Should main dealers be able to insist on using genuine parts and approved service?

I bought a hedge trimmers two years ago and it has developed a fault. The retailer told me that the warranty is for two years but I should have got it serviced last year, which I didn't do. He said if the fault is related to the failure to service it, then the warranty won't cover the cost. If the failure to service it has nothing to do with the fault, the warranty will cover it. That seems fair enough to me.

If I buy a new car, I get a warranty.

At first sight, it seems reasonable to me that the warranty would be conditional on the car being serviced by an approved dealer and on the dealer using official parts.

If I go to a local mechanic and he uses cheap parts, I can understand why that would invalidate the warranty.

But the Consumer Commission is investigating motor dealers for this practice.


[The Commission] will assure independent garages that they can freely repair vehicles, use non-original spare parts where quality matches the manufacturer’s, and access repair and diagnostic equipment.

How could they ensure that the non-original spare parts are of the same quality?

I think the implication is that, if the motor dealer wishes to repudiate the warranty because non-original parts were used, it will be up to him to show that the non-original parts were of lesser quality.

This will be relatively straightforward if the warranty claim arises because a non-original spare part has failed. But it will make it very difficult for dealers to repudiate a warranty on the grounds that non-original parts have been fitted if, in fact, the non-original parts are functioning just fine, and the warranty claim arises out of some unrelated issue.

Which is a bit like my hedge trimmer story. That seems a reasonable balance. Use of a non-original part should not totally invalidate the warranty but should invalidate it if the fault is related to the part used.

But what about getting a car service? If maintenance by the approved dealer might have avoided the problem, then invalidating the warranty seems reasonable.

If you don't get it serviced at all, that will (I assume) still invalidate the warranty.

If you have it serviced by an independent dealer who has access to proper repair and diagnostic equipment and uses parts of proper quality, there is no reason why that should invalidate the warranty. If the nature of the warrantly claim suggests that a non-original part has failed, or that a diagnostic procedure wasn't done, or wasn't done adequately or competently, then I think the intention is that the warranty can be disclaimed.

Car manufacturers don't actually manufacture most of the components that go into their vehicles. They buy in the components from the massive selection of component manufacturers.

Any parts manufactured by an EU based manufacturer will meet all quality and safety standards. The same is generally true for parts from developed countries.

I generally do my own servicing.
I don't expect to have my warranty extended into the period where I have carried out the service.

After buying a new car I would let a dealer do the service for the first few years. If no issues occur during this period I then self service.

Over the years I have not had any major faults occur during my servicing periods.

My experience with main dealers has been that in many cases the quality of their work has been sub standard. My experience with small independent mechanics has been that mostly their work is to a good standard.

Any spare parts manufactured by a recognised part manufacturer will be to the highest standards. The part manufacturer will list all vehicles types which the part is suitable for. In many cases the vehicle registration number is used to verify if the part is suitable.

S class said:

Car manufacturers don't actually manufacture most of the components that go into their vehicles. They buy in the components from the massive selection of component manufacturers.

Click to expand...

Just have a look at the logos on various parts of the car. They may have the car brand logo on them, but often have the actual manufacturer's name also.

If you go with a garage that is a 'Top Part' partner, this means they are using parts approved (OE) to ensure the warranty is not invalidated on a car when work is done by an Independent garage. They supply all the diagnostic systems / tools and parts to service cars to warrant spec.

Brendan Burgess said:

At first sight, it seems reasonable to me that the warranty would be conditional on the car being serviced by an approved dealer and on the dealer using official parts.

If I go to a local mechanic and he uses cheap parts, I can understand why that would invalidate the warranty.

Click to expand...

Used to be if you wanted a photocopier your only option was Xerox and part of the lease agreement with Xerox was that you could only use Xerox paper which you were required to purchase from them at their eye wateringly marked up and totally gouging prices. This was made illegal as a clearly unfair term muscled into a contract by the party which clearly held far more leverage.

This is called bundling and has been outlawed for decades at an EU level. This is just a slightly different flavour of the same ice cream.

Marques (A) effectively place a bet on the vast majority of their vehicles sold having no call on their warranty (they have the statistics to ensure this is the case when they're deciding their warranty length) and (B) also that nearly all purchasers won't take the risk and will get their vehicles services at the main dealer to be safe (they're probably right on that one too) and (C) also won't take the risk of pursuing proceedings in court and being hit for both sides legal fees if they fail (again, the marques are probably correct in most cases).

@S class is probably a fairly typical purchaser as far as points A and B are concerned, which means point C doesn't arise for them.

Push comes to shove these terms won't stand up in court if tested and the marque will anyway settle to avoid a precedent being set publicly. But as above, it's a small minority of a small minority of a small minority of car purchasers who would end up in a position to test the law in practice. And it's not something that can be done deliberately by a test purchaser- if the vehicles were likely to require warranty repairs the marques would shorten the warranty periods until they weren't after all. Also, who is going to buy a €30k vehicle and then quibble about a couple of hundred euro extra a year on servicing?

Thus the requirement for the CCPC to step in. Eventually...

CE marks and the European spare parts directive would provide the vast majority of quality assurance required I would guess, and also give purchaser's an additional mark— if there's a reasonable possibility the spurious parts and/or the quality of the service provided actually caused an issue the purchaser can sue them all and either they can agree liability amongst themselves or the court can decide.

• It's worth mentioning that if the service intervals etc weren't adhered to and a warrant issue could be traced back to a failure to adhere to them, that'd obviously put the purchaser on much thinner ice.

BIG-notorious said:

European spare parts directive

Click to expand...

I had not known that there was one!

Does the European Spare Parts Directive cover motor vehicles? Annex II suggests not.

"Which products are covered?

The proposal covers consumer goods (any tangible movable item) and concerns any defect that may occur in such goods, whether or not still under legal guarantee. The producer has an obligation to repair goods for 5-10 years after they were bought, depending on the type of product, for which reparability requirements are provided in Union legal acts. Goods for which reparability requirements currently exist include household washing machines and household washer-dryers, household dishwashers, refrigerating appliances, electronic displays, welding equipment, vacuum cleaners, and servers and data storage. Mobile phones, cordless phones and tablets will soon be included in this list, when the respective ecodesign reparability requirements are adopted.

Click to expand...

Brendan Burgess said:

I had not known that there was one!

Click to expand...

Marsupial said:

Does the European Spare Parts Directive cover motor vehicles? Annex II suggests not.

Click to expand...

The one I'm thinking of has been around since the 1990s (when I learned about it in college). Probably isn't even called that TBH. The upshot is that a particular marque can't lock the purchasers of their vehicles into a lifetime of repeat business by (for example) charging them €1,000 for a service set which only they can provide— which I believe used to be standard practice...