My apologies for the long post. The aim is to share my experience in getting Ford to pay for repairs under their perforation warranty, to corrosion starting in the bottom seams of the rear two doors on my 2001 Ford Focus. Others may find my experience, approach and success of use when dealing with Ford.
HISTORY. March 2008 - Whilst washing my car, I noticed rust at the bottom of the nearside rear door, on further examination, this had started from a failure in the inside panel seam. On investigating the other doors, the offside rear door was exhibiting the same problem. March 2008 - I raised the problem with a local (very poor service) Ford dealer, who took the details and submitted a single warranty claim for both doors to Ford. May 2008 - Dealer wrote to me, rejecting the claim with the following words ?from the images supplied I feel this has been neglected & allowed to deteriorate for a period of time, this should have been brought to the dealers attention before it reached such and advanced state?. June 2008 - I wrote to the CEO of Ford UK (no one in Ford will discuss warranty claims) which resulted in contact from the 'executive office'. Following an initial further rejection of my claim, they requested the separate submission of a warranty claim for the less affected offside door, which was then approved for replacement. September 2008 - warranty repair of offside door, plus replacement of nearside door paid for by myself GBP727.99. I then wrote again to the Ford CEO requesting a refund of my costs. This was rejected. I raised a small claims action, initial cost GBP60. December 2008 - no settlement, so paid a further GBP75 to proceed to court, along with presenting to court a comprehensive statement of evidence. January 2009 - Ford offered half the cost. This I rejected. February 2009 - Ford sent a letter to court stating they did not intend attending, and relying on their earlier very simplistic statement of evidence. The judge decided very quickly in my favour, and ordered Ford to pay the repair costs, court costs, interest on money since September and my costs. Ford paid within about 7 days.
My Statement of Evidence
1.I, Mr xx, the Claimant, claim the recovery of the GBP727.99 repair costs undertaken as a result of the Ford Motor Companies, the Defendant's, failure to honour the perforation warranty relating to the Ford Focus Registration Number xxx xxx. 2.The vehicle has been owned by the Claimant from new, and is still the registered owner, as shown in the copy of the DVLA Registration Certificate attached. 3.The conditions of the perforation warranty are shown in the copy of page 3 of the original Warranty and Service Guide attached. Namely ?To enjoy continued protection, the vehicle bodywork must be cared for as described in the owner literature. Any accidental damage must be repaired using genuine Ford parts or parts of matching quality. You should contact your Ford dealer promptly if any rusting becomes evident.? 4.The Claimant states that no repairs had been undertaken to the near side rear passenger door at any time since purchase, prior to the door replacement undertaken which gives rise to this claim. The claimant contends that this is not disputed, as the car was checked by the Defendant's agents as part of the warranty claim process. 5.A copy of Page 184 of the Focus Owner's Guide is attached, covering Maintenance & Care ? Body paintwork preservation. 6.The Claimant states that the car has been externally waxed, normally once a year from new using the superior protection offered by AutoGlym Super Resin Polish and Extra Gloss Protection with interim washes as appropriate and necessary. 7.The Claimant states that the rusting problems were brought to the attention of a local Ford Dealer, promptly, once the rust had become evident on the external bodywork of the vehicle. A chronological diary of the warranty claim process undertaken is attached. 8.The Claimant further states that he has had no reason to delay the claim once the corrosion became evident. A key factor in the buying decision for the Focus rather than a Honda Civic in 2001 was the 12 year perforation warranty on the Focus, compared with 6 years for similar cover provided by Honda. The Claimant was therefore well aware of the cover provided. 9.The Claimant further states that at no time has any passenger, mechanic or external observer of the vehicle brought door rusting to the attention of the Claimant. 10.The Claimant contends that the damage to the rear inside passenger door was as a result of a recognised manufacturing weakness, as vouched for by extracts from one of a number of related Ford Technical Service Bulletin (attached) and the fact that Ford accepted the warranty claim for very similar damage to the rear offside passenger door on the same vehicle; a perforation warranty claim for which was made at the same time as the door which is the subject of this claim. 11.The Claimant contends that is not reasonable to expect the owner of a modern car, with 12 years perforation warranty to expect to find rust under the door bottoms due to a manufacturing problem, let alone make efforts to look for it. 12.The Claimant contends that it is more reasonable to expect corrosion to become evident when the corrosion moves to the outside skin of the vehicle, which is what occurred in this instance. 13.The Defendant suggests that the ?rusting was evident long before it was reported to the dealership?. 14.The Claimant contends that the level of evident corrosion between the offside rear door, accepted by the Defendant as a warranty claim, and the near side rear door they rejected, is not reasonably significant. Photographs of the offside rear door, from April, are attached, namely: IMG_1398.jpg and IMG_1405.jpg. These can be compared with photographs of the nearside rear door, from April: IMG_1400.jpg to IMG_1405.jpg. The particular difference is the corrosion evident on the external skin of the near side door in IMG_1405.jpg. 15.Given the Defendant's recommended maintenance and care for Body paintwork preservation, namely ?Wax the body paintwork of your vehicle once or twice a year?, the Claimant contends that it would reasonable for a year to pass between attending to the external bodywork of the vehicle. At April 2008, as recorded in the photograph IMG_1405.jpg only one area of external bodywork rust was evident on the near side door. As can be seen in photograph IMG_1823.jpg from November, further areas of rust are now externally evident; a period of 7 months. 16.The Defendant submits that the Claimant ?may be negligent in failing to inspect the vehicle regularly or at all for any signs of rusting?. 17.The Claimant contends that there is no requirement within the terms of the perforation warranty for the owner to ?inspect? the vehicle for signs of rusting relating to the upper bodywork of the vehicle. 18.The Claimant states that the vehicle is most frequently used for singular personal use, with access to the vehicle being almost exclusively via the front offside door, with accompanying regular use of the boot. It is unlikely therefore that the Claimant would have cause or reason to find corrosion restricted to the inside lower seam of the rear doors, particularly the near side door. 19.The Claimant also believes that Ford have previously accepted and repaired perforation warranty corrosion worse than that on this vehicle. Key extracts from a web based discussion, accessible via the URLI, Mr xx, the Claimant, believe that the facts contained in this statement of evidence are true.
NOTES: a) The above approach would be relevant to Ford vehicles prior to their changing the warranty requirement of yearly body work checks. b) I dont believe the judge actually considered the unfair terms regulations, as the rest of my statement was sufficient, however, for others, I feel that use of the unfair terms legislation may be a very powerful argument.
Hope this is of help to others who get the runaround from Ford.
Paul R