DRN-6256607

The complaint Ms H complains about AWP P&C S.A.’s decision to decline a claim made under her motor extended warranty. What happened The background to this complaint is well known to both parties, so I’ll give only a brief summary here. Ms H has an extended warranty covering her car, underwritten by AWP. She bought the warranty in 2024. And made a claim in May 2025, after her car failed to start. AWP declined the claim. They said the damage to the car wasn’t covered under the warranty. And Ms H hadn’t had the car serviced as regularly as the terms of the warranty required. Ms H’s complaint is essentially that AWP should settle her claim and aren’t entitled to decline it under the warranty terms. Our investigator looked into the complaint and didn’t think AWP had done anything wrong in declining the claim. He thought the damage was caused by gradual deterioration or wear and tear. So, although he felt AWP weren’t entitled to decline the claim because of the service history, he didn’t uphold Ms H’s complaint. Ms H disagreed and asked for a final decision from an ombudsman. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. I don’t think there’s any dispute here about what the terms of the warranty say. In essence, mechanical or electrical faults are covered. But not where they are caused by wear and tear (amongst other things). There’s also a requirement for the policyholder to have the car serviced at regular intervals. Ms H hasn’t complied with that requirement. However, as our investigator explained, we’d consider it fair to decline a claim on that basis only if the warranty provider can show that the fault would not have happened had the car been serviced. I agree with our investigator on that point. Although Ms H hasn’t complied with the requirement, AWP have not provided evidence to show that the failure to service the vehicle led to the fault (the failure of the car to start). And so, they can’t decline the claim on that basis. So, this case turns on whether the fault with the vehicle is due to some sudden mechanical / electrical failure (which would be covered under the warranty) or due to age, and wear and tear over time (in which case, it would not be covered by the warranty).

-- 1 of 3 --

AWP have provided an engineer’s report – with an accompanying photograph. There is no doubt at all in this case that the car is failing to start because a pin in the Digital Motor Electronics (DME) unit has snapped off. This is a pin which plays a key part in activating the start-up of the motor. So, the key question for me is why that pin snapped – was it a sudden one-off failure or the result of deterioration in the pin over time? AWP have said the pin is deteriorated and corroded. The engineer’s report doesn’t say that, in so many words. It simply says the pin has broken / snapped off – and that a replacement DME control unit will need to be installed and programmed. The report concludes that the fault is not covered under the warranty. The pins in the DME unit plug into sockets (also within the DME). In this case, the broken off pin has been left in the corresponding socket. There are a number of potential reasons for the pin failing in that way. Failure in the pins can be caused by corrosion due to moisture (the engineer did not find evidence of water entering the DME in Ms Hs car). Or corrosion due to vibration over time (fretting corrosion). Or brittleness caused by the engine heating and cooling cyclically. In all of these cases, it would be reasonable to describe the fault as being caused by wear and tear over time (and to conclude that the warranty doesn’t provide cover). The only other likely causes of the problem relate essentially to poor installation (impossible in Ms H’s case, given that her car is relatively old) or interference with the DME unit – for example, to clean corroded pins, to remove the tuner, and/or to install aftermarket tuning kits. The warranty does not provide cover if the car has been modified. I note some of the tabs on the unit are broken or missing. However, Ms H hasn’t suggested at any point that she – or anyone else – had interfered with or accessed the DME unit prior to the car breaking down and failing to start. So, I’m discounting that explanation for the failed pin. Although I note that if the DME unit was interfered with beforehand, then the damage very likely isn’t covered anyway. Whilst I think AWP or their agents might have more fully explained the situation to Ms H, I believe the engineer’s report supports the idea that the relevant pin broke due to deterioration over time. Which is the only real possible explanation for pin’s failure, once we’ve discounted the idea that someone had accessed the DME unit before the fault occurred. So, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for AWP to conclude that the very likely explanation of the pin’s failure is wear and tear over time – and that the warranty doesn’t therefore provide cover. If Ms H obtains any further evidence and/or expert reports about the failure of the pin, which might cast doubt on the conclusion that the damage was likely caused by wear and tear, then I’d expect AWP to review it and re-consider their claim decision. But at the moment, the only expert to have inspected the vehicle and commented on the damage says there’s no cover provided by the warranty. My final decision For the reasons set out above, I don’t uphold Ms H’s complaint.

-- 2 of 3 --

Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Ms H to accept or reject my decision before 21 May 2026. Neil Marshall Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --