Section A – Warranty Policy Manual
A.7 WARRANTY PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT
A.7.3 Unusual or False Claiming Practices
The Company may elect to conduct an audit without progressing through all of the steps of the WCP.
Examples of when this action may be taken include, but are not limited to the following:
- Allegations of improper warranty practices have been made
- A follow-up to a previous Warranty Audit where unusual or false claiming practices were identified
- All reviews (i.e., Step 2 Warranty Review or Repair Process Review-RPR) that identify unusual or false claiming practices will be upgraded to Warranty Audit (Step 3)
- VIN or owner's name is misrepresented
- Claims where the Dealership has been reimbursed by two parties for the same repair
- Repair date misrepresented
- Odometer misrepresented
- Work not performed as claimed
- Multiple uses of the same documentary evidence (e.g., digital image) for Claim submission (or) Prior Approval
- Non-genuine part claimed as Genuine Ford Part
- Circumventing technician competency requirements
- Submitting a Part/s Only claim when the technician is not certified
- Technician misrepresentation
- Intentional misrepresentation of the repair carried out on the vehicle where the conditions are not warrantable. For example, repairs required because of external influences noted as defects caused by factory materials or workmanship
- Duplicate claims
- The intentional submission of Claims with omissions of material facts or violations of policy requirement
- False claims - Any other irregular warranty practices are suspected
The above list is not intended to be exhaustive. Any other claim category that the Company determines to be false will be so categorized and charged back during any Warranty Counseling Process Action. Please note, where unusual or false claiming practices associated with Dealership operations are identified, the Company may perform a full audit.