Car warranty mis-sold

[echat11]

In a 'nutshell', what you are saying is that, the car already had the 'mileage' limit registered on the car, which would exclude the warranty purchased, so your partner would never be able to claim on the warranty.

If that is the case you should send them a Letter Before Action.

Make sure you get Proof of Postage.

https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rig...m-aSFAC8Q6Jqan

[RuddyPrince]

Thanks for coming back to me again ECHAT11, I appreciate it.

Yes, 100% that is the issue in a nutshell. They seem to be dancing around it.

I missed out that, following the Ombudsman not being interested, I basically reworded by complaint and sent it as a letter before action. My post just now describes their response to my LBA from their solicitors.

So my next step is just to issue proceedings, or do I need to respond to their response?

Thanks in advance.

[echat11]

Thanks for coming back to me again ECHAT11, I appreciate it.

Yes, 100% that is the issue in a nutshell. They seem to be dancing around it.

I missed out that, following the Ombudsman not being interested, I basically reworded by complaint and sent it as a letter before action. My post just now describes their response to my LBA from their solicitors.

So my next step is just to issue proceedings, or do I need to respond to their response?

Thanks in advance.

Did you cover all the points stated in the LBA, you could respond using the template below reiterating the points
stated in your LBA, but adding anything you have missed. So they are left in no doubt that you intend to take action,
you've covered 'all bases'.

The substance of your claim is the warranty is 'worthless' and has been 'mis-sold' as it could never be claimed on.

Everything else regarding 'she should have read this or read that', misses the fact that she was mis-sold the policy.
It's 'ridiculous' they are saying that. The 'Terms and Conditions are 'unfair'.

You should email and send it Registered Post.

https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rig...m-aSFAC8Q6Jqan

[RuddyPrince]

Hello,

Thanks for coming back to me. I've covered all bases. They have finally responded again.

Briefly:
- The warranty was not mis-sold or misrepresented
- They made no comments or representations as to the exclusions, and silence does not amount to misrepresentation
- The exclusions were detailed in the post-sale docs
- The exclusions cannot be unfair as we only re-sell the policy on behalf of the warranty company, we are not a party
- If a claim is issued, they will seek adverse costs on the basis on unreasonable conduct

Does anyone have any thoughts please?

[echat11]

Hello,

Thanks for coming back to me. I've covered all bases. They have finally responded again.

Briefly:
- The warranty was not mis-sold or misrepresented
- They made no comments or representations as to the exclusions, and silence does not amount to misrepresentation
- The exclusions were detailed in the post-sale docs
- The exclusions cannot be unfair as we only re-sell the policy on behalf of the warranty company, we are not a party
- If a claim is issued, they will seek adverse costs on the basis on unreasonable conduct

Does anyone have any thoughts please?

I'm not sure any of 'that holds water', especially the following, they sold it to you, It sounds like they are 'distancing'
themselves from the sale of the warranty.

'The exclusions cannot be unfair as we only re-sell the policy on behalf of the warranty company, we are not a party'.

An issue for them is that, you won't be the only one that's been mis-sold the warranty.

[RuddyPrince]

Hi.

Yeah, I agree it's absolutely ludicrous.

Would you/anyone mind looking over my particulars of claim before I issue, please? The solicitors have made their position clear twice now and aren't budging; I'd like to just get the train on the tracks, so to speak. I've had multiple friends and family review the doc, but none of them have legal training.

[echat11]

Hi.

Yeah, I agree it's absolutely ludicrous.

Would you/anyone mind looking over my particulars of claim before I issue, please? The solicitors have made their position clear twice now and aren't budging; I'd like to just get the train on the tracks, so to speak. I've had multiple friends and family review the doc, but none of them have legal training.

Copy and paste without personal details.

[RuddyPrince]

Thank you! All comments are welcome.


PARTICULARS OF CLAIM


PARTIES
1. The Claimant is a consumer, [X] of [X].

2. The Defendant is [X], a private limited company (Company number [X]), authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).


OUTLINE OF ISSUES
3. This claim concerns the Defendant’s sale of a vehicle warranty containing an undisclosed mileage exclusion clause that renders the Claimant’s vehicle ineligible for repair claims.

4. The Claimant avers that the warranty was misrepresented and mis-sold, as the vehicle had already exceeded the undisclosed mileage limit at the point of sale. No valid claims can be made under the warranty; it is worthless.

5. The Defendant maintains the warranty was correctly sold and asserts that non-disclosure of the clause does not constitute misrepresentation or mis-selling.

6. The key issues the Claimant respectfully asks the Court to determine are:

a. Whether the Defendant disclosed the mileage exclusion clause prior to sale.

b. Whether the Defendant misrepresented the warranty coverage and exclusions.

c. Whether, in the circumstances, the exclusion clause constitutes an unfair term.

d. Whether the Defendant should refund the policy premiums.

e. Whether the Defendant should reimburse the Claimant for the vehicle repair costs.


FACTS
7. In September 2024, the Claimant entered into a finance agreement with the Defendant to purchase a used vehicle (VRN: [X]).

8. DVSA records show the vehicle’s mileage as 106,099 miles as of the 25 August 2024 MOT.

9. The Defendant also sold the Claimant a warranty package, to which this dispute relates.

10. By e-mail dated 6 September 2024, the Defendant represented the warranty as providing cover in the case of any mechanical or electrical faults relating to the engine, including the cost of labour and replacement parts. The e-mail did not reference any exclusions.

11. The warranty was sold during a recorded telephone call on 9 September 2024. During the call, the Defendant reiterated earlier representations regarding coverage and outlined certain exclusions, including wear and tear of consumables such as tyres, custom parts added post-sale, and lack of insurance. However, the Defendant failed to disclose the mileage-based exclusion clause to the Claimant.

12. Believing the Defendant’s representations as statements of fact, the Claimant was induced to enter the warranty contract without further enquiry. Between September 2024 and May 2025, the Claimant made ten payments of £44.90 to the Defendant in respect of the warranty.

13. The Claimant subsequently initiated a warranty claim for engine repair, which was denied on 29 May 2025. The stated reason, referencing clause A11 of the post-sale terms, was: “Parts which have suffered a sudden and unexpected failure due to wear and tear cannot be considered for assessment on vehicles over 10 years old or 100,000 miles.”

14. Following the warranty claim denial, the repair was completed at the Claimant’s expense on 3 July 2025.


ISSUES
15. The mileage exclusion clause set out in section A11 is central to the dispute.

16. The term states that the warranty’s primary benefit, covering part wear and failure, is void once the vehicle exceeds the 100,000-mile threshold.

17. However, the Claimant was not informed of the exclusion clause before sale, nor that the vehicle had already exceeded the threshold, rendering the policy unusable.

18. Had the Defendant represented the true coverage of the warranty given the mileage exclusion, or more accurately the complete lack of coverage thereof, the Claimant would have obtained an alternative, appropriate manufacturer or third-party warranty instead.

19. The Claimant therefore submits the warranty was misrepresented and mis-sold.


DEFENDANT’S OBLIGATIONS
20. As an experienced professional trader, the Defendant possesses specialist skill and knowledge in this area, purporting to be car “experts”.

21. The FCA Principles (PRIN 2.1) require the Defendant to act with integrity, exercise skill and diligence, pay due regard to the interests of the Claimant, and treat the Claimant fairly. The FCA handbook defines the relationship as one of trust, requiring the Defendant to act in good faith, and communicate in a manner that is suitable, clear and not misleading.

22. Further, contrary to the Defendant’s submissions in the complaint denial, PRIN 2A.2.16 and 2A.2.17 require the Defendant to assume that the Claimant’s intention is to “enjoy the full benefits of the product in question,” and expressly permit the Claimant to rely on any advice or discretionary services provided.


PRE-ACTION CONDUCT
23. During pre-action correspondence, the Defendant has repeatedly threatened adverse costs and remained silent in response to proposals for Alternative Dispute Resolution.


CAUSES OF ACTION
24. The Claimant brings actions pursuant to the Misrepresentation Act (1967) and the Consumer Rights Act (2015).

Misrepresentation
25. Under the head of misrepresentation, the Claimant contends that the Defendant’s representations on 6 and 9 September 2024 regarding the extensive coverage of the Gold Plan warranty and the vehicle’s eligibility for repair claims were fraudulent, or, in the alternative, negligent. The Defendant knew, or acted recklessly in failing to know, that the vehicle had already exceeded the undisclosed 100,000-mile exclusion, rendering it ineligible for coverage and vitiating any repair claims. Nevertheless, the Defendant misrepresented the warranty as both comprehensive and suitable for the vehicle.

26. The Claimant submits that the Defendant’s telephone disclosure of exclusions omitted the mileage exclusion, amounting to a misleading half-truth.

Consumer Rights
27. Under the head of statutory consumer rights, the Claimant submits that the Defendant is a trader within the meaning of section 2 of the 2015 Act, even if acting as a broker or third party for Warrantywise.

28. The Claimant submits that the mileage exclusion term falls within the scope of Section 62 of the 2015 Act on the basis that it was unfair with reference to Paragraphs 10 and 18 of Schedule 2. As CMA guidance (CMA37(a)) makes clear, a mere cooling-off period cannot substitute full and clear pre-contractual information.

29. Further, the Claimant relies upon Section 50 of the 2015 Act; representations concerning the warranty’s suitability and coverage became binding terms on the Defendant.


DAMAGES
30. But for the Defendant’s misrepresentation, the Claimant would have been entitled to warranty coverage for the engine repair costs. The misrepresentation has caused both the expense of repairs and the loss of the warranty’s contractual benefit.

31. Accordingly, the Claimant seeks damages pursuant to Section 2 of the 1967 Act and/or Sections 50, 54 and 62 of the 2015 Act in the sum of £2542.90:

a. Cost of the warranty premiums - £449

b. Cost to repair the vehicle (Invoice [X]) - £2,093.90

32. The Claimant seeks interest pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act (1984) on the sum of £2542.90 from 10 September 2024 until judgment or sooner payment at the rate of 8% per annum amounting to £180.02 at the date of issue of the Claim Form on [date] and continuing at the rate of £0.55 per day.


AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
1. The sum of £2542.90

2. Interest

3. Costs

[echat11]

It reads well, lays out your case against the Defendant, only changes I would make are below.

Often these types of claims include a claim against the warranty company, but I can't see how they can be held responsible.

Facts - Point 8 - Change to Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA)

Defendants Obligations - Change FCA to Financial Conduct Authority (FCA)

Cause of Action - Remove brackets - Misrepresentation Act (1967) and the Consumer Rights Act (2015).

Cause of Action - 25 - Replace 'fraudulent' with 'dishonest', 'misleading' etc?

Cause of Action - where you've written '2015 Act' change to 'Consumer Rights Act 2015'.

Cause of Action - Change to Competition Markets Authority (CMA).

Damages - where you've written '2015 Act' change to 'Consumer Rights Act 2015', '1967 Act change to Misrepresentation Act 1967.

It reads well, lays out your case against the Defendant.

Often these types of claims include a claim against the warranty company, but I can't see how they can be held responsible.

The following is for information only - https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/hand.../?view=chapter

[RuddyPrince]

Thank youechat11 for both looking over that and suggesting some changes. I do genuinely appreciate you taking the time. You're a star.

I agree with you on not being able to hold the warranty provider themselves responsible, I think my best bet is with the finance company as they sold the warranty.

That FCA link is helpful too. Clearly they did not outline the "significant and unusual exclusions or limitations of the extended warranty" in this case.

My partner is still a little scared about filing but failing us finding a firm to review/revise the draft at an affordable price I think we'll just file with your changes and see what the judge says; I will let you know how we get on!

[echat11]

Update as you go along.