"Customer Service", or "F**K the Customer"?

[Dave Ford]

Below is the text of an email I sent to BMW Customer Service last week (apologies for the length of this), followed by the text of their response, received today.

Attached to my email was a copy of the MOT failure form. As I can't attach documents to this message, I should explain that the bike failed the MOT on (i) front tyre below legal limit; (ii) missing circlip from rear footpeg pin; (iii) wrongly routed front brake hose. Bike will be re-tested tomorrow and should pass.

Either BMW or I are being unreasonable. As you might expect, I think BMW are being totally unreasonable - in fact I find their attitude disgraceful. I would like to hear the views of fellow tossers. Has anyone had a similar experience? Can anyone offer advice?

=========================================================

Dear Sir/Madam

BMW 1200 GS Adventure - FN07 SYT

I purchased a 1200 GS Adventure from Pidcock’s in Long Eaton on 6th July 2007, the bike having been registered new on 26th May. Despite being well-looked after and serviced at a BMW main dealer the bike’s reliability has been extremely disappointing. It has suffered two EWS failures (on both occasions causing me to have to take a day’s annual leave as I was unable to make it to work), had both front brake discs replaced after they warped, and had both mirrors replaced after the glasses came loose.

In order to help to protect the vulnerable parts of the bike, I fitted a front mudguard extender and a “Mudsling” over the rear wheel. I also applied “ACF 50” anti-corrosion formula (rust prevention) prior to the winters of 2007 and 2008. Nevertheless, when I took the bike to Pidcock’s for its 12,000 mile service (12,388 miles) on 3rd November last year I mentioned the corrosion to the front engine cover, the final drive unit and the rear wheel hub and suggested that these parts be replaced under warranty. When I collected the bike and noticed that the rusted parts were still in place, Pidcock’s suggested that it would make more sense to wait until after the winter, particularly as the warranty would not expire until the following May. This seemed a sensible approach and one to which I was happy to agree.

Attached is one photograph – others can viewed at

http://s632.photobucket.com/albums/uu47/dcford2009/Bike Corrosion/.

As can be seen, the front engine cover is particularly badly affected. There is severe corrosion even to areas covered by the plastic alternator belt cover. Whilst it might be argued that some form of corrosion is inevitable on a bike that is used throughout the winter (I would not agree, even the most basic cars will now last at least five years before serious rust sets in), this degree of corrosion is completely unacceptable. It might have been the norm on British bikes of the 1970s, but it simply should not happen on a “prestige” bike of the 21st century.

On 25th January this year I was involved in an accident. Pidcock’s subsequently stated that the bike was uneconomical to repair, primarily due to damage to the rear subframe. The bike was therefore declared a Category D write-off.

Please note that the corrosion is effectively after one winter – the bike was written off before the severe weather, and subsequent heavy gritting, that affected the UK at the end of January and into February.

Despite the poor reliability I had experienced, I placed an order with Pidcock’s for a new 1200 GSA on 19th February (their Order No. 46609). At the time I felt that the damage to the old bike was less severe than Pidcock’s and the insurance company’s engineer believed. Therefore, in order to try to bridge some of the gap between the cost of the new bike and the settlement I received from the insurance company, I also decided to purchase the write-off with a view to repairing it and selling it. This I subsequently did. The bike is almost ready to return to the road – it narrowly failed an MoT test last Saturday (see attached).

Given that the bike is still less than two years’ old, and is certainly not being scrapped, I had assumed that BMW would honour its warranty obligations and cover the cost of either replacing or repairing the badly corroded components. I asked Pidcock’s to look into this. They said on Saturday that they had enquired with BMW and the response had been, to paraphrase, too strong to repeat.

Evidently BWM consider that any warranty becomes null and void when a bike is written off. I can understand the underlying reasons for such a policy. Any manufacturer would want to protect itself from fraudulent warranty claims whereby owners attempt to cover the costs of repairing accident damage, which should, of course, be covered by insurance. Nevertheless, I ask that BMW reconsider their position in respect the case with my bike, on the grounds that:

• Under no circumstances could it be argued that the corrosion is the result of accident damage;
• I have taken steps to try to protect the bike from the elements and the prevent corrosion occurring in the first place;
• I did mention the corrosion to Pidcock’s in November but agreed that the work should be delayed until after the winter;
• Given the age of the bike, the degree of corrosion would be totally unacceptable on a motorcycle from any manufacturer. It is particularly unacceptable on a bike costing in excess of £10,000 from a manufacturer that claims to produce premium motorcycles;
• I have already, indirectly, borne the cost of the corrosion as this was taken into account when the insurance company’s assessor made his valuation after agreeing that the bike was a write-off;
• I have repaired the bike to a very high standard (I deliberately took the bike to Pidcock’s for the (required) MoT test, as they had inspected it when it was damaged - I could have easily taken it to a local MoT testing centre who would have never known anything of its history). Unless one knows where to look, it is now impossible to tell that the bike has ever been in any sort of accident. However what is immediately noticeable is the corrosion!

I believe that it would be fair and appropriate for BMW to meet the cost of replacing the engine front cover, rear wheel and final drive housing. However I would be prepared to accept replacement parts on a supply-only basis, and carry out the replacement work myself.

The BMW Motorrad website includes the following text in its description of the 1200 GSA:

“Your reliable partner: the BMW 1200 GS Adventure! This indestructible adventure motorcycle…”

Whilst I experienced huge enjoyment riding FN07 SYT (25th January 2008 excepted!), it would be difficult to claim that it was my “reliable partner”. Furthermore, rather than being “indestructible”, it has so far made a very good attempt at self-destruction through corrosion. I therefore hope that BMW will be prepared to meet its obligations to one of its customers.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours faithfully

David Ford

==========================================================

Dear Mr Ford

Thank you for your email dated April 15, 2009. I am sorry to hear that you were involved in an accident while riding your BMW and as a result, your insurance company has decided that the bike should be written off.

I appreciate that you made Roy Piddock's aware of the corrosion to the engine casing on the bike before the accident and having sinced purchased the bike to repair, you would like to continue to benefit from the warranty. BMW Mottorad receive information regarding bikes that have been written off from the insurance database. Once we receive this information, we terminate the warranty with immediate affect on our worldwide warranty system and any subsequent claims would be rejected.

Taking this into consideration and as your insurance company has settled your insurance claim, BMW Motorrad will not be in a position to assist with any repairs required on the bike regardless of the cause.

While I appreciate this is not the response you were seeking, I trust that you can understand our policy on this matter.

Yours sincerely

BMW Motorrad UK
Emma Murphy
Customer Service Executive
Ellesfield Avenue
Bracknell RG12 8TA
Tel: 0870 5050 160
Fax: 0870 5050 205
Mail: [email protected]
URL: www.motorrad.co.uk

 

[wully]

hmmm... Seems reasonable to me- you bought an insurace write off and now expect it to be covered under warranty???

 

[stolzy]

Either BMW or I are being unreasonable.

True. Its not them.

 

[LBL]

who's right

Sort of agree with the two replies above, if you bought the back back of the insurers, you buy as is. A lesson to be learned by us all methinks.

 

[wilbjr21]

+1 Another who thinks it's you ....... sorry.

 

[g.s.john]

up to the point the bike was written off you had a valid claim IMO no manifacturer is going to honour a warranty on a write-off

 

[Dickieboy]

When the insurance company settled the claim for the bike, the bike ceased to be your property and became the property of the Insurance company. You then bought the bike for a second time from the insurance company and not from a BMW dealer, you bought it knowing it was a 'write off' the only thing that surprises me is that the dealer agreed to contact BMW on your behalf at all.

 

[Deleted Member I]

what's your objective? From what I can read .. it's to repair a cat D bike and "probably" sell it on for profit.

So I suspect your thinking was ... repair cost will be reduced "if" I can get BMW to pay for those corroded parts.

It just doesn't add up. Even though I wanted to side with you ... I just can't find myself doing it.

The corrosion on the bike is absolutely shit but you are confusing two things and actually makes BMW look better

 

[Uinneag]

Even if you hadn't crashed the bike BMW wouldn't cover the corrosion, the front timing cover is the only thing they hold there hands up to.

 

[MikeP]

If it's documented somewhere that the dealer advised deferring the warranty repair to the corroded parts, I'd have thought that they should bear the responsibility/cost.

If they agreed that the parts needed replacement in the November, they should have replaced the parts, there and then. Deferring replacement until a time when the weather conditions might extend the life of the replaced parts isn't a good enough reason.

The fact that the bike was involved in a collision after the warranty assessment was agreed, isn't the fault of the owner or the dealer, it was apparently at the suggestion of the dealer that the repair be deferred.

I understand why the dealer suggested the delay in fixing the problems and I understand why the owner might agree with that suggestion.

If it were me and I had agreed to the delayed warranty claim in good faith that the claim would be dealt with, I'd now be calling-in that good faith and asking the dealership to make good, not BMW(GB).

 

[Deleted account W]

Find another owner of the same age bike, stick the mouldy bits on theirs and take that in for warranty repairs.

Job done

 

[Paul Wakefield]

If it were me and I had agreed to the delayed warranty claim in good faith that the claim would be dealt with, I'd now be calling-in that good faith and asking the dealership to make good, not BMW(GB).

So you mean the dealer should have advised deferring but covered it with caveats "unless you crash in the meantime",etc. As I understand it, the dealer did not insist it was delayed merely advised for what seem to me good reasons.

Suggesting that the dealer should take it on really smells of the compensation culture coming to the fore.

The owner was perfectly capable of weighing up the advice and taking a decision. Unfortunately it turned out to be the wrong one. Not the dealer's fault.

Or would you rather dealers never gave any sensible pragmatic advice without a lawyer standing by, putting in writing and probably in triplicate.

And breathe......

 

[MikeP]

So you mean the dealer should have advised deferring but covered it with caveats "unless you crash in the meantime",etc.

No. What I mean is what I have written:

If it's documented somewhere that the dealer advised deferring the warranty repair to the corroded parts, I'd have thought that they should bear the responsibility/cost

.

As I understand it, the dealer did not insist it was delayed merely advised for what seem to me good reasons.

I bow to your superior knowledge (that's why I prefaced my response with 'if').

 

[Dickieboy]

If it's documented somewhere that the dealer advised deferring the warranty repair to the corroded parts, I'd have thought that they should bear the responsibility/cost.

If they agreed that the parts needed replacement in the November, they should have replaced the parts, there and then. Deferring replacement until a time when the weather conditions might extend the life of the replaced parts isn't a good enough reason.

The fact that the bike was involved in a collision after the warranty assessment was agreed, isn't the fault of the owner or the dealer, it was apparently at the suggestion of the dealer that the repair be deferred.

I understand why the dealer suggested the delay in fixing the problems and I understand why the owner might agree with that suggestion.

If it were me and I had agreed to the delayed warranty claim in good faith that the claim would be dealt with, I'd now be calling-in that good faith and asking the dealership to make good, not BMW(GB).

Mike the moment the insurance paid him out he ceased to be the keeper of the bike, it was the property of the Insurance company and warranty if in fact you can ask for warranty work to be carried out on a write off would become the Insurance company's problem, he then effectively bought a 'scrap' bike why on earth should BMW or the Dealer have to contribute anything towards it.

 

[L]

I would guess that the amount the insurance company paid out may be the deciding factor here. If they paid you less becuase of the mouldy condition of the bike, then I'd be writing to BMW, the dealer and the insurance company to complain and ask for compensation. Otherwise, if you buy an insurance write off, you're getting "as seen" and you can expect no real support from any of the 3rd parties involved.

 

[MikeP]

My only point is that if the dealership recognised that the corrosion was covered by warranty, they should have dealt with it as soon as it was practicable.

Had the deferral been to suit the dealer and at their suggestion, they should replace the parts at their expense.

Now if the owner is the one who chose to defer the warranty-corrosion work, that's down to him and tough-titty.

 

[Paul Wakefield]

Had the deferral been to suit the dealer and at their suggestion

If they had point blank refused to do anything about it, I might agree. If they suggested waiting until after Winter (as per the OP - hence "my superior knowledge"), that is what it was - a suggestion. In actual fact a good one. Things didn't pan out. Such is life - doesn't mean they should pay up.

The options are:
They gave wrong advice - Can't see how that was the case.
They gave good advice - why should they pay?
They shouldn't give any advice and just replace it without comment. Hardly helpful even if it would have made a difference in this case.

Your view (and hence my original post) would seem to be it would only be good advice if they caveated it with all the things that could make it bad advice.Which is where people stop being helpful for fear of the consequences.

 

[Taff]

Mike the moment the insurance paid him out he ceased to be the keeper of the bike, it was the property of the Insurance company and warranty if in fact you can ask for warranty work to be carried out on a write off would become the Insurance company's problem, he then effectively bought a 'scrap' bike why on earth should BMW or the Dealer have to contribute anything towards it.

But who bought it and who then sold it and to who is irrelevant surely as the warranty goes with the bike - not the owner. I could understand them refusing to repair / replace items damaged in the accident, but this rust is not a result of the accident and shouldn't be acceptable in a 1 year old bike. If he was expecting the dealers to replace items damaged in the accident, then I don't think he's got a hope in hell.

If they had point blank refused to do anything about it, I might agree. If they suggested waiting until after Winter ... They gave wrong advice - Can't see how that was the case.
They gave good advice - why should they pay?

Playing Devils Advocate again, but my guess would be because its still within its 2yr warranty and the build quality is shot to shit. They already admitted as such by accepting that they were going to do the work before the crash. They suggested putting it off till after Winter presumably because

1. they didn't want him coming back in another 6 months to get even more work (quite possibly even the same work) done under warranty and
2. it would eat further into the 2 yrs.

 

[Dickieboy]

But who bought it and who then sold it and toi who is irrelevant surely as the warranty goes with the bike - not the owner.

Taff my point is that the insurers became owners when the bike was scrapped, I think the warranty and any claims pending by the original keeper became academic at that moment.

 

[MikeP]

Your view (and hence my original post) would seem to be it would only be good advice if they caveated it with all the things that could make it bad advice.Which is where people stop being helpful for fear of the consequences.

"My" view is nothing of the sort.

I'll spell it out for you to avoid you guessing what my point is:

The OP owns a bike within warranty. It has corrosion that the dealership agrees is covered by that warranty. The dealership suggests delaying the required and warranted work. The owner agrees believing that the work will be done before the expiry of the warranty.

The bike is involved in a collision. BMW(GB) policy dictates that they will not authorise warranty work on a Cat D salvage machine.

The OP still owns the bike. The bike still has corrosion present that should have been repaired under warranty.

Neither of us has any more information other than what has been posted. The OP has stated that it was at the suggestion of the dealership that the work be deferred. He agreed but implicit in his statement is the notion that he expected the work to be undertaken promptly and only decided to delay the work at the suggestion made by the dealership (otherwise, why raise the issue with the dealership so long before the warranty expires?).

If that is the way things occurred, (and the only caveat, is as I've said, the suggestion was first made by the dealership) then the reason why he has the same bike with the same corrosion is because the dealership suggested he permit them to defer the work.

As Alexander Meerkat would say; simple.