Car Warranty

[Abbey0134]

In my contract for my extended car warranty, consequential loss is not mentioned.
The brake caliper failed causing damage to the brakes. The warranty company has said that as brakes are not covered as a standard and that consequential loss is not mentioned I have to foot the bill for £480 to replace the brake etc. The bill clearly states that the brake replacement was caused solely by the failure of the brake caliper. Looking for advice please.
I cannot see how this is fair. In my experience you cannot simply leave out clauses and then say that they are not covered. But would love a lawyer to comment. TIA.

I’m guessing this is a third party warranty rather than a manufacturer backed one? If so, most of them aren’t worth the paper they’re written on.

No, it's a manufacturer one.

Read the warranty, check what it covers and contact trading standards if the company issuing the warranty refuses to cover items clearly within the warranty’s scope.

I don't know much about car mechanics. Isn't the caliper part of the brake system - the bit that presses the pads against the disc? And the warranty specifically excludes the brake system? That sounds fairly clear (although why the brakes should be excluded I don't know, they seem pretty important). I don't understand what consequential loss has to do with it.

Anyway, putting those ins and outs to one side and thinking about practicalities, I don't reckon any amount of clever talking from you will cause the warranty people to change their interpretation of their own document. You'd probably have to argue it out in the small claims court. Or at least start proceedings and hope they can't be bothered to defend it and back down.

I don't know much about car mechanics. Isn't the caliper part of the brake system - the bit that presses the pads against the disc? And the warranty specifically excludes the brake system?

I’d imagine that the warranty covers the brake hydraulic system as they have covered the caliper but specifically excludes the consumables (discs/pads) as they’re wear and tear items. It’s the consequential loss that’s the issue as they wouldn’t need replacing had the caliper not failed.

Not unusual to not cover discs and pads. How old is the car, what make, what is the £480 for?

The warranty does not cover 'consumables' but my point is that the brakes were damaged purely as a result of the caliper failing. So, yes, consequential loss that is not mentioned in the contract. I guess my question is a simple legal one. If a something is not mentioned does that mean it is not covered? It is a Landrover, less than 40k miles on the clock. I have referred them to the financial ombudsman. So will wait and see.

Thanks for the replies.

This doesn't sound like consequential i.e. indirect loss. It's a direct loss naturally resulting from the brake caliper failure. I don't know enough about mechanics to see if there's debate on that, and it's possible your policy only covers the part that has actually failed. To me though whether or not the contract covers consequential loss isn't relevant.

It is a Landrover

Ah, there’s your problem. Terrible cars and dealerships who have a diabolical reputation.

So a direct loss is something that arises naturally from the breach. I feel that this is the case here but I'm not a mechanic!

Consequential loss is something that could reasonably expected to arise from the breach (oversimplifying). So the fact that you had to miss a day's work whilst your car was repaired would be consequential loss. However, the fact that you missed an interview and didn't get your dream job being paid 10000000 as a chocolate taster would probably be too remote a loss to even be claimed at all (ie it's not reasonable to expect the company to pay out for that because how could they ever have expected that when they agreed the warranty).

Your issue here is that direct loss can be excluded. Your warranty may say that it only covers the part that actually breaks and not any parts that break as a result. If your warranty doesn't say that I would push back and say that the brake issue is a direct loss and not a consequential loss and therefore should be covered. I'm not an expert on warranties so I don't know what language is normal.

Btw, even if it is consequential, they would have to have actually excluded consequential loss to exclude (or indirect loss). It's not excluded by default.

Thank you for your replies.

@Shade17

It is a Landrover

Ah, there’s your problem. Terrible cars and dealerships who have a diabolical reputation.

I tend to agree with you there, DH had one, very poor build quality, never bought LR since.