Ford Perforation Warranty Claim - Result
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 URL
http://www.pistonheads.com/GASSING/topic.asp?h=0&f=129&t=541882&i=0 are
attached. As can be seen, the contributors mikeyr and 'Baffled Spoon'
both had similar or worse occurrences which Ford Warranty covered.
20.The Claimant further contends that the Defendant was negligent in not
making details of the known manufacturing problems available to owners,
and the Claimant in particular, enabling them to inspect and bring to
the Defendant's attention corrosion at the earliest opportunity.
21.As a result of the refusal by the Defendant to cover the repair of
the corrosion to the nearside passenger door, the claimant obtained 3
separate quotes for repair, two from Ford Dealers, copies of which are
attached, along with the final Invoice. All advised that the
replacement of the door was the only effective resolution to the
problem. The Ford Dealer, who were also the lowest cost quote for the
repair, were then instructed by the Claimant to undertake the door
replacement at the same time as the door repair approved by Ford
Warranty on the offside rear door. Following the repair, the Claimant
presented a copy of the repair invoice (attached with a copy of the
accompanying letter) to Ford for payment, which was again refused (see
attached copy of Ford Letter dated 23 September 2008).
22.Further or in the alternative, the Claimant also contends that
application of the conditions of the perforation warranty in this
instance are not applicable under Unfair Terms legislation, as the terms
of the Perforation Warranty, as held by the defendant, cause a
significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising
under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer . The cost of
repair undertaken by the Defendant on the offside door is understood to
have cost GBP473.32 excl of VAT (reference the Warranty Invoice dated
22.9.2008 attached). The cost of repair undertaken by the Claimant,
which is the subject of this claim, cost GBP619.57 excl of VAT
(reference the Cash Sale Invoice dated 9.9.2008). As these costs are
not grossly different, the Claimant contends that the Defendant is
merely seeking to apply Unfair Terms to avoid reasonable responsibility
for corrosion arising from a known manufacturing defect and covered
under the perforation warranty. Furthermore, given the major difference
in the two costs is the cost of Ford replacement parts (at retail
prices), the Claimant also contends that the net difference in actual
cost to Ford of the two door repairs is negligible or no different.
Statement of Truth
I, 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
date: Sun, 08 Mar 2009 15:33:52 +0000
author: Paul R
|
