The fourth time a van comes back,
it stops being a service problem.
By then the words have changed — major failure, refund, tribunal — and the warranty claim behind it is already too thin to pay out. iClaims Australia shows you that turn while it is still a repair.
The turn is visible long before anyone says the word.
Nothing about a dispute arrives suddenly. It accumulates — a repeat failure, a fortnight of silence from the manufacturer, a photo nobody took. Here is one file as the system reads it, and the rows nobody filled in are the ones that decide it.
- 11 FebWater ingress reported — front window sealCustomer contacted by phone, booked in.
- 19 FebRepair attempt 1 — seal replacedReturned to customer same day.
- —Photographs of the affected area before repairA warranty assessor cannot verify a fault they cannot see.Not recorded
- 03 AprWater ingress reported again — same windowSecond complaint, same fault.
- —Written authorisation from the manufacturerWork carried out without it is routinely short-paid.Not recorded
- 28 MayRepair attempt 3 — frame resealed
- —Customer update in the last 21 daysSilence is what turns a repair into a complaint.Not recorded
- 14 JulFourth complaint — customer mentions a refundRepeat failure on a safety-adjacent defect.Escalating
Three blanks. Any one of them is survivable. Together they are the difference between a claim that gets paid and a file you cannot defend.
Sample file from the trial dataset — invented customer, invented unit. Not a real dealership record.
Two scores. And the reasons behind both.
Recomputed on every screen from the state of the file right now, never a number frozen at intake. Each one shows what pushed it up and what to do about it — a score nobody can argue with is a score nobody acts on.
Buyback risk
Consumer-law exposureHow close this file is to a refund, a replacement, or a tribunal.
- +30Repeat failure, same faultEscalate to a manufacturer decision rather than a fourth attempt.
- +25Safety-adjacent defectTreat as a major failure until assessed otherwise.
- +15Customer has used the word refundRecord the request in writing today.
- +10Four repair attemptsDocument why each attempt was reasonable.
Warranty risk
Money you will not recoverHow likely the manufacturer is to deny or short-pay the claim.
- +35No written authorisation on fileRequest it before any further labour is booked.
- +25No pre-repair photographsPhotograph the current state now; it is still worth something.
- +20Diagnosis not recorded against the faultWrite up the cause, not just the remedy.
- +10Claim submitted 21 days ago, no responseChase in writing and log the contact.
Illustrative weightings from the trial dataset. Directional operational signals — not legal conclusions, and not legal advice.
A claim is only as strong as the file behind it.
The system keeps a running checklist per case — what a manufacturer or a tribunal would expect to see, and what is actually there. It asks for the photograph on the day the van is in front of you, not eight weeks later when it is somebody else's problem.
Pre-repair photographs
Taken while the fault is visible, attached to the case, not on a phone in the workshop.
Written manufacturer authorisation
The single most common reason a claim gets short-paid.
Diagnosis against the fault
The cause, recorded — not only what was replaced.
Customer contact log
Every call and message, dated, so a gap is visible while it is still closeable.
Repair attempt history
Each attempt with its date and outcome, which is what makes a repeat failure provable.
Parts and labour record
What was fitted, when, and under whose authority.
How long has the manufacturer actually had it?
Every claim and every contact is timestamped, so the wait becomes a number instead of a feeling. Across the network those numbers turn into warranty-handling metrics by manufacturer — response times, approval rates, short-pay tendency.
- Day 0Claim submitted with supporting evidence
- Day 7No response — first chase logged
- Day 14Case flagged: past the response thresholdIt appears on the weekly review whether or not anyone remembered it.Escalating
- Day 21Still no response — second chase loggedThe record of chasing is itself evidence.
Figures are only published once enough dealerships and enough claims sit behind them, and the sample size is always shown. Thin data is shown as thin data, never as a zero and never as a verdict on a brand.
Manufacturer names in the trial are invented. The product does not label any real manufacturer good or bad.
You sold it. Someone else repaired it. You still carry the remedy.
A customer buys in Dubbo, services in Brisbane, then comes back to you with a tribunal threat — and under Australian Consumer Law the selling dealership carries the remedy rights regardless of who held the spanner. Today you find that out at the counter.
The van's history follows the van
Units are matched on the VIN, so every dealership that has touched a van contributes to one history. You see the repair count and the pattern before the customer explains it to you.
An alert when it escalates elsewhere
If a unit you sold starts escalating at another dealership, it appears on your screen — because the exposure lands on you while the case sits on someone else's desk.
What is shared is deliberately narrow
Members see standardised signals only — stages, dates, counts. No free text and no customer identity, because free text is where notes about people live.
The full file needs permission
Anything beyond those signals requires approval from the dealership holding the case, and what is granted is read-only. Nobody edits another dealership's record.
And if it does go further.
One command assembles the file into a plain chronological record: complaints, attempts, communications, authorisations, evidence. It states its own gaps rather than papering over them, because a record that overclaims is worse than no record at all.
The internal risk scores are deliberately not on it. A number like “buyback risk 92” in a document handed to the other side reads as an admission. The pack is facts; the scores stay in the building.
What this is, and what it is not.
It is early, and pretending otherwise would be a poor start to a conversation about your customers' records.
It is a working beta
Running on invented dealerships and invented cases. Every screen in the product works; no real customer data is in it yet.
There is no login yet
Data is scoped per dealership on the server, but accounts are still to come. Real customer records wait until they exist.
It is not legal advice
It surfaces operational risk signals and organises evidence. Consumer-law questions go to a qualified person.
There is nothing to show off yet
No customer list, no case studies, no numbers from anyone's real trading. What is on this page is the mechanism itself.
Worth a conversation?
We are looking for a small number of Australian dealerships to run the beta on their own files. No pricing, no contract, no commitment — a walkthrough and an honest discussion about whether it earns a place at your service desk.