"Breakdown means the sudden and unexpected failure of a part arising from any permanent mechanical, electrical or electronic fault, which causes the part to stop working, and means that it needs repairing or replacing before it will work properly."
What is not insured
(a) Breakdown of any insured part where the Breakdown of that part is caused primarily or in whole by wear and tear.
(b) Damage to any insured part caused by Breakdown of an excluded part where the Breakdown of that excluded part is caused primarily or in whole by wear and tear.
Is Warranty Direct any good? Lots of clever wording in the policy.Now say I have 8 year old car with 70k on the clock and a warranty direct policy. How do you define if a part failure is "sudden and unexpected" on an 8yr old 70k car? Their policies cover cars upto 12yrs old/120,000 miles.
They make it sound like wear and tear is covered. But what they actually say is "cover against damage caused by wear and tear" Which isnt the same thing is it.
Although it does cover timing belts failing early. Full details of the policy are here
formatting link
Are there any better warranty companies, or are they all a waste of time?
It follows that *on average* repair costs will be less than the annual premium, otherwise the companies would go out of business. Of course these repair costs, if approved, will be at garage rates rather than diy prices, so you ain't going to get much.
I've always *assumed* that only if you actually breakdown and then need recovering, that this fault then *might* be covered by the warranty. I believe a condition of these warranties is that you have to have your vehicle properly serviced, which should preclude a breakdown caused by wear and tear.
Do they? You've listed that as number 1 in stuff not covered. Like most "extended warranties", it's not worth a toss and the whole sector is due for a Parliamentary Investigation very soon.
*Very* much less. These insurance warranties usually pay a commission to the seller. And the insurance company has overheads and has to make a profit. So many work on only paying out 10% of the premiums. Would you gamble your last quid on a horse with those odds?
WD are supposed to be better than many of the competition. I guess it is hard to word a policy such that it covers genuine unexpected breakdowns without being a carte blanche to cover all the repair bills on an old banger! But I'd still start from the assumption that a payout is a bonus!
Warranty Direct not worth the paper its written on, we've had dealings with them in the past, its come down now to the customer paying us for the warranty work and for them having the hassle of getting the money back, they certainly don't pay the going labour rate and try and screw us down on I.C.M.E times, not the customers fault I know, but still a pain in the arse !!!
So previously you were a warranty direct approved garage where you billed warranty direct directly as opposed to the customer having to pay the bill and claim later?
How do you or they determine if a failed part on an 8 yr/70k old car is wear or tear or sudden and unexpected? That must be very hard to argue it is sudden and unexpected rather than primarily wear and tear.
yes that was the case regarding billing, but they took too long to pay a claim after they had issued a authoriastion number and the claim had been submitted by ourselves.
if there is any " dispute " regarding a claim, they will send an independent assessor to check the failed item out, we've had in the past gearboxes ect fail were we've had to strip & report or as i said earlier an assessor will visit.
That's how I read it as well. And I agree about these warranty things, even if something fails in the warranty period eg. 3 months or what ever from when you bought the car some garages (Warners in Gloucester for one) can be obstinate about coughing up for repair work.
My story is about a badly leaking power steering rack. The warranty company insisted I use their repairer which was some ten miles away. The rack was leaking so badly the car couldn't be driven. So I had to pay for a low loader - not covered. Their repairer insisted the pump and one hose had to be replaced too - although no signs of leaks from those earlier. Not covered - only one claim at a time. Then there was the cost of the consumables. Bolts gaskets fluid etc. They knew how to pile it on.
All in all, it would have been much cheaper paying for a local place to just replace the rack. Ignoring the cost of the 'warranty'.
Warners or their insurers refused to pay for all the ancillary work like testing the head for flatness/cracks after the gasket went due to a sludged up radiator. Of course they did the work first *then* told me it wasn't covered. The extra work came to £160 and although I paid it at the time as I wanted to get home, I raised Cain afterwards and got most of my money back, two free services and an MOT out of them. If they had played fair in the first place it would have cost them a lot less.
I meant from the wording in the advertisements they use in car magazines. It says "Cover against failure of worn parts". It also says "Warranty Direct covers you against the cost of parts & labour following a mechanical or electrical failure putting an end to unplanned repair bills."
So they are saying if you take out a warranty with them your putting an end to unplanned repair bills of your car? Thats simply plain untrue.
Well if they claim that they "Cover against failure of worn parts" then that's a bit of a bullshit statement anyway - how does a worn part "fail" anyway? If it's worn it should be replaced - failing implies that it doesn't do its job properly, but something like a worn brake pad should be replaced before it gets down to the metal.
Or are you one of these people that's living in a fantasy world, and counts things like brake discs/pads/tyres etc, as "unplanned repair bills" ??
I am sure they could be plenty of unplanned repair bills on things the warranty doesn't cover. If you read the advertisements and the blurb on the website and then read the actually wording of the policy
This is what the website says about wear and tear. Wear & Tear Your policy will cover your car against failure of covered parts as a result of wear and tear as soon as you have been on cover with us for
90 days. Upon renewal, this significant benefit obviously applies from day one. If your vehicle has a mileage of less than 60,000 we will pay the full cost of parts and labour. For cars over 60,000, the table below shows the percentage we will pay depending on the vehicles mileage at the time of breakdown. We always pay the labour cost in full.
Mileage Parts Labour Up to 60,000 miles 100% 100% Up to 70,000 miles 90% 100% Up to 80,000 miles 80% 100% Up to 90,000 miles 70% 100% Up to 100,000 miles 60% 100% Over 100,000 miles 50% 100%
With alternative warranties disputes often arise in respect of wear and tear because they incorporate a "wear and tear" exclusion clause. At the time of any claim it is all too easy for the administrator to refuse your claim by saying; "of course it's broken, the car's done
70,000 miles and it's worn out." Our simple chart let's you know exactly where you stand from day one, avoiding dispute and annoyance on your part. This policy is unique to Warranty Direct and reflects our position as industry leaders for customer service and satisfaction.
A good example of a wear related failure is a leaking water pump, which has not stopped working Ð it is leaking as a result of worn bearings and the pump will not be covered by a warranty policy that does not cover failure caused by wear.
As a guide you need to assume that 30% of the premium you pay goes towards this valuable benefit. When considering Warranty Direct make sure you apply this additional 30% to the premium quoted by any other company to give you an accurate comparison.
But the actual policy says
What is not insured
(a) Breakdown of any insured part where the Breakdown of that part is caused primarily or in whole by wear and tear.
(b) Damage to any insured part caused by Breakdown of an excluded part where the Breakdown of that excluded part is caused primarily or in whole by wear and tear.
Make sense of that?
formatting link
Seems good what they cover in the blurb but reading the actually policy would make it seem difficult to force them to pay up. I mean on an 8 yr old car, what failure could be could be sudden and unexpected? Everything is going to be worn to some extent if its done 70k.
You have to remember just because a part is worn doesn't mean it needs replacing.
I discovered the reason for my confusion. It starts in the policy the failure from wear and tear is excluded for the first 90 days.Presumably it is covered after that (% reduced after 60k)
formatting link
6 Improving the condition of the vehicle If you make a valid claim, it is not our aim to put you in a better financial position than before the claim. So, in certain circumstances, where replacement parts are fitted to replace old worn parts which have suffered a breakdown, and this results in your vehicle being in a better condition than it was before the breakdown, you must pay towards the cost of the repairs. For vehicles above
60,000 miles, the following table shows the percentage of the repair cost we will pay depending on the vehicle's mileage at the time of the breakdown. This will not apply to labour charges.
Mileage Parts Labour Up to 60,000 miles 100% 100% Up to 70,000 miles 90% 100% Up to 80,000 miles 80% 100% Up to 90,000 miles 70% 100% Up to 100,000 miles 60% 100% Over 100,000 miles 50% 100%
Although in the advert it states the clutch is covered, but in the policy it says
Whats not covered
16 Burnt or worn-out clutch parts, and the build-up of carbon deposits (including burnt or carbonised valves and removing carbon deposits).
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.