|
All I can suggest is that you go through the Warranty Company appeal process, making it very clear that if they still rule against you then you will take it to independent arbitration via FSA/whatever body now controls these matters.
Details of the appeal process and of whatever body deals with arbitration matters should be in your warranty handbook, or the warranty co website, or from them on request.
|
|
Thanks a lot. I will certainly not b dropping this one yet, as I genuinely think it's a case of them trying it on.
|
|
Have you carried out regular (dipstick) oil level checks after the last Jan 16 service and if so, was the oil level found to be adequate?
|
|
No, i haven't done regular dipstick checks, but I know that this vehicle flags oil levels as we have had an overfill situation before...
|
No, i haven't done regular dipstick checks, but I know that this vehicle flags oil levels as we have had an overfill situation before...
So, you have no idea how much oil was in the engine?
My modern cars have all manner of monitors and sensors but the dipstick and levels get checked on each every week, just like the old ones when they are in use. It's just the basics of owning a complex mechanical device. Sorry, that's the way it is.
|
No, i haven't done regular dipstick checks, but I know that this vehicle flags oil levels as we have had an overfill situation before...
So, you have no idea how much oil was in the engine? My modern cars have all manner of monitors and sensors but the dipstick and levels get checked on each every week, just like the old ones when they are in use. It's just the basics of owning a complex mechanical device. Sorry, that's the way it is.
That's harsh - an increasing number of cars have no oil dipstick - so rely totally on electronic monitoring.
My own VW will tell me on the central display what the level is, IF it's between maximum and minimum but no measure of overfill or underfill.
|
No, i haven't done regular dipstick checks, but I know that this vehicle flags oil levels as we have had an overfill situation before...
So, you have no idea how much oil was in the engine? My modern cars have all manner of monitors and sensors but the dipstick and levels get checked on each every week, just like the old ones when they are in use. It's just the basics of owning a complex mechanical device. Sorry, that's the way it is.
That's harsh - an increasing number of cars have no oil dipstick - so rely totally on electronic monitoring.
My own VW will tell me on the central display what the level is, IF it's between maximum and minimum but no measure of overfill or underfill.
But this car does have a dipstick. As do all of mine and the ones my company runs. The two oldies aside none of the cars is more than 15 months old.
You should say, some misguided manufacturers are selling cars without a way of checking visually that there is sufficient oil.
By the time your 'sensor' cottons on you may have ruined your engine.
Like other pointless 'developments' we the consumers should just boycott them.
|
|
|
|
|
@ Bianconeri
I take your point, and fair enough, but the turbo would have gone first if the oil was "too low". We checked it once the knocking sound started and it was low but not below the low mark on the dipstick...
Edited by Jaimin Jethwa on 02/11/2016 at 10:21
|
|
|
|
|
|
So if the cause of the failure wasn't oil related...........what did cause it?
If you make this 'legal' the question will at some point be put to you. Magistrates and judges are not Engineers and you will need a very good answer and equally good evidence to support it to stand any chance of having the claim upheld.
|
So if the cause of the failure wasn't oil related...........what did cause it?
If you make this 'legal' the question will at some point be put to you. Magistrates and judges are not Engineers and you will need a very good answer and equally good evidence to support it to stand any chance of having the claim upheld.
In this case, if the fault should be covered by the warranty, then it is up to the warranty provider to show that the owner's acts or omissions caused the fault, and it should not be covered by the warranty.
That is why I initially recommended that the OP go through the warranty co. appeals process, followed by ombudsman. Assuming that the OP has been accurate and complete in their description of matters, their chances of getting the warranty co. to pay should be reasonable, at least.
|
|
If the owner is disputing, the onus is on him to prove otherwise, and to prove otherwise he needs evidence to support any statement or claim he makes to the contary. Its as simple as that.
"I know what didnt cause it but I dont know what did".....the legall profession dont as a rule recognise paradoxes.
|
|
The owner is within their rights to dispute because the warranty company don't seem at all clear as to exactly WHY the engine failed.
If you read the original post, then the warranty company are claiming that the engine failed due to 'low oil or heavily carbonised oil', without making clear exactly which is to blame, or which of their 2 conditions have been breached.
So the OP goes back to them, asks them to re-visit their decision, on the basis that maintenance had been carried out as required (so no reason for the oil to be so heavily carbonised), and that the car was not showing excessively low oil level on the dipstick when checked. As such, the only reasonable explanation is that a failure within the engine caused the loss and/or carbonisation of the oil.
I personally think they're trying it on. Like a lot of warranty companies. Push, threaten them with the ombudsman (it's a financial product, so comes under the FSA, who are not people they want to get on the wrong side of), and they tend to back down.
|
|
According to what the owner has reported, Mapfre Warranty has set out reasons, in the terms of the warranty, why, in the opinion of the engineer who inspected the engine, it failed.
The owner has not physically checked the oil after the vehicle was serviced in Jan 16 to establish if the level was adequate and to confirm whether fresh oil had been put in the engine, when it was allegedly changed.
Had these checks been carried out and found to be satisfactory, the owner would have a sound basis on which to challenge the refusal by Mapfre Warranty to settle the claim.
But on the information provided so far, it would appear that Mapfre Warranty has a sound argument for rejecting the claim.
|
|
That is ridiculous. You are actually seriously suggesting that a warranty Co. has the right to reject a claim if you haven't physically checked whether the servicing that you've paid to be carried out, has been carried out. That is laughable.
And even if the person had checked if the oil really has been changed, they've no way of checking if the oil filter has been changed, do they ?
Do you then reject a claim on the basis that, even though they've checked that the oil was brand new, they don't know that the garage used the correct grade of oil, as they didn't get a full lab analysis of said oil, so the garage could be lying about the grade of oil used.
As I say, ridiculous and laughable.
|
|
|
|
If the owner is disputing, the onus is on him to prove otherwise, and to prove otherwise he needs evidence to support any statement or claim he makes to the contary. Its as simple as that.
"I know what didnt cause it but I dont know what did".....the legall profession dont as a rule recognise paradoxes.
That does apply to Sale Of Goods disputes - but this isn't one, it's a contract dispute - in principle, civil courts would rule "on the balance of probability".
|
|
The warranty company is facing a massive bill for a replacement engine, so is it any wonder they’ve rejected the claim? The cost could be more than the value of the car.
This is what I don’t like about aftermarket warranties - happy to take uyour money, but claiming is like blood from a stone, with everything either black or white.
I’ve had personal experience of a manufacturers warranty, and cant fault it, but some will have had problems. As for the appeal procedure, is it theirs? Is it independent and run by whom? Will you get a fair hearing? Even so, you need evidence to prove the warranty company wrong.
Not everyone is capable of checking oil levels, and if you’ve a Mini, you’ll know how rubbish the dipstick is even if you do check.
How has the engineer established the oil is carbonized? Did he test it? If so it questions the oil change 6 months previously.
My view is that they are flying a kite and hope the OP will go away. I’ve a leased Nissan Juke, and service levels are 18k, if it was my own car, I’d have changed the oil at 10k. I do check my levels every 2 weeks, but it's not my car so I dont worry if something goes bang.
The solution may lie in finding a suitably qualified engineer who specializes in Volvo diesel engines, and who is prepared to not only give a written report but be prepared to stand up in court, if that’s the way it goes.
If it costs £500 for an independent engineer and you win, all well and good. If you loose, it’s an extra £500 on top of replacement used engine or a repair.
|
|
The complaints department, who normally have up to 8 weeks to respond, have already responded, declining the claim. They are basing it on the assessor's report which I paste verbatim for any "engine gurus" to comment on:
“Information available is limited. However, the evidence seen in this inspection is consistent with poor piston ring performance mainly in No1 cylinder. A combination of unfavourable operating conditions is likely to have resulted in poor cylinder sealing along with improper combustion in No1 cylinder. “Bore wash” due to unburnt fuel passing the piston has undoubtedly occurred and this implies very unfavourable conditions in No1 cylinder, including the possibility of abnormal transient forces due to poor lubrication and/or the ingestion of soot clumps from the inlet manifold. A combination of accelerated general wear and some additional stress due to poor No1 cylinder performance has then resulted in failure of No1 big-end bearing. Loss of oil supply to other bearings has then occurred, leading to general bearing damage around the engine. Disproportionately accelerated bearing and cylinder wear is seen, along with the strong suspicion of fuel injector and combustion issues.
Therefore: The cause of failure in this case is the build-up of general soot contamination in several areas of the engine due to a persistently unfavourable engine operation regime and despite and otherwise generally acceptable reported service schedule. This is the result of several years of persistently unfavourable operating conditions, culminating with an abnormally short engine lifespan. We would also draw your attention paragraph 2 observations ECU data"
They add that:
The Insurer will not cover claims caused by, or arising from or in connection with the following:
5e) progressive failures;
14. Any Mechanical or Electrical Breakdown resulting from : -
e) lack of coolant, lubricant or hydraulic fluids;
g) ingress of foreign matter into fuel, lubricants or cooling system;
The next "step" is the FSA and Ombudsman... I wonder if anyone thinks it's worth it?
Edited by jjkenya on 04/11/2016 at 17:48
|
|
'Several years of unfavourable operating conditions', 'despite a generally acceptable service schedule' ... you only bought the car in January 2015.
They took on the risk, and accepted the premium. They should KNOW the risks, the likely fail points, and assess their premiums accordingly.
You do not appear to have been negligent in your actions.
The ombudsman costs you nothing, so is automatically worthwhile (do note that it does cost the warranty company a few hundred pounds, however, money which they can't get back, whether they win or lose). I suggest you ask them for a letter of deadlock, and proceed to the ombudsman.
|
|
There's language in that report I'd call speculative.
They admit infomation is limited, so I guess have not taken the head off? Or have they? But they are certain bore wash has occurred, so how do they arrive at that theory? There's a lot of weasel words in that theory, aimed at confusuing, possibly?
What does para 2 say about ECU data? Again, maybe speculation and mistierpretation?
Still think they are guessing, trying to avoid paying as it will cost them rather than you, I'd go the way of the ombudsman - but get your own engines expert to give his view.
I suspect as you've not done this, so the conversation is a bit one-sided, and you've nothing to fight back with.
It would also be interesting whether any other forum members have had dealings with this company and what the outcome was. Is there a pattern of claim rejection?
|
|
Reply from Mapfre on the ECU information:
“A basic OBD-II diagnostic device was connected to the Electronic Control Unit (ECU) but returned error codes generally attributable to the dismantled state of the engine rather than suggestive of causes of failure. The unit indicated that the most recent error code clear command had been sent to the ECU 14600km prior to this inspection – indicating that significant errors had not been generated for some time.”
The car was serviced after the Code Clear... I have also asked for the error codes in question.
|
|
So, in the words of the warranty company, the 'basic' OBD-2 device (and they really are basic, and need an expert to make sense of the readings obtianed), got readings that were 9,000 miles old from the systems, and no further problems were then indicated until the engine self-destructed.
Write to them by email - NOW. Inform them that you wish to take the case to the ombudsman, you refuse to accept their version of events and that the engine failure should not be covered by the warranty, and ask them for a 'letter of deadlock'.
You have carried out servicing as required. You do not appear to have been negligent in your care and maintenance of the vehicle. The warranty company took on the risk, and accepted the premium paid. They should pay out, and I would imagine the ombudsman will view it the same way.
Stop faffing about, and get the steel-toecapped boots on.
|
|
I'm pretty sure that a 2008 XC90 D5 will have an electronic oil level sensor.
This is there mainly to measure if the oil has got too high a level due to repeated DPF generations but if memory serves me right if it is too low it will pop a message up on the dash saying "Engine Service Required" or something similar.
It should also store a code in the car which can be read off with diagnostics although you may need a proper Volvo VIDA reader to do it.
It might be worth checking that this is the case with Volvo because, if the sensor is present, then if the message didn't come up and/or there is no code stored then there is good evidence the oil level was fine.
|
|
I have just looked this up for you on VIDA.
On the assumption that this is a D5 185 it should have the D5244T4 engine type. This engine does have an oil level sensor.
It is quite easy to confirm it does - just have a look at the bottom of the sump and you'll see a squarish black plastic item with an electronic connector on it screwed into the bottom.
On a XC90 this monitors oil level and temperature.
If the oil level is too low it logs a code "ECM-5660: Signal Too Low". It can also possibly log this if the oil sensor fails and doesn't provide a signal. If it stores "ECM-5660: Signal Too High" you have too much oil.
Once logged it will keep it stored until cleared. If the code was not present in the car when it broke down it seems strong evidence to me that (a) the oil sensor was working and (b) the level was not too low.
|
|
Just to add one more thing: ANY modern diesel with a DPF will have some bore wash as that is how the DPF regeneration is done.
|
Just to add one more thing: ANY modern diesel with a DPF will have some bore wash as that is how the DPF regeneration is done.
That is extremely helpful, thanks.
I have had to purchase a breaker engine because I need the car back on the road. Remanufactured was too expensive and new was £5k which I don't have...
I have gone to the Ombudsman... will see where we are within the next 8 weeks.
|
|
Many years late but in case anyone picks this up in the future and wants to know the outcome -
Hello 1 and all.
The car was finally received back from Volvo yesterday. The engine was replaced under warranty, and they paid me a small compensatory sum for the inconvenience. I had to pay for the fuel pipes and my wipers and brakes were needing replacement as they'd sat idle so long... I was too tired to fight that battle.
I must say that almost 6 months without our car has been a real test (understatement of the year) and I wish there was more of a penalty for the warranty company who should have paid out in September 2016...
Regardless, the car is back, and I have to openly thanks:
1. everyone in this thread who supported me
2. one user in particular who I have contacted privately, who is an independent assessor and performed an assessment for us because of this forum
I've learnt a few lessons, one of which is that insurance companies really are shaftstards, and they will go to lengths to shut out claims. I imagine that most people would have given up on this one, as would I, had I been able to afford a replacement engine.
The Ombudsman process is good, but time consuming and is more suited to financial transactions than vehicles. I am genuinely grateful that we live in a country that has these methods of recourse in place and that they actually perform. I come from a place (check my username...) that this would never happen.
If anyone has any questions about the outcome, the process or anything else that they feel remain unanswered, the least I can do is detail it here. Please let me know.
Thanks again
|
|
Thanks for updating us, and glad you got the car sorted to your satisfaction.
Incidents like this give the aftermarket warranty market a bad name, and kudos to you for fighting this, must have been very stressful, and great to those on the forum who pitched in and helped too.
What you have done is steer a few away from a certain warranty company too. And rightly judging by the Trust Pilot reviews.
Hope you get some enjoyment from the car too.
Edited by Miniman777 on 14/12/2020 at 23:40
|
|
|
|
|
