Lexus Warranty And Supaguard

[Bingonthewing]

Bought a 400h under lexus approved scheme, paid extra for supaguard paint protection.

Having real problems as paint has faded and car looks like a patch work quilt. Clearly it's been in a bit of bother...been back several times now and getting the feeling the dealer is fobbing me off, anybody got any ideas how to get a resolution, is there an adjudication process with Lexus?

[teejaybee]

Unfortunately the Lexus Approved Warranty for cars over 5 years old (if thats what you have) is not as comprehensive as the original Lexus Warranty and it's also run by an outside company. What you may think is covered may not be! Best to look closely at the policy to see what is excluded, in my case one of the speakers failed and funnily enough it wasn't covered...£300 bill

I am certainly no expert but on a 7 year old car even if its a Lexus there might be some paint failure and putting something like Superguard on it would only preserve the paint work not cure any blemishes.

If on the other hand the paintwork was good before the Superguard was applied then I would suggest you have a good chance claiming against the agent who carried out the work, better still if the Lexus dealer recommended the Superguard company then you could put pressure on them too.

Good luck

[Bingonthewing]

Thanks teejaybee. The supaguard was done by lexus as part of the deal at extra cost to buy the car. Having paid top price for an approved used motor I'm pretty miffed with the outcome. Might have well saved a few grand and bought from a used car lot.

[Tyrosman]

Hi Gary

All paints, not just vehicle finishes, were changed under the (I believe EU) Law in year 2005. My 2004 model RX300 finish looks almost new with no discernible blemishes. I have heard several complaints regarding the revised paint chemistry from both the motor and decorating trades. It may be that the Supergard reacted with the vehicle finish

You should find references to 'The Volatile Organic Compounds in Paints, Varnishes and Vehicle Refinishing Products Regulations 2005' via google.

Good luck with your claim

Barrie

[steve2006]

I'm quite surprise that the paint protection was suggested on a 5 year old car as the paint would have already been subject to the elements for a sustained period of time so to me seems a waste of money.

You can always contact Lexus GB if you want to escalate the complaint or contact Trading Standards if you feel you have a case of poor workmanship/service.

It may be an idea to first have the paintwork examined by a competent independent bodyshop and see what they suggest.

[Lexmanic]

If not immediately resolved its important to confirm any complaint in writing

[wendle]

If you cant get it sorted through Lexus then a good detailer
should be able to sort it out, sounds like the top coat has gone in places,
this can be stripped back and redone, although a good job would cost around the
£800 mark.

[DanD]

The age of the car is pretty much irrelevant I think. What is relevant in this case is when the coating was applied as it should be covered by a one year warranty. You should have received a certificate to that effect at the time the coating was applied.

You may find that the paint has not faded, but that the coating was not applied properly. Back in September, I was involved in a small accident. One of the front wings and doors had to be resprayed, and the coating re-applied. This was not done properly and in certain lights it looked like the paint had faded. I complained and the job was re-done... this time successfully.

P.S. Note that the repair work was not carried out by Lexus. Had to use the workshop assigned by my insurer.

[Lexmanic]

The age of the car is pretty much irrelevant I think. What is relevant in this case is when the coating was applied as it should be covered by a one year warranty. You should have received a certificate to that effect at the time the coating was applied.

You may find that the paint has not faded, but that the coating was not applied properly. Back in September, I was involved in a small accident. One of the front wings and doors had to be resprayed, and the coating re-applied. This was not done properly and in certain lights it looked like the paint had faded. I complained and the job was re-done... this time successfully.

P.S. Note that the repair work was not carried out by Lexus. Had to use the workshop assigned by my insurer.

PS no you didn't, you only thought you did

[DanD]

Jon, assuming you are referring to my comment about having to use the workshop assigned by my insurer...

You are correct, I could have used the workshop of my choice, but my insurance would have charged me £350 for doing so.

[Lexmanic]

Jon, assuming you are referring to my comment about having to use the workshop assigned by my insurer...

You are correct, I could have used the workshop of my choice, but my insurance would have charged me £350 for doing so.

Then your insurer would have been acting unlawfully

[DanD]

Really? - do explain...

What if, in the small print of my insurance T&C (which incidentally I have not checked) it does state that I will use their nominated workshops or have to pay £x?...

[Lexmanic]

Really? - do explain...

What if, in the small print of my insurance T&C (which incidentally I have not checked) it does state that I will use their nominated workshops or have to pay £x?...

I don't care what their T's & C's state its still unlawful. They are attempting to retain the profit they will make from their garage who will pay the insurance company for their business Its known as a referral fee & they are unlawful whereas if you go to a garage of your choice they won't get such a back hander

[Lexmanic]

PS all of this has very recently been exposed on TV

See here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/insurance/motorinsurance/9780658/Insurers-cash-in-on-your-crash.html

[Lexmanic]

To show how bad insurers can be I can tell that I found an insurer selling second hand leathers & crash helmets to an outlet. This equipment had been worn by motorcyclists who had a crash & who's kit had been replaced. The reason being that every biker knows if you even drop your helmet it can affect its internal integrity & the same with leathers hence you renew them. If you don't & you have another incident it may be that your safety gear will not provide the correct amount of protection & fail on impact.

Needless to say I reported this very well known insurer to trading standards & the police & as far as I know the shocking practice ceased

[DanD]

Thank you for this. I will look into it further.

In particular because, while the article is interesting in the sense that it higlights common practice within the insurance industry, it does not actually state that said practice is unlawful... unless I have missed something.

[Lexmanic]

Thank you for this. I will look into it further.

In particular because, while the article is interesting in the sense that it higlights common practice within the insurance industry, it does not actually state that said practice is unlawful... unless I have missed something.

You have missed something, being unlawful does not mean its illegal, as that's criminal, being unlawful means its against Common Law AND statute (which is common law codified) Its almost certainly against the statute relating to "Unfair Terms & Conditions" 77 & 99 AND is undoubtedly a 'Restriction of Trade' therefore is 'unlawful