Headlights Fault - Warranty Wise - Porsche Silverstone

[AKA Law Ltd]

A little reflection on my experiance over the last few months with my Porsche Taycan ownership journey.

Firstly, credit where it is due. Porsche Centre Silverstone were excellent throughout. Justin and the wider team were patient, professional, helpful and consistent. Updates were given, questions answered and I never felt like I was being pushed away. That level of service deserves recognition.

Sadly, my experiance with Warrantywise was far more difficult.

The claim initially started with an outright refusal based upon alleged water ingress and damage. This later proved incorrect. Further investigations moved away from damage and towards electrical fatigue and latent defect findings, with no evidence of ingress or external cause being identified.

That left me with a genuine question. If the vehicle itself is fundamentally electric and the policy covers electrical systems across the vehicle, I became concerned as to the practical purpose of the cover if electrical fatigue on electrical components within an EV was being disputed.

I appealed the decision.

During that process I attempted to contact the expert arbiter directly under the policy. My approach was redirected and I was advised to first pursue the internal complaints process. Reference was also made to exhausting internal remedies before external action, which I personally took as encouragement to follow process before taking matters further.

For context, I am a practising Criminal Defence and Motoring Lawyer, so references to CPR procedures and litigation do not particularly trouble me. My concern was never court. My concern was understanding the policy and whether the claim properly fell within it.

The admin side was also difficult.

The online forms felt long and protracted. On more than one occasion the session expired before completion and I had to restart the process. I ended up drafting everything in Word first and then copying and pasting it across as quickly as possible.

Document handling was another challenge. Many documents from Porsche and Warrantywise were already in PDF format, yet later evidence uploads required image formats. I was fortunate enough to be reasonably tech savvy, but I could easily see how others may struggle.

Perhaps most surprisingly, I ended up reading the policy cover repeatedly, around four times in total, pulling out wording and extracts myself and referring Warrantywise back to their own policy provisions in order to discuss whether the fault sat within scope.

Eventually, following the complaints process, I was able to refer the matter to the expert arbiter directly. To be fair, discretion was exercised and payment was authorised in respect of what was ultimately an electrical issue on an electric vehicle. Credit should be given for that outcome.

This is not a post saying nothing was done. Payment has been made and that should be recognised.

It is simply an honest reflection that the process felt considerably more difficult, more evidentially heavy and more stressfull than I expected.

My biggest takeaway is simple.

A good garage makes ownership enjoyable.

A difficult claims process can make ownership feel like work.

So again, thank you Porsche Centre Silverstone. You remained professional throughout and that deserves recognition.

Credit where credit is due.

Sponsored

 

[tophamn]

A little reflection on my experiance over the last few months with my Porsche Taycan ownership journey.

Firstly, credit where it is due. Porsche Centre Silverstone were excellent throughout. Justin and the wider team were patient, professional, helpful and consistent. Updates were given, questions answered and I never felt like I was being pushed away. That level of service deserves recognition.

Sadly, my experiance with Warrantywise was far more difficult.

The claim initially started with an outright refusal based upon alleged water ingress and damage. This later proved incorrect. Further investigations moved away from damage and towards electrical fatigue and latent defect findings, with no evidence of ingress or external cause being identified.

That left me with a genuine question. If the vehicle itself is fundamentally electric and the policy covers electrical systems across the vehicle, I became concerned as to the practical purpose of the cover if electrical fatigue on electrical components within an EV was being disputed.

I appealed the decision.

During that process I attempted to contact the expert arbiter directly under the policy. My approach was redirected and I was advised to first pursue the internal complaints process. Reference was also made to exhausting internal remedies before external action, which I personally took as encouragement to follow process before taking matters further.

For context, I am a practising Criminal Defence and Motoring Lawyer, so references to CPR procedures and litigation do not particularly trouble me. My concern was never court. My concern was understanding the policy and whether the claim properly fell within it.

The admin side was also difficult.

The online forms felt long and protracted. On more than one occasion the session expired before completion and I had to restart the process. I ended up drafting everything in Word first and then copying and pasting it across as quickly as possible.

Document handling was another challenge. Many documents from Porsche and Warrantywise were already in PDF format, yet later evidence uploads required image formats. I was fortunate enough to be reasonably tech savvy, but I could easily see how others may struggle.

Perhaps most surprisingly, I ended up reading the policy cover repeatedly, around four times in total, pulling out wording and extracts myself and referring Warrantywise back to their own policy provisions in order to discuss whether the fault sat within scope.

Eventually, following the complaints process, I was able to refer the matter to the expert arbiter directly. To be fair, discretion was exercised and payment was authorised in respect of what was ultimately an electrical issue on an electric vehicle. Credit should be given for that outcome.

This is not a post saying nothing was done. Payment has been made and that should be recognised.

It is simply an honest reflection that the process felt considerably more difficult, more evidentially heavy and more stressfull than I expected.

My biggest takeaway is simple.

A good garage makes ownership enjoyable.

A difficult claims process can make ownership feel like work.

So again, thank you Porsche Centre Silverstone. You remained professional throughout and that deserves recognition.

Credit where credit is due.

Question: where does Warrantywise come in? - you don't have a warranty with Porsche?

 

[AKA Law Ltd]

Unfortunately, I was not wealthy enough at the time to purchase one that was less than 4 yrs old, and as you know, the CPO warranty expires at the 4 yrs mark. I have considered the Porsche Extended Warranty, but ascertained that on paper Warranty Wise covers more than Porsche will...but that i on paper only

 

[gnr3312]

A little reflection on my experiance over the last few months with my Porsche Taycan ownership journey.

Firstly, credit where it is due. Porsche Centre Silverstone were excellent throughout. Justin and the wider team were patient, professional, helpful and consistent. Updates were given, questions answered and I never felt like I was being pushed away. That level of service deserves recognition.

Sadly, my experiance with Warrantywise was far more difficult.

The claim initially started with an outright refusal based upon alleged water ingress and damage. This later proved incorrect. Further investigations moved away from damage and towards electrical fatigue and latent defect findings, with no evidence of ingress or external cause being identified.

That left me with a genuine question. If the vehicle itself is fundamentally electric and the policy covers electrical systems across the vehicle, I became concerned as to the practical purpose of the cover if electrical fatigue on electrical components within an EV was being disputed.

I appealed the decision.

During that process I attempted to contact the expert arbiter directly under the policy. My approach was redirected and I was advised to first pursue the internal complaints process. Reference was also made to exhausting internal remedies before external action, which I personally took as encouragement to follow process before taking matters further.

For context, I am a practising Criminal Defence and Motoring Lawyer, so references to CPR procedures and litigation do not particularly trouble me. My concern was never court. My concern was understanding the policy and whether the claim properly fell within it.

The admin side was also difficult.

The online forms felt long and protracted. On more than one occasion the session expired before completion and I had to restart the process. I ended up drafting everything in Word first and then copying and pasting it across as quickly as possible.

Document handling was another challenge. Many documents from Porsche and Warrantywise were already in PDF format, yet later evidence uploads required image formats. I was fortunate enough to be reasonably tech savvy, but I could easily see how others may struggle.

Perhaps most surprisingly, I ended up reading the policy cover repeatedly, around four times in total, pulling out wording and extracts myself and referring Warrantywise back to their own policy provisions in order to discuss whether the fault sat within scope.

Eventually, following the complaints process, I was able to refer the matter to the expert arbiter directly. To be fair, discretion was exercised and payment was authorised in respect of what was ultimately an electrical issue on an electric vehicle. Credit should be given for that outcome.

This is not a post saying nothing was done. Payment has been made and that should be recognised.

It is simply an honest reflection that the process felt considerably more difficult, more evidentially heavy and more stressfull than I expected.

My biggest takeaway is simple.

A good garage makes ownership enjoyable.

A difficult claims process can make ownership feel like work.

So again, thank you Porsche Centre Silverstone. You remained professional throughout and that deserves recognition.

Credit where credit is due.

Would you say that a normal non-lawyer person would find this process discouraging and they would drop their claim?

 

[AKA Law Ltd]

Speaking personally, I am a practising lawyer, comfortable with evidence, policy interpretation and dispute resolution. Even I foundd the process lengthy and demanding. I therefore think it is entirely possible that a non-lawyer, particularly someone less confident with technology or technical language, may have felt discouraged and abandoned the claim.

Reviewing my email threads over the 8 weeks it took to complete I made a list of all the issuess/reasons:


• The process required repeeated review of policy wording and definitions, including understanding distinctions between breakdown, premature failure, latent defect and pre-existing issues.


• The original refusal changed over time, moving from alleged water ingress and damage to electrical fatigue and latent defect findings, requiring the claim position to be continualy reassessed.


• Considerable documentary evidence had to be gathered, including reports, estimates, invoices, photographs, policy extracts and correspondence.


• The online submission process felt lengthy and, in my experiance, sessions expired before completion, requiring information to be re-entered. I ultimately prepared responses externally and copied them across.


• Documents already provided in PDF format later required conversion into image formats for upload purposes. Whilst manageable for me, others may struggle with file conversion and document handling.


• The process involved understanding engineering language and technical conclusions, which may not be familiar to the average motorist (I had to Google a lot of terms). I must admit that this forum was of some use in determining what was normal vs abnormal


• The need to challenge findings and refer back to policy wording required time and confidence in reading contractual documents.


• There were multiple stages, claim submission, review, appeal, complaint process and eventual referral to the arbiter, which can feel procedurally heavy.


• Time investment becomes a factor. Many people work full time, have family commitments or simply do not have the hours available to pursue detailed disputes. In my case, the over £5k it would have cost me to have headlights repaired, left me with no choice but to 'solldier on'.


• There is also a psychological aspect. Repeated refusals, requests for further information and technical responses may lead some consumers to conclude, rightly or wrongly, that continuing is unlikely to achieve anything.


• Cost concerns may also discourage people. Some may fear expert fees, further inspections or possible legal expense, even if they ultimately never arise.


• Confidence and knowledge play a part. I was fortunate to have legal training and be reasonably comfortable with evidence and procedure. Many consumers would not have that advantage.


For those reasons, I think some ordinary consumers may discontinue a claim, not because it lacks merit, but because the process itself becomes difficult to navigate

 

[tophamn]

Reviewing my email threads over the 8 weeks it took to complete I made a list of all the issuess/reasons:


• The process required repeeated review of policy wording and definitions, including understanding distinctions between breakdown, premature failure, latent defect and pre-existing issues.


• The original refusal changed over time, moving from alleged water ingress and damage to electrical fatigue and latent defect findings, requiring the claim position to be continualy reassessed.


• Considerable documentary evidence had to be gathered, including reports, estimates, invoices, photographs, policy extracts and correspondence.


• The online submission process felt lengthy and, in my experiance, sessions expired before completion, requiring information to be re-entered. I ultimately prepared responses externally and copied them across.


• Documents already provided in PDF format later required conversion into image formats for upload purposes. Whilst manageable for me, others may struggle with file conversion and document handling.


• The process involved understanding engineering language and technical conclusions, which may not be familiar to the average motorist (I had to Google a lot of terms). I must admit that this forum was of some use in determining what was normal vs abnormal


• The need to challenge findings and refer back to policy wording required time and confidence in reading contractual documents.


• There were multiple stages, claim submission, review, appeal, complaint process and eventual referral to the arbiter, which can feel procedurally heavy.


• Time investment becomes a factor. Many people work full time, have family commitments or simply do not have the hours available to pursue detailed disputes. In my case, the over £5k it would have cost me to have headlights repaired, left me with no choice but to 'solldier on'.


• There is also a psychological aspect. Repeated refusals, requests for further information and technical responses may lead some consumers to conclude, rightly or wrongly, that continuing is unlikely to achieve anything.


• Cost concerns may also discourage people. Some may fear expert fees, further inspections or possible legal expense, even if they ultimately never arise.


• Confidence and knowledge play a part. I was fortunate to have legal training and be reasonably comfortable with evidence and procedure. Many consumers would not have that advantage.


For those reasons, I think some ordinary consumers may discontinue a claim, not because it lacks merit, but because the process itself becomes difficult to navigate

Thanks for posting your experience to the forum. This is a great example of why the Porsche warranty is worth its weight in gold: you don't get any of this back-n-forth, is it covered, whose fault, etc., etc.

 

[AKA Law Ltd]

Yes, but can advise everyone to reaffirm what their Porsche warranty would cover, as Silverstone stated that they would not have covered it.

My ultimate advice is that one should only purchase a Taycan under warranty or do not buy one at all

To quote Porsche from their site "The Porsche Approved Warranty covers all components of your Porsche and offers the same level of service as the New Vehicle Warranty. We cover your Porsche for up to 15 years."

Porsche Approved Warranty

 

[AKA Law Ltd]

I don't know how to do it on here, but my experience should be shared throughout this forum so others can learn from my mistakes

 

[Nickj]

Think it’s a really important share. Many posts appearing about do I need a Porsche warranty, and for anyone reading the thread it’s an absolutely yes! But even with a warranty there’s still a risk around damaged/ age/ mileage exclusions so nothing is fail proof.

I recently bought my company car, spec’d and had since new but due to ownership change couldn’t apply extended warranty immediately. In the 3 month grace period charging port failed. £1200 bill. I did have a 3rd part warranty, TMO ( the motoring organisation), and it was v cheap, but when I went to claim they said they didn’t cover wiring parts and the max labour charge per hours was £40 plus VAT… long story short but they offered £230 max towards it! In the end argued with Porsche as this part had failed previously, so ended up costing me a couple of hundred, but word of warning as you really don’t want to own one of these without Porsche warranty, and even then if damaged/ age related be prepared for a battle/ additional cost.

 

[W1NGE]

A little reflection on my experiance over the last few months with my Porsche Taycan ownership journey.

Firstly, credit where it is due. Porsche Centre Silverstone were excellent throughout. Justin and the wider team were patient, professional, helpful and consistent. Updates were given, questions answered and I never felt like I was being pushed away. That level of service deserves recognition.

Sadly, my experiance with Warrantywise was far more difficult.

The claim initially started with an outright refusal based upon alleged water ingress and damage. This later proved incorrect. Further investigations moved away from damage and towards electrical fatigue and latent defect findings, with no evidence of ingress or external cause being identified.

That left me with a genuine question. If the vehicle itself is fundamentally electric and the policy covers electrical systems across the vehicle, I became concerned as to the practical purpose of the cover if electrical fatigue on electrical components within an EV was being disputed.

I appealed the decision.

During that process I attempted to contact the expert arbiter directly under the policy. My approach was redirected and I was advised to first pursue the internal complaints process. Reference was also made to exhausting internal remedies before external action, which I personally took as encouragement to follow process before taking matters further.

For context, I am a practising Criminal Defence and Motoring Lawyer, so references to CPR procedures and litigation do not particularly trouble me. My concern was never court. My concern was understanding the policy and whether the claim properly fell within it.

The admin side was also difficult.

The online forms felt long and protracted. On more than one occasion the session expired before completion and I had to restart the process. I ended up drafting everything in Word first and then copying and pasting it across as quickly as possible.

Document handling was another challenge. Many documents from Porsche and Warrantywise were already in PDF format, yet later evidence uploads required image formats. I was fortunate enough to be reasonably tech savvy, but I could easily see how others may struggle.

Perhaps most surprisingly, I ended up reading the policy cover repeatedly, around four times in total, pulling out wording and extracts myself and referring Warrantywise back to their own policy provisions in order to discuss whether the fault sat within scope.

Eventually, following the complaints process, I was able to refer the matter to the expert arbiter directly. To be fair, discretion was exercised and payment was authorised in respect of what was ultimately an electrical issue on an electric vehicle. Credit should be given for that outcome.

This is not a post saying nothing was done. Payment has been made and that should be recognised.

It is simply an honest reflection that the process felt considerably more difficult, more evidentially heavy and more stressfull than I expected.

My biggest takeaway is simple.

A good garage makes ownership enjoyable.

A difficult claims process can make ownership feel like work.

So again, thank you Porsche Centre Silverstone. You remained professional throughout and that deserves recognition.

Credit where credit is due.

Unfortunate but I would never have anything other than a Porsche warranty for a Porsche and in particular for such a "young" car.

 

[Fish Fingers]

Interesting angle to this......
After reading the initial post I wondered whether Warrantywise are FCA regulated or not?

Your experience has a lot of red flags under 'Consumer Duty' legislation (my world).
unfortunately they are not FCA registered.

But some additional info from AI that appears potentially interesting if looking at getting a warranty:

If you are shopping around for a car warranty and want the peace of mind that comes with FCA backing (and recourse to the Ombudsman), you will need to specifically look for providers that sell regulated mechanical breakdown insurance rather than service contracts.

Sponsored