Yamaha Outboard Warranty Claim - Is This Reasonable?

C

Cbjroms

Well-Known Member
Joined
29 Mar 2013
Messages
93
Visit site
I have a 4 year old 115Hp outboard that has been serviced every year. For the first 3 years it was serviced by a Yamaha dealer but last year it was serviced by a local, marine engineer of very high repute. When the service was done this year the top cowl latch was found to be completely seized and I arranged for the local Yamaha dealer to sort this out for me which cost around £300.

I submitted a warranty claim to Yamaha and received the following response 'we have been given to understand that having inspected the cowling lock lever the technician considered that it had seized as the result of lack of maintenance (lubrication) rather than being a manufacturing defect'.

My point is that the maintenance schedule for the engine stipulates that the top cowl latch be given an annual inspection by the owner - it is not required to have any dealer attention. Whatsmore there is no facility (eg grease nipple) to get any lubrication into the mechansim without stripping it down and no instruction in the manual as to the need to regularly strip and lubricate. So how can it be reasonable for Yamaha to claim lack of maintenance (lubrication) when this particular coponent has been maintained exactly as per the engine's maintenance schedule?

My inclination is to put this to the Small Claims Court as I feel that I am being fobbed-off. But am I being reasonable?
 
I'm sure this exact thing was discussed on here within the last few months. Maybe worth a search.
 
I would suggest there's grounds for a claim. If it needed lubrication it should be mentioned in the handbook or be part of the service schedule.
 
Thanks MrB,

My original thread was about the maintenance that this component would have received had it been serviced by a Yamaha dealer rather than a local 'indie'.

Having established the facts I thought that it would be neater to create another thread to seek opinion on my claim.
 
IMO you will lose this if you take it to court, and no you're not being reasonable.

It is stipulated in the manual that you must check it. But it's also bleeding obvious. You don't have to strip it down to re-lube it so your complaint on that score will be challenged. Zillions of yam owners (incl me -several of their engines) have never had a problem.

Onus of proof will be on you and you will have about 6 minutes to speak. Fortunately for you your costs will be limited to about £100 when you lose, assuming the thing gets allocated to small claims track which seems very likely but is not certain in this particular case (and take great care if it isn't).

Also the terms of the warranty are important because that is the contract that you're suing under (unless you're proceeding under consumer statutes- you don't say you are and you suggest this is a warranty contract matter). I haven't read the warranty contract but you will need to file it as part of your claim and be confident that the wording supports you/no exclusions. Good luck with that.

Anyway I can't see you winning and you must have spent more time thinking and typing about the thing than it would have taken you to fix it. We're only talking about a latch for the cowl on an outboard engine ferchrissakes.
 
Last edited:
Wow. ;) Too succinct for the OP to put that in his pipe to smoke. Reminds me a bit of Little Britain. "The computer says; No!"
 
Cbjroms said:
I have a 4 year old 115Hp outboard that has been serviced every year. For the first 3 years it was serviced by a Yamaha dealer but last year it was serviced by a local, marine engineer of very high repute. When the service was done this year the top cowl latch was found to be completely seized and I arranged for the local Yamaha dealer to sort this out for me which cost around £300.

I submitted a warranty claim to Yamaha and received the following response 'we have been given to understand that having inspected the cowling lock lever the technician considered that it had seized as the result of lack of maintenance (lubrication) rather than being a manufacturing defect'.

My point is that the maintenance schedule for the engine stipulates that the top cowl latch be given an annual inspection by the owner - it is not required to have any dealer attention. Whatsmore there is no facility (eg grease nipple) to get any lubrication into the mechansim without stripping it down and no instruction in the manual as to the need to regularly strip and lubricate. So how can it be reasonable for Yamaha to claim lack of maintenance (lubrication) when this particular coponent has been maintained exactly as per the engine's maintenance schedule?

My inclination is to put this to the Small Claims Court as I feel that I am being fobbed-off. But am I being reasonable?
Click to expand...

Did it not show any signs of stiffness when you inspected it last time? I'd say your time would be better spent on finding a way of preventing this from seizing again in future (lube / grease spray the mechanism perhaps? Anything that could help reduce salt water ingress couldn't be a bad thing) than it would on pursuing a small claim.
 
Agree with JFM on both counts 1- legal hassle is not worth it and 2 the inference of home diy prevention.
As said above and as we all know salts a killer corossion and a ceaser up er to any thing that suppose to move .
WD 40 it and leave to soak in .
There’s plenty of spray on grease products about of various viscousities .
I allways take warranties on mech stuff like engines as the gubbins like failed pistons dropped valves etc .
Stuff like good housekeeping, lubing / oiling you do yourself on exposed vulnarable bits like door locks ,in a car or latches on a OB cover .

Reminds me of this tale re WD 40 .
A few years ago in the new boat to us ( current boat ) we went to the Porqurolle islands intending to stay around a while .
Fr school hols so everywhere is rammed .Ok cos we can anchor and use the geny .
Unknown to me the geny water pump seal was weeping and had ceases the shaft .
Switch on ,the belt snapped.
Local island chandler had spares ( Citroen 1.0 AX cross part :))
That snapped - obviously!
I then diagnosed a ceased pump
Took it off - could not budge it .- with grips - we’ll ceased
Sprayed with WD wrapped it up put it in a poly bag , in wife’s handbag off we tendered ashore -
Fr 2 hour lunch , no prob , we had a nice lunch waiting for the shop to open , wife and daughter diceded to wonder off into town clothes shopping .
Meanwhile come 2 pm I,am at the chandler/ engineer s expliaing the issue ( U.K. ex pat good EN ) hoping he could either put it in a vice , heat it , re seal - clutching at straws really .As no geny and full marinas would be a show stopper forcing us to return to base .
2.15 in walks wife - opens bag unwrapped it

He presto it turns v easily as if it was never ceased in the 1 st place .

Crisis averted .

Put it back on - Ok it weeped a bit but was not left for months stopped for corrosion and I kept lubing it until I bought a replacement- simple Johnson pedestal water pump €180 ,

Just saying WD 40 stuff now and again
 
Last edited:
Grateful for all the responses and I completely get what is being said. I agree that there is more that I could have done myself, including replacing the latch myself instead of paying £300 to the Yamaha dealer to do it for me.

My point is that included with my purchase of the engine were certain rights and expectations which Yamaha freely offered. I don't find Yamaha's reponse to make technical sense and feel that it is trying to renege on its part of the deal. I will admit that I find the way in which suppliers try to wriggle-out of their obligations very annoying.

A court claim will cost £35 and all that I have to prove is that Yamaha's statement does not hold water. I completely understand that I may lose but a claim takes 5 minutes to raise and £35 to get back £300 seems reasonable odds to me.
 
Cbjroms said:
Grateful for all the responses and I completely get what is being said. I agree that there is more that I could have done myself, including replacing the latch myself instead of paying £300 to the Yamaha dealer to do it for me.

My point is that included with my purchase of the engine were certain rights and expectations which Yamaha freely offered. I don't find Yamaha's reponse to make technical sense and feel that it is trying to renege on its part of the deal. I will admit that I find the way in which suppliers try to wriggle-out of their obligations very annoying.

A court claim will cost £35 and all that I have to prove is that Yamaha's statement does not hold water. I completely understand that I may lose but a claim takes 5 minutes to raise and £35 to get back £300 seems reasonable odds to me.
Click to expand...

JFM ain't an armchair lawyer. Fact is that latch will soon be costing you £335...

Plus what value you put on the time that you have spent on this. Personally my free time hourly rate is way beyond faffing about with this, but maybe you are retired.
 
May I suggest a half way house.

Write back!

( assuming the below is true)

-thanks for your letter
- your manual gives service schedule
- lubrication of this part is not on that schedule and it is a semi sealed unit with no obvious lubrication point
- the engine has been serviced
- in light of the above your comments dont make sence and perhaps you were mistaken with another engine that has this on its schedule
- your warranty is for x years and the engine in warrenty
- please reconsider

there are many of ways to resolve something other than court.
 
Cbjroms said:
Grateful for all the responses and I completely get what is being said. I agree that there is more that I could have done myself, including replacing the latch myself instead of paying £300 to the Yamaha dealer to do it for me.

My point is that included with my purchase of the engine were certain rights and expectations which Yamaha freely offered. I don't find Yamaha's reponse to make technical sense and feel that it is trying to renege on its part of the deal. I will admit that I find the way in which suppliers try to wriggle-out of their obligations very annoying.

A court claim will cost £35 and all that I have to prove is that Yamaha's statement does not hold water. I completely understand that I may lose but a claim takes 5 minutes to raise and £35 to get back £300 seems reasonable odds to me.
Click to expand...

What are these "rights and expectations" you feel have not been met?

As jfm says there are two ways of taking action, first is under your warranty contract and you clearly can't do that as it has expired. The second is under your statutory rights where you need to show that the product has not lasted a reasonable time. Your claim is for the latter and manufacturers normally deal with this under "goodwill" where they accept that the product or component has not performed as well as it should. They have clearly rejected this.

The only way you can challenge this is with evidence. This would normally take the form of something like an engineers report detailing why the failure was premature, perhaps because the materials used in construction were inappropriate or the component was not made to specification. A detailed account of several similar failures would also help. You seem to have none of this, so your claim will inevitably fail.

I have made a number of successful claims for failures out of warranty and in each case I have presented evidence (usually from the engineer who replaced the part) and in all cases it was not processed as a warranty claim, but the offer was always in the form of a replacement part (with a full warranty on the part) and a contribution to the labour cost. Each was negotiated with the call handler.

So, the best you would get is a new latch, but unlikely to get the total amount you paid the dealer.

You would not stand a chance in the Small Claims track with what you have. I have also made successful claims there, but where there was a clear breach of contract, or in one case where the contract term was not well written. In that case I negotiated prior to going to court - it was starting the action that prompted them to negotiate.

So, I agree with all the others. Don't waste your time.
 
Again, grateful for all the responses.

Jrudge - your summary is exactly how I see it. This particular cowl latch design cannot be effectively lubricated without stripping it down and should, therefore, have a grease nipple fitted. I have evidence of this from the local engineer who serviced the engine.

Tranona - Yamaha has confirmed in writing that my 'Yamaha Outboard, now in the fourth year of its warranty, was sold at new with the benefit of a potential five years of warranty which undertakes to replace any item where its failure is attributable to either a materials defect or incorrect factory assembly. The five years of cover consist of a three year manufacturer’s warranty plus an additional two years warranty which is subject to previous compliance with the recommended service and maintenance schedule.'

I appreciate the advice to move-on and put it down to experience. In boating terms £300 is nothing and fighting a point on principle makes me sound silly!
 
Cbjroms said:
?..expectations which Yamaha freely offered. I don't find Yamaha's reponse to make technical sense and feel that it is trying to renege on its part of the deal.

A court claim will cost £35 and all that I have to prove is that Yamaha's statement does not hold water. I completely understand that I may lose but a claim takes 5 minutes to raise and £35 to get back £300 seems reasonable odds to me.
Click to expand...
Expectations are in your mind only. Contractual promises are what count. Those are all as stated in the warranty contract.

I think that the other side's responses do make sense, and that yours don't. Not trying to pick a fight; just pointing out that others might not share your POV.

You have to prove more than that their statements don't hold water. Their statements will get more precise once you issue. You have to prove they owe you a repair under the terms of the warranty contract. No more; no less

Costs are complex. If you lose you will stand a good chance of paying plenty more than the minimal £35 issue fee. For starters they will apply for travel costs, and they might apply for CPR45.39(8) costs (scuse the jargon) given the arguably frivolous nature of your claim. I doubt they would get a wholesale 45.39(8) award if you sob convincingly enough and wear a suit but they'll get something- the judge's sympathy for having wasted a day, for starters. Beware.

I'm not going to write a long answer but I honestly think you would be daft to take this to court and it will cost you more than£35. I think you should wise up and lube the thing like every other outboard owner does.
 
Cbjroms said:
Again, grateful for all the responses.

Tranona - Yamaha has confirmed in writing that my 'Yamaha Outboard, now in the fourth year of its warranty, was sold at new with the benefit of a potential five years of warranty which undertakes to replace any item where its failure is attributable to either a materials defect or incorrect factory assembly. The five years of cover consist of a three year manufacturer’s warranty plus an additional two years warranty which is subject to previous compliance with the recommended service and maintenance schedule.'

I appreciate the advice to move-on and put it down to experience. In boating terms £300 is nothing and fighting a point on principle makes me sound silly!
Click to expand...

You really have your answer there in the terms of their extended warranty. You would have to show that the failure was due to "materials defect or incorrect factory assembly" - much as I suggested earlier. Very difficult to prove, which actually is their intention. Such warranties are largely meaningless and in fact what they are offering is far less than your statutory rights.
 
Last edited:
Tranona said:
You really have your answer there in the terms of their extended warranty. You would have to show that the failure was due to "materials defect or incorrect factory assembly" - much as I suggested earlier. Very difficult to prove, which actually is their intention. Such warranties are largely meaningless and in fact what they are offering is far less than your statutory rights.
Click to expand...

The forum seem tough on this one.

Is court action the right way to go? At this point defiantly not in my view, however " soak it up" seems a bit harsh.

As reported the thing has a 5 year warranty. As reported the part in question requires no maintenance as per the schedule.

Its broken. I am struggling to see why they would not fix it. It was either faulty, or not fit for purpose, or the maintenance schedules are wrong. Take your pick.

The OP was in the wrong I suspect by getting it repaired and then claiming ( and I have not seen the warranty docs) . I have no idea about the marine industry, but the car industry pays dealers a lower fixed rate for warranty work so in the normal course the warranty claim would be processed by the dealer who in accordance with their instructions either fixes it or waits for authorisation.It would be rare that a warranty said go get it fixed wherever and retospectivelty send us the bill - and this alone may well cause a case to fail. As JFM says the documents and wording are what is looked at in court - I found this out the hard way when an agency ran up a £6000 google adwords bill even thought we had agreed by email no change to the existing £1000 spend. The small print i signed said they could. I lost.

The small claims court does not normally award costs unless you have commenced an entirely frivolous claim, and whilst clearly the forum thinks this is frivolous and has no chance of success given a part requiring no maintenance per the schedules has failed during the warranty period I am struggling to see this - other than the likely failure ( not seen the docs) to follow the claim process.

Would I personally go to the hassle of court action. I doubt it, but that is down to the OP.
 
jrudge said:
The forum seem tough on this one.

Is court action the right way to go? At this point defiantly not in my view, however " soak it up" seems a bit harsh.

As reported the thing has a 5 year warranty. As reported the part in question requires no maintenance as per the schedule.

Its broken. I am struggling to see why they would not fix it. It was either faulty, or not fit for purpose, or the maintenance schedules are wrong. Take your pick.

The OP was in the wrong I suspect by getting it repaired and then claiming ( and I have not seen the warranty docs) . I have no idea about the marine industry, but the car industry pays dealers a lower fixed rate for warranty work so in the normal course the warranty claim would be processed by the dealer who in accordance with their instructions either fixes it or waits for authorisation.It would be rare that a warranty said go get it fixed wherever and retospectivelty send us the bill - and this alone may well cause a case to fail. As JFM says the documents and wording are what is looked at in court - I found this out the hard way when an agency ran up a £6000 google adwords bill even thought we had agreed by email no change to the existing £1000 spend. The small print i signed said they could. I lost.

The small claims court does not normally award costs unless you have commenced an entirely frivolous claim, and whilst clearly the forum thinks this is frivolous and has no chance of success given a part requiring no maintenance per the schedules has failed during the warranty period I am struggling to see this - other than the likely failure ( not seen the docs) to follow the claim process.

Would I personally go to the hassle of court action. I doubt it, but that is down to the OP.
Click to expand...

I think your post #13 was bang on the money and would be the route I personally would follow next.:encouragement:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top