Ford Inspector for Warranty Repair-Update:Warranty Denied Claim Due to Off Road Racing

[2fast2focus]

Didn’t read this whole thread but not surprising at all unfortunately. It’s simply business for the arbitrator. How many more times will they see you? Probably never. Yet if they help Ford they will get Ford to continue to agree to use them as arbitrator and continue to get $$$$. Source: attorney. We never agree to corporate arbitrations.

The arbitrator is part of a panel and I believe gets a stipend from the BBB. They are probably obligated to do a minimum number of dispute resolutions and probably get an increase if they do more. However there is no compensation paid by Ford or by me for this one case.

I had to pay $50 to file the complaint with the BBB.

The arbitrator was not paid for by Ford.

Sponsored

 

[sms2022]

The arbitrator was not paid for by Ford.

Doesn’t change what I said. They ain’t getting paid if they have no work.

 

[WItoTX]

It would sadly appear that i was 100% right in my post 454 when i stated that if the arbitrator look up the definition of racing, moving at full speed is 1 of the definition
Putting emotion asides, winning in court is going to be a uphill battle with the arbitrator decision against you
So basically you were on a race track, going at full speed and that is 1 of the definition of racing
Stupid definition but nevertheless an accepted dictionary definition

Unfortunately watching this all unfold, I kind of had that thought in my mind, what really is the difference between racing and HPDE on the physical forces exerted on the car? Because that is what the arbitrator was ultimately going to need to evaluate.

OP, I am sorry to read this. I agree, there are some typos in the ruling. Ford's TE testimony IMO was weak at best, and their attorney really sounded like the C team, especially compared to your testimony.

I know I have learned a lot from this thread, and I greatly appreciate what you have shared. 1, that if I ever have to take mine in, that I put fresh tires on and remove all stickers, or evidence in general of "racing". And 2, to have TONS of photos of my car at car shows, so that I can justify I "wanted it to look like a race car".

 

[Inthehighdesert]

It completely contradicts what you posted. And depending on the contract and terms of service arbitration may be required as a first remedy. That said, there is nothing behind the BBB. For a business its little more then a logo to put on your door or website that’s suppose to insinuate quality and ethics. The OP now has to decide on if he’s going the court route. Cars been down for months at this point which is really unfortunate.

Doesn’t change what I said. They ain’t getting paid if they have no work.

 

[sms2022]

It completely contradicts what you posted. And depending on the contract and terms of service arbitration may be required as a first remedy. That said, there is nothing behind the BBB. For a business its little more then a logo to put on your door or website that’s suppose to insinuate quality and ethics. The OP now has to decide on if he’s going the court route. Cars been down for months at this point which is really unfortunate.

it really doesn’t at all. You do understand it’s Ford and other companies that keep the BBB in business by paying dues right?

If Ford and other companies get upset at the BBB and no longer agree to use the BBB arbitration service, it goes away. If individual customers get mad and decide not to use it again, nothing happens.

I agree it was probably required by the contract though, and that strengthens my argument even further because ford wrote the contract, they’re not going to pick a dispute method they will lose with. I’m not dogging OP for doing it at all, just saying I wouldn’t expect any other result. I’d sue them.

 

[luc]

it really doesn’t at all. You do understand it’s Ford and other companies that keep the BBB in business by paying dues right?

I agree it was probably required by the contract though, and that strengthens my argument even further because ford wrote the contract, they’re not going to pick a dispute method they will lose with. I’m not dogging OP for doing it at all, just saying I wouldn’t expect any other result. I’d sue them.

Easy to say that you would sue them…it’s not your money
The chance of winning in court is about zero. Sometimes you need to cut your losses and move on

 

[sms2022]

Easy to say that you would sue them…it’s not your money
The chance of winning in court is about zero. Sometimes you need to cut your losses and move on

fair enough, I have a different perspective on this since I wouldn’t have any legal bills. If OP was in Michigan I’d help him out, stuff like this pisses me off. But if he has to pay an attorney hourly, probably true that it doesn’t make sense to do it.

 

[BlkMach10510]

So to all the Shelby's, Mach 1's, etc.....be careful tracking your car. Be ready to pay.

 

[EFI]

So to all the Shelby's, Mach 1's, etc.....be careful tracking your car. Be ready to pay. Sponsored

Or just be smart about it and don't give them any opportunities to deny you eg. waltzing in with a track purpose roll cage and expect them not to question your vehicle usage.

I figured a long time ago playing dumb and safe is the best way to approach any situation like this, and that's not just limited to cars.

 

[MrMike]

This popped up on my case profile so I am not sure if I will get a cleaner version of the decision but this the best I have right now. The formatting is a hot mess but everything on their portal is a PDF so it looks like the arbitrator typed it in a fill-it-in type format and any formatting was lost.


Spoiler alert: denied: track use=racing



The synopsis in the PDF is not very encompassing of my arguments I made in arbitration and I believe there is a major typo with the word NOT left out int he following sentence:

"He stated that the modifications (seats, seat belts and a roll bar) were for safety only
and they were required at the track for HPDE as were the racing stickers."​

I have not decided what the next steps are but I am very busy at work for another month and half so I will update on what I decide, when I decide.

I read a chunk of the thread and the attachment but I feel like I'm missing something.

Can OP or anyone explain this part of the decision document?

Fn. 1.: Customer testified at the hearing that he seeks reimbursement for loss
of the Vehicle and cited the yearly lease value of $13,750 as a basis for reimbursement

I thought OP just wanted a transmission replacement.

Has more time passed than I thought? I understood there was a Ford ESP so the vehicle was owned, not leased, so I feel like I'm missing where this number came from.

I also feel like I missed where the Ford ESP came in to play if the original powertrain warranty is in effect. I feel like that should've covered the transmission.

Ford is correct that the ESP is a sub-brand/whatever as it can cover non-Ford vehicles and that the terms are different than the factory warranty. I don't see how that even applies to this situation though. Assuming OP's drivetrain is completely stock, OP made a good argument and transmission should've been replaced.

 

[BlkMach10510]

Or just be smart about it and don't give them any opportunities to deny you eg. waltzing in with a track purpose roll cage and expect them not to question your vehicle usage.

Or not sell Shelby's and the Mach 1 as track ready cars then flip out when they go to the track. And if so then Shelby's and the Mach 1 plus any other car ford markets as track ready should not be eligible for esp if they do not allow track time.

 

[Michael_vroomvroom]

What a sad decision.

News for Ford owners: using Ford vehicles marked as "track ready" on track, HPDE included, is not covered by warranty. Get a Camaro instead.

Would be too much to hope that some journalist would pick this up I guess. :-/

Next trackday: March 30.

 

[mikedahammer]

I read a chunk of the thread and the attachment but I feel like I'm missing something.

Can OP or anyone explain this part of the decision document?



I thought OP just wanted a transmission replacement.

Has more time passed than I thought? I understood there was a Ford ESP so the vehicle was owned, not leased, so I feel like I'm missing where this number came from.

I also feel like I missed where the Ford ESP came in to play if the original powertrain warranty is in effect. I feel like that should've covered the transmission.

Ford is correct that the ESP is a sub-brand/whatever as it can cover non-Ford vehicles and that the terms are different than the factory warranty. I don't see how that even applies to this situation though. Assuming OP's drivetrain is completely stock, OP made a good argument and transmission should've been replaced.

I was requesting for the transmission to be repaired and to be compensated for loss of use of vehicle (since it had to sit at the dealer). So I calculated how that could be valued by the arbitrator by using IRS annual lease value tables of what the car would lease for based on it's value and then using that amount against the time the vehicle was down. I would have be fine with them fixing the transmission issue only but thought they should also compensate me for not being able to use the vehicle since they were in violation of the contract.

The vehicle went to dealer in August of 2023. So it has been over 6 months sitting there.

 

[MrMike]

I was requesting for the transmission to be repaired and to be compensated for loss of use of vehicle (since it had to sit at the dealer). So I calculated how that could be valued by the arbitrator by using IRS annual lease value tables of what the car would lease for based on it's value and then using that amount against the time the vehicle was down. I would have be fine with them fixing the transmission issue only but thought they should also compensate me for not being able to use the vehicle since they were in violation of the contract.

The vehicle went to dealer in August of 2023. So it has been over 6 months sitting there.

Yep, that jives. What a pain.

 

[Cobra Jet]

Deceptive Trade Practices? They should not sell a policy to track cars like the GT350/500s if they will not be covered when used on track as expected and promoted. If the dealer that sold you the policy knew you tracked the car, they are at fault also.
As for the arbitration, the ruling does not match the words in the contract, but rather an assumed interpretation of intent by Ford. If any high speed track driving is excluded, it needs to expressly say that. No HPDE participant thinks they are “Racing”. That said, I would expect Ford to have Track exclusions on a standard contract because HPDE are hard on the cars, but your contract does not say that. Don’t give up.

This is what I’ve said as well in prior posts. If the car can’t be covered for ESP warranty repairs when it failed being used AS DESIGNED, then those ESP’s sold are bogus - and every owner who was sold one should request a refund…

The factory 3/36 B to B and the 5/60 Powertrain is totally separate from ANY Ford ESP.

What many folks do not realize and are not told by the Seller of an ESP is this:
- The ESP runs concurrently with any factory warranty, in some instances it’s even stated in fine print in the plan documents. So when a repair is made and the factory warranties are still in place, the factory warranty period and coverage provisions takes precedence over any ESP, period.

The only time the ESP is effective is after the 3/36 burns out as well as the 5/60 IF the owner purchased one when the 3/36 and/or 5/60 was still in play.

So to put it simply, if you are sold a 7/75 ESP, this is what you really bought:
3/36 B to B - 7/75 = 4/39; so which ever comes first 4 years or 39k miles.

If applied to the 5/60 - 7/75 = 2/15.

People are fooled into buying ESP’s and many think the ESP term kicks in after the 3/36 or 5/60 burns out which is not true again IF purchased when the vehicle still has an active 3/36 or 5/60. It starts as of the date the vehicle was put into service which is concurrently with those mentioned Ford factory warranties.

The other thing too is - the Ford 5/60 Powertrain is pretty comprehensive as packaged. If one were to take the 5/60 and compare it to what is offered in an ESP (Powertrain to Powertrain), ask yourself what you’re really paying for - because you’d be surprised that the ESP coverage is essentially covering the same as the 5/60 - but isn’t effective when the 5/60 is still in play because the 5/60 will be applied before the ESP.

The only time an ESP is worth buying is:
- If the owner will keep the car longer than 5 years
- If the owner drives the car where mileage accrual outweighs the years used
- If it is the max ESP plan purchased, which IIRC, is the 8/120? That’s the only plan where it has “meat” after the 3/36 and 5/60 burns up and will be beneficial to someone that actually drives the car, where a part may fail due to mileage wear/tear.

I think the arbitrator is blind to the situation at hand.

Unfortunately, this now sets the opposite precedence expected where this case could be referenced to deny any other similar claims put forth by others with similar failures while using their vehicle in similar events.

I think OP should still pursue, but at what cost and time?

Sponsored