....now the car related bit....a lot of the CRTs were produced by Mazda!

[OldTrout]

Update to the original topic of warranty refused.

I wrote to Mr Paul Van der Burgh managing director of Lexus (GB) with a copy to Mr Akio Toyota the President of Toyota.

I had an immediate reply from the GB end saying they would look into the matter and a resolution was offered less than 48hrs. later.

The reply said that they agreed with the decision of The Warranty Group. It further added

"I appreciate your views that you believe this is a premature failure to the shock absorbers. Unfortunately, we are not in agreement as we believe that to have them replaced at this age and mileage is not indicative of a manufacturing defect nor is it unreasonable for these components to need replacing.  I would convey that shock absorbers do not have an indefinite lifespan and are a consumable item."

However they did make a fair offer to replace all four dampers for very much less than I can now buy the dampers so I accepted. It goes for repair on January 23rd.
I asked that the wording on the warranty be clarified in respect of dampers. They replied to say they would pass this to the warranty company. (If I have understood correctly, the warranty company is owned by Toyota but the administration of the warranty is done by The Warranty Group which is independent.)

I am sorry if I have let some of you down. I could have declined the offer and also taken the case to the ombudsman. I have had five months of hassle during which time I have avoided driving as much as possible - just 1400 miles. The MOT becomes due next month and I assume it would have failed on all four dampers. Managing without a car at all would have been even more difficult.

John

GLV6: Radford. Nows there's a name from the past. Are they still in business?

Steve206: I am old enough to remember Sabrina cathode ray tubes. Their slogan was "well out in front". 

[Britprius]

For people to to young to remember the 50's there was an "actress" named Sabrina "rather in the style of Marilyn Monroe", and possibly where the well out in front came from. No political correctness back then.

I started my career on building valve amplifiers. Oh for the days of ECC82's (double triode), EL84's (output pentode), EZ81 (double diode rectifier), and the like. Assembling with lead solder, Fluxite, and a Henley Solon soldering iron. using a mains transformer with 350-0-350 volts output that could give you a real kick if you were not paying attention.

Many people in the 50's and early 60's built there own amps often from kits produced by companies such as "Leak". This being much cheaper to get good results because of the purchase tax on so called luxury goods. No VAT back then.

John.

[Malc]

On 04/01/2017 at 9:10 PM, steve2006 said:

There was one exception regarding valves in that the old TV screens were technically valves but were always referred to as CRTs or Cathode Ray Tubes.....now the car related bit....a lot of the CRTs were produced by Mazda!

I remember my parents had a set of Xmas tree lights by Mazda ( from maybe 60 years ago now ! )

Malc

[royoftherovers]

TV said "Mazda lamps stay brighter longer, always ask for Mazda", just before the advert for Murraymints !!

 

Regards

John

[Shahpor]

Well, I suppose that is a reasonable result considering.  I certainly don't blame you for taking the deal since I would want the whole thing sorted and the car back to full working order as soon as possible as well.

While I don't disagree with their statement regarding the longevity of dampers, like you say, clarification on how old and used they consider acceptable would be nice.

[GSLV6]

On 15/01/2017 at 7:04 PM, OldTrout said:

Update to the original topic of warranty refused.

I wrote to Mr Paul Van der Burgh managing director of Lexus (GB) with a copy to Mr Akio Toyota the President of Toyota.

I had an immediate reply from the GB end saying they would look into the matter and a resolution was offered less than 48hrs. later.

The reply said that they agreed with the decision of The Warranty Group. It further added

"I appreciate your views that you believe this is a premature failure to the shock absorbers. Unfortunately, we are not in agreement as we believe that to have them replaced at this age and mileage is not indicative of a manufacturing defect nor is it unreasonable for these components to need replacing.  I would convey that shock absorbers do not have an indefinite lifespan and are a consumable item."

However they did make a fair offer to replace all four dampers for very much less than I can now buy the dampers so I accepted. It goes for repair on January 23rd.
I asked that the wording on the warranty be clarified in respect of dampers. They replied to say they would pass this to the warranty company. (If I have understood correctly, the warranty company is owned by Toyota but the administration of the warranty is done by The Warranty Group which is independent.)

I am sorry if I have let some of you down. I could have declined the offer and also taken the case to the ombudsman. I have had five months of hassle during which time I have avoided driving as much as possible - just 1400 miles. The MOT becomes due next month and I assume it would have failed on all four dampers. Managing without a car at all would have been even more difficult.

John

GLV6: Radford. Nows there's a name from the past. Are they still in business?

Steve206: I am old enough to remember Sabrina cathode ray tubes. Their slogan was "well out in front". 

Glad you got a resolution Jon, even if it isn't the one really wanted.  All of this could have been avoided if they simply listed shock absorbers as a mileage limited item on the warranty, which they ought to.  Mine went under 70K miles on the GS!

Ahh, Radford.  Peter Comeau one of the current directors of the IAG group and of former Heybrook and Quad fame now owns the Radford name, just not the designs and blueprints to transformer windings.  A company called Radford Revival owns those and has the specifications for everything.  They were given to them as one of the owners of Radford Revival worked with or was friends with John Widgery, latterly of Radford in Bristol, and whilst the name was sold off separately, the designs were not.

Peter was very supportive of the Guys behind Radford Revival (Will and Steve Moores), and I sat in on a meeting a few years back between Peter and Will as William is a close personal friend of mine (for my sins, I am also a Hifi designer and owner of another hifi business, manufacturing other components).  Peter was delighted to support Will and Steve and they had his full backing to push on with Radford Revival, whose aims are to reproduce exact replicas of the series 3 STA15 and STA25 amplifiers.  They also manufacture the Series 5, and whilst the circuit is identical to the original, there have been improvements in the quality of the transformers, casework (better finished and more robust) and wiring (new far better PCBs) and with newly added fault protection.

What makes them unique is that compared to even the best high-end amps on the market today costing many thousands of pounds, the STA25 exhibits a fraction of the output impedance of most valve amplifiers so is able to drive difficult speaker loads and has a vice like grip on bass.  They have a website, if you Google Radford Revival, it'll take you there.  Will and I (with my loudspeaker designs) may be joining forces with a few other British hifi manufacturers, Including TRON Audio next year to present an open day entitled "Best of British" ("BoB" day!)to demonstrate that we can compete in sound quality terms, with the best of them.  

[OldTrout]

Post script 1:

The replacement dampers were fitted on 23rd January (two days short of five months). The ride home was uneventful on the relatively good surfaced M4 and A34. Then I got to Oxford. The ride over what passes for roads in this city was hugely improved. So much so that if I was not also a cyclist I would have wondered if my verdict on the roads was overly severe. It's not. The roads are awful. The 1989 dirt road up to the summit of Pikes Pike in Colorado was a billiard table in comparison.

Post script 2:

Yesterday I had an email from The Warranty Group. I had written to them on December 22nd after they mailed me to say they were pleased they had resolved all my issues but if anything was outstanding they would do their "utmost" to resolve it to my satisfaction. Their utmost was not very good so I wrote to Lexus(GB) and got a resolution to my complaints within 48hrs. After just over a month (how long would quickly have taken?) they just repeated themselves:

As wear, in service deterioration, is not supported by your warranty this is the reason we are unable to assist with your vehicle repair.        

Additionally, our Motor Team Manager has confirmed the extract from your terms regarding this: 

''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.''

 

 

 

 

[Shahpor]

Good to hear your car is working well.

Not so good with the distinctly unhelpful reply from The Warranty Group.  I assume you want done with this issue and have left it at that with the warranty people then?

[OldTrout]

Yes the affair is resolved.

I had assumed TWG had forgotten or deliberately ignored my last letter. Over a month when doing their utmost says it all. I hope I have nothing to do with them ever again.

John