Bumper to bumper warranty

Nanoc

Hi there,

I bought a 2012 Jetta last year and got a 2 year bumper to bumper warranty included. On Monday the passenger suspension went and the garage are saying that this warranty doesn't cover it as it's not mechanical. There's not a lot of mileage on the car at all.

Does bumper to bumper not mean exactly that? Should I fight my case or just bring it off to another garage? Not paying the main dealer an exorbitant amount.

colm_mcm

Suspension would be wear and tear usually.

Nanoc

colm_mcm wrote: »

Suspension would be wear and tear usually.

Even on a 5 year old car with 60k kilometres?

grogi

Nanoc wrote: »

Hi there,

I bought a 2012 Jetta last year and got a 2 year bumper to bumper warranty included. On Monday the passenger suspension went and the garage are saying that this warranty doesn't cover it as it's not mechanical. There's not a lot of mileage on the car at all.

Does bumper to bumper not mean exactly that? Should I fight my case or just bring it off to another garage? Not paying the main dealer an exorbitant amount.

Do you have a list of exclusions from the warranty? List of wear and tear items?

If the dealer is not cooperating, Small Claims Court.

Cheensbo

Nanoc wrote: »

Even on a 5 year old car with 60k kilometres?

Suspension is made up of many components, which one failed? My guess is a spring - definitely wont be covered by a warranty, springs snap - i have changed at least 1 spring on esch of the cars in our household in the last few years, the pug 207 has had 6 new springs in 6 years!

grogi

Cheensbo wrote: »

Suspension is made up of many components, which one failed? My guess is a spring - definitely wont be covered by a warranty, springs snap - i have changed at least 1 spring on esch of the cars in our household in the last few years, the pug 207 has had 6 new springs in 6 years!

By that logic every part is wear and tear - they wear down and eventually brake. Honestly, those springs in the Pug were clearly faulty...


Parts that are designed to wear and are mentioned in the service checkups - brake pads, tyres, belts, bulbs, filters - are not covered. But the rest should last the limits of the warranty. If anything brakes down during the warranty should be replaced. That's why the warranty is limited to age and mileage.

biko

You need to read the warranty to find what it specifies.
Can you clarify what exactly broke?

bazz26

Nanoc wrote: »

Even on a 5 year old car with 60k kilometres?

You could drive up and down a road full of potholes and wreck your suspension within 5 mins. Most suspension parts are classed as wear and tear items and not covered by a used car warranty, similar to tyres, batteries or bulbs, etc.

grogi

bazz26 wrote: »

You could drive up and down a road full of potholes and wreck your suspension within 5 mins. Most suspension parts are classed as wear and tear items and not covered by a used car warranty, similar to tyres, batteries or bulbs, etc.

But you can burn the clutch, shred the gearbox or blow the engine in 10 minutes either. Sure, that's twice as long as 5 minutes.

bazz26

I don't get your point. The OP thinks because the car is a certain age with certain mileage that suspension components perhaps should not wear or need replacing. Clutch is classed as a wear and tear item too, if you damage an engine or gearbox in 5 mins then that's your problem too, not a warranty issue unless it can be proven that the parts failed prematurely.

Bumper to Bumper warranties just like new car warranties still have limitations and exclusions.

colm_mcm

Nanoc wrote: »

Even on a 5 year old car with 60k kilometres?

Well it's a used product. Bumper to bumper would usually mean things like
Radio
Parking sensors
Braking system
Wipers
Electrical system
Seat mechanisms
Locks

....Would be covered, which on a standard engine and gearbox wouldn't be.

grogi

bazz26 wrote: »

I don't get your point.

My points are usually to show how flawed the logic is:

* if the part is or is not under warranty cannot be based on the fact that it naturally wears down - because everything does.

* saying that parts that would get damaged because of improper use should not be covered under warranty is flawed us well - any part will get damaged if an idiot drives the car...

The OP thinks because the car is a certain age with certain mileage that suspension components perhaps should not wear or need replacing. Clutch is classed as a wear and tear item too, if you damage an engine or gearbox in 5 mins then that's your problem too, not a warranty issue unless it can be proven that the parts failed prematurely.

Bumper to Bumper warranties just like new car warranties still have limitations and exclusions.

It's not about the age of the vehicle, but the warranty that was given for two years. Don't you think that 5 minutes is definitely prematurely?

Sure, exclusions are needed. And if the OP was given the T&C of the warranty, fine. Otherwise the common sense prevails: bumper to bumper means warranty for everything between the bumpers, except service items.

bazz26

The car's age and mileage are relevant to the point that it's a 5 year old car with a used car warranty which has limitations despite the terminology "bumper to bumper". Unless every wear and tear part was replaced at the time when the OP bought it last year, then you cannot expect wear and tear parts that come to the end of their life or experienced excessive wear during the warranty period to be covered. Bumper to bumper is a marketing term for better than engine/gearbox warranty but doesn't mean every single thing is covered.

grogi

bazz26 wrote: »

The car's age and mileage are relevant to the point that it's a 5 year old car with a used car warranty which has limitations despite the terminology "bumper to bumper".

But that's the same story as telecoms offering 'unlimited data' plans. It is false advertising and misleading customers.

If they want to offer limited warranty - fine. Just don't call it bumper to bumper, because it is not. That's what we need to fight with. I completely support the fact that a used car can have its humours, but that should be clear for the customer.

TallGlass

Warranties to me don't mean much and are more of a marketing gimmick, which you so find out about when you go to a garage under 'warranty', and are giving the run around by them or told 'that's not covered'.

bazz26

And that is where you have the "* Terms and Conditions Apply" line.

grogi

bazz26 wrote: »

And that is where you have the "* Terms and Conditions Apply" line.

We sell only fresh fruit (they were fresh at some stage).

You cannot call your product X, and in T&C say it actually isn't. It should be called Used Car Limited Warranty. Bumper to bumper* is simply a lie.

Cheensbo

grogi wrote: »

You cannot call your product X, and in T&C say it actually isn't. It should be called Used Car Limited Warranty. Bumper to bumper* is simply a lie.

Well the thing is - you can. And it is widely done, and its almost certainly the case here too (without seeing t&c's) to tell the op otherwise is misinforming him.

grogi

Cheensbo wrote: »

Well the thing is - you can. And it is widely done, and its almost certainly the case here too (without seeing t&c's) to tell the op otherwise is misinforming him.

No, you can't. Or you shouldn't be... But people just don't enforce their rights.

Telecoms did that, now they clearly display (although in a bit smaller font) information that the monthly fee goes up after a few months.

frozenfrozen

bumper to bumper implies anything that goes wrong. If it's not bumper to bumper coverage then it's just a fcuking warranty..???

bucketybuck

Nanoc wrote: »

Does bumper to bumper not mean exactly that?

"Bumper to bumper" means exactly nothing, not a goddamn thing.

All warranties have terms and conditions (and for very good reasons, despite what some people think). You need to find out what your specific warranty was on the agreement you signed, because "bumper to bumper" is just meaningless salesman patter.

On a five year old car, I would be shocked if you actually had the highest level of warranty coverage and even if you did I would still expect many items to be excluded (again, for very good reason), so I would take a good look into the documents you signed before listening to the usual advice in here about small claims court.

Bumper to bumper means not just engine and gearbox but still doesn't include normal wear and tear.

Cheensbo

frozenfrozen wrote: »

bumper to bumper implies anything that goes wrong. If it's not bumper to bumper coverage then it's just a fcuking warranty..???

Bumper to bumper could mean anything, it doesnt imply anything either.

It could just mean both the front and rear bumper are covered for all we know. Its all about the t&c's

GerryDerpy

OP what exactly failed?

goochy

Was it a VW used car warranty or one from a warranty company ?

Nanoc

Thanks for all the replies guys, I'm in work so haven't got a chance to read the warranty (or talk to garage myself) but basically the want to replace both shocks (so it's not unbalanced for nct)

We bought it in Frank Keane and were sold it with the extension of their usual 1 year "bumper to bumper" to a two year.

I wouldn't expect any service parts to be included in this but I would have thought this would be....perhaps my own naivety..

Vic_08

Cheensbo wrote: »

Bumper to bumper could mean anything, it doesnt imply anything either.

It could just mean both the front and rear bumper are covered for all we know. Its all about the t&c's

It means everything when they are selling it and nothing when the mark punter tries to get something repaired with it.

robtri

Warranties arent worth the paper they are written on.. the only thing that matters is the Sale of Goods act....

grogi

robtri wrote: »

Warranties arent worth the paper they are written on.. the only thing that matters is the Sale of Goods act....

How about applying Sales of Goods act to warranty?

colm_mcm

robtri wrote: »

Warranties arent worth the paper they are written on.. the only thing that matters is the Sale of Goods act....

Disagree - unless you're talking about a new item, which isn't the case here.

Toyotafanboi

What is actually broken on this car?

blackbox

Toyotafanboi wrote: »

What is actually broken on this car?

The OP never said anything was broken.

The suspension is GONE. It's not clear whether it was lost, stolen or simply ran away.

Perhaps he/she could let us know where it was last seen and someone here might be able to find it.
:rolleyes:

grogi

blackbox wrote: »

The OP never said anything was broken.

The suspension is GONE. It's not clear whether it was lost, stolen or simply ran away.

Perhaps he/she could let us know where it was last seen and someone here might be able to find it.
:rolleyes:

SHOCK ABSORBER.

bucketybuck

Toyotafanboi wrote: »

What is actually broken on this car?

Nanoc wrote: »

but basically the want to replace both shocks (so it's not unbalanced for nct)

Worn shock bushes would be my guess, or maybe just a leak in one.

Nanoc

So apparently it was one of the springs then went in the passenger side, left a message with sales manager saying bumper to.bumper should be just that etc etc and got a call back to say it'll be fixed under warranty..hoorraay

Cheers everyone

Toyotafanboi

All's well that ends well!