Last August I bought a three-year-old Mazda 6 with just under 70,000 miles on the clock from an independent dealer. It had a new MOT and came with a full Mazda service history. I decided to take out an extended warranty and, after shopping around, I opted for a Go Car "Ultimate" warranty. It seemed very comprehensive and I paid £314.
On 1 November my car blew up in a cloud of smoke while on the outside lane of the motorway. After speaking to Go Car it was taken to the nearest Mazda dealer where it was diagnosed as having a turbo failure (the turbo shaft had cracked). The part was sent off to Go Car for assessment, which took 10 working days – 10 days without a car for work. They eventually got back to me and stated that the problem was due to wear and tear. Despite several calls to Go Car's premium rate number they refused to budge. I was left with no choice but to pay the £1,355 to get the car repaired.
I appealed the claim but they are sticking by their original decision, claiming wear and tear due to "heat tarnishing" in the bearings and not a "sudden mechanical breakdown". It seems that Go Car could use the "wear and tear" excuse to reject any claim – the car is covered unless it has been driven!
The dealer told me that under a Mazda warranty, the turbo would have been replaced without quibble. Several friends working in the motor industry have agreed that this sort of failure is always covered in the extended warranties. RB, Lancaster
Spend a little time whizzing around the internet and it does not take long to find other customers of Go Car and its sister firm AutoProtect (both based in Harlow) who have had a similar experience – claims being turned down and being blamed on wear and tear. It's hard to see how turbo failure can be blamed on such a matter. Had you not serviced the car properly, or it had been suffering oil starvation, these would have been reasonable grounds for a claim to be rejected, but neither was true in your case.
The fact that diesel Mazdas of this age are well known for turbo failure only adds to your case. We asked Go Car to explain and it has had a rethink. It now says an engineer's report found the part had been tarnished due to lack of lubrication.
"On review, RB stated that he had a full manufacturer's service history, which cast doubt on the assessing engineer's opinion. It is our normal practice to settle in favour of the customer where there is a grey area regarding liability," it says. It is now sending you a cheque for the £1,335 repair bills. Any other reader who is having problems getting this firm to pay up can quote that last sentence about favouring the customer in cases where there is a dispute.
It would be very interesting if car warranty firms were forced to reveal what percentage of claims they pay out. In our experience, many consumers who try to claim find that the policy is not worth the paper it was written on. Had Go Car not paid up, RB could have brought his claim against the supplying dealer as the problem occurred within six months of its purchase.
We welcome letters but cannot answer individually. Email us at consumer.champions@theguardian.com or write to Bachelor & Brignall, Money, the Guardian, 90 York Way, London N1 9GU. Please include a daytime phone number
