Hello
I hope I can finally get a definate answer from you good people with a dispute I have.
My MGF suffered a head gasket failure at 62k and my after market warranty company are refusing to pay because they deem it wear and tear.
However, the garage it is at have said this is nonsense as the head failure was secondary to what caused the failure-which I gather was some pipe problem becoming disconnected when being driven-and so it became a sudden mechanical breakdown.
I always check my car for overheating as this is a common problem with this car and just 5 months and 2k miles earlier I had a 60k main service at an MG dealer with other work costing £500.
Are the warranty company being unreasonable?
|
Typical of 3rd party mechanical warranties - Insurer looking for a way out. I was asked to prove servicing had been done on time when I made a claim - the claim was for a windscreen wiper failure on a C-Class - what had the servicing to do with the wiper motor?
Get a written assessment of the causes and the problem from your local garge and send it off to the Warranty Company...............If that fails get it fixed and armed with the garage assessment & your receipt for the work go to the small claims court.
It is cheaper for them to pay up than put a lawyer in to oppose your claim.
|
Most warranty companies won't pay for consequential loss anyway, so even of the pipe was a sudden mechanical failure (which it probably wasn't), the resultant head gasket was consequential.
If you can talk the outfit round, then your man probably won't do it for the money the warranty company are prepared to pay anyway. Being polite, I think it's called being over a barrel.
|
62,000 miles? You were lucky to have got that far!
My brother's factory built K series engined Caterham 7 did its first HG at three years old and 7,000 miles.
All MGF mechanicals and he drives the car very sedately for a Caterham Owner.
Its a well known fact that scrapyards are full of rovers in good nick with caput k series engines.
Shame because the MGF is a quite a pretty looking car.
|
|
I agree with Dave_N comments above, I'm not saying it is fair but I have heard it before where warranty companies will only pay for the part that failed, and not consquential loss thereafter. In my opinion these aftermarket warranties aren't worth having as they will try every trick in the book to avoid paying you out. It would be much better to put the money that you would be paying the warranty company into a bank account, and if you need to spend a lot of money on your car - such as this, then you have a decent pot available already. If you don't have to use the cash then at the end of the day it is still yours and you don't lose out as such.
|
|
|
|
Actually consequential loss is covered.
Not sure if I'm allowed to name the warranty company but it is the one that covers for wear and tear too (after 90 days).
And the mechanic has also said he has repaired many cars with hgf under this same warranty company with no probs. Although I've also been told by others that this warranty company try it on and see how far they can get away without paying too. Bunch of crooks.
|
Not sure if I'm allowed to name the warranty company
Not now that you've accused them of being a bunch of crooks.
DD. BR Moderator.
|
|
|
BTW, the hgf at 62k was the car's third in it's history but the first in my ownership.
Will get rid asap.
Giggitty, giggitty, gigg-it-ty.
|
|
|
Actually consequential loss is covered. Not sure if I'm allowed to name the warranty company but it is the one that covers for wear and tear too (after 90 days).
Now I'm confused. If they cover wear and tear, then why aren't they paying? Is it less than 90 days? If so, did you get it from a dealer, in which case the fault is deemed to have been there when you bought it.
|
|
This is the third time that the head gasket has gone on this car in 62k ??? I would definately be looking to offload it as soon as possible.
|
I bought the car when it was in a mess as the owner couldn't afford all the repairs needed which included a hgf. The final bill was for £1500 in April 06.
I called this warranty company before even buying the car and explained the situation as I was looking for cover in the event of anything happening in the future.
This warranty company told me that as long as there was a service taken within the last 12 months then they would cover it. They said the history of the car is not required as it would be deemed to be able to be covered at the point of buying a warranty, so long as there was a valid MOT and with a valid service which indicates a roadworthy vehicle.
I specifically mentioned the work needed being done, and the hgf, and the warranty company told me it wasn't a problem.
In July 06 I had a full main 60k service with about £400 of extra work to keep the car tip-top.
On the 1st January 07 I was finally able to afford a warranty with this company and I took one out.
On 30th March 07 the car had another hgf and they told me to take it to an approved garage which is what I did.
The warranty company are now saying that my claim is rejected due to wear and tear (as the claim just falls into the 90 day period).
However, the garage say this is nonsense as what they believe caused this hgf, some pipe work I gather, was brand new from April 06, at the last hgf, and all other parts were obviously new too.
The car has only done 4k since April 06 up until March 07, the time of the most recent hgf.
How can parts which have travelled so little be wear and tear?
Also, I had no idea of any problems as any MGF owner will be vigilant and check for any overheating every time they get in the car. The coolant and oil were always fine. My hgf happened after 140 miles of driving and pulling off the M4 near Newbury.
|
K series head gasket problems are all solveable, but go to K-series specialist.
What was the exact cause of HGF? Ask the garage to put it into writing, keep all the evidence and photos (catastrophic mechanical failure might be a suitable description); write to the warranty company setting out your claim, ask them to provide a positive response within 5 working days. Fax and send by recorded delivery. if the response is that the failure is due to wear and tear then ask the warranty company to tell you in writing what evidence they have to support their statement.
The AA/RAC used to provide expert opinion on issues like this; you should probably aim for a partial payout but (obviously) don't show your hand yet.
|
|
|
A tricky one then eh? I think that you are going to have a fight on your hands over this.
May I suggest that if the failed part was only fitted back in April 06, then you may have some comeback against the garage that did the work then. I was under the impression that when you have NEW parts fitted to your car that they are normally covered by a twelve month warranty, excluding wear and tear on the item. If it is a new part that has failed then try contacting the garage that did the work for you then. I'm not sure it will do you any good as the fundamental problems with the Rover K-series and overheating are down to poor design, rather than garages not doing good quality repairs. But it may be worth a try...
|
It is tricky but the warranty company are trying it on.
I am waiting for the warranty company to put things in writing. I have had some legal advice and it's been suggested that the garage who did the hgf in April couldn't be responsible as it is now beyond a 'reasonable time'- and they did the service in July which is after the repair in April that they did.
However, the legal advice I have had seems to be that a 'wear and tear' reason for refusing would be difficult for the warranty company to rely on considering the circumstances.
In fact, a mate of mine, who is a solicitor, rang up the warranty company last week and gave a similar made up scenario to me and said he had just bought a Freelander, which has an even worse record of hgf, and that it has just had a hgf repair but could he get cover for it and what about the wear and tear exclusion if he suffered another one within a short time?
The sales rep said no problems and that wear and tear wouldn't be an issue if it happened, say, 4 or 5k further down the road from the last hgf. He even said that it would be unlikely anyway so it's not a real cause for concern for them!
The warranty company are obviously accepting the risk.
Try calling them and see for yourself.
|
|
|
>>rather than garages not doing good quality repairs.
It may be poor design,but if the job was done properly it should last 2-3 years IMO.
--
Steve
|
>>It may be poor design,but if the job was done properly it should last 2-3 years IMO.
I'm not saying that the garage didn't do a good job, but the OP is hinting that it was a new part fitted last April failed and the head gasket blowing was consequential. Therefore unless the garage fitted it wrong, it was a poor quality part.
|
As I said in an earlier post, k series engines are so prone to failure it is little wonder MG Rover sunk like a stone.
Any car that does three head gaskets in 60,000 miles is certainly one to avoid!!!
Plastic dowels, long head bolts and a small water capacity in the cooling system in the first place is sadly destined to end in failure : o (
|
As was poor tolerancing and a total lack of understanding of the need to test for and design out as far as is possible the effects of thermal cycling.
They tried to copy the PSA Al block wet liner engines without employing engineers with the proper know-how.
659.
|
>>As I said in an earlier post, k series engines are so prone to failure it is little wonder MG Rover sunk like a stone.
Any car that does three head gaskets in 60,000 miles is certainly one to avoid!!!
Plastic dowels, long head bolts and a small water capacity in the cooling system in the first place is sadly destined to end in failure : o (
Would be nice to hear something we dont know.
Which pipe was it thats caused all the H/G failures
--
Steve
|
Which pipe was it thats caused all the H/G failures -- Steve
the man smoking it? ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
