Warranty and insurance issues if you replace your towball

Clive Britten · Member

Warranty and insurance issues if you replace your towball

Peter_n_Margaret · Guru

You may not succeed with a claim if the replacement component for the towball (the pin), and probably the main coupling as well, is the cause of any damage.

So how did the coupling CAUSE the damage?

Cheers,

Peter

Clive Britten · Member

Hi Peter,

I didn't say the coupling caused any damage. However, there is a coupling on the market that increases the load on your towbar (which they should not do), and I am aware from some coupling manufacturers that couplings have been known to disconnect for whatever reasons. An insurer will likely reject a claim simply because you used a non-original equipment manufacturer (OEM) component, which is against their policy and/or you failed to tell them. Whether you can argue against that with engineering evidence or not, you would have to first prove the replacement coupling made no difference, then have to have the insurers decision reviewed, ultimately by the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA). My point is that replacing a towball with something else leads to a world of pain if something goes wrong - and caring about it then is too late.

Cheers

Clive

Peter_n_Margaret · Guru

This is all mindless speculation that applies to almost everything in everyday life.
You have actually told us nothing at all about what your real issue was. Unless you do that, this is a waste of space.
Cheers,
Peter

Clive Britten · Member

The article is simply preventative advice to people to check their warranty and insurance if they replace their towballs, so they know what is at stake.

BBN2 · Veteran Member

Peter_n_Margaret wrote:
This is all mindless speculation that applies to almost everything in everyday life.

And this from a man who regularly lectures us that everything must conform to Australian Standards or our insurance will be invalid and it'll probably cause a plague of locusts too.

Clive Britten · Member

Hi BBN2
Are you referring to the previous commenter?
Cheers

BBN2 · Veteran Member

Yes, that's why I quoted him.

For some years he's been inclined to bob up regularly and lecture posters about how they should abide by Aus. Standards and, incorrectly, suggesting they were law. Now, he decides they don't really matter.

Thank you for bringing this to our attention CliveB - now that you make it clear it is a pretty obvious and sensible position for manufacturers and insurers to take, after all the snatch load from a 3T caravan is considerable and it's to keep things safe that we have Aus. standards for towing equipment.

Peter_n_Margaret · Guru

Please do not misrepresent me.
Standards are particularly useful documents and those that are represented in ADRs are particularly pertinent.
However, Clive has just finished telling us that the components he is discussing are NOT covered by the Standard, but they are legislated in ADR62.
www.couplemate.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/ADR62.pdf
Cheers,
Peter

Clive Britten · Member

Thank you BBN2, and see my response to Peter.

-- Edited by Clive Britten on Wednesday 11th of November 2026 02:23:04 PM

-- Edited by Clive Britten on Wednesday 11th of November 2026 02:35:37 PM

Clive Britten · Member

Peter_n_Margaret wrote:
Please do not misrepresent me.
Standards are particularly useful documents and those that are represented in ADRs are particularly pertinent.
However, Clive has just finished telling us that the components he is discussing are NOT covered by the Standard, but they are legislated in ADR62.
www.couplemate.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/ADR62.pdf
Cheers,
Peter

Well, Peter, that's not quite right either. An ADR is not legislation, but I'm not here to split hairs. If you and BBN2 want the full story, search my name on my Go Fund Me page. There's no cost or risk, but I've outlined what happened that is behind my post. Remember, I've put my money and mouth behind the action I took, whereas some people only put their mouth behind things. ADR 62/02 is rubbish and the ACCC has earmarked safety standards for review this financial year by them. I've made a submission to the ACCC for a product recall on a coupling, and it would be great if all the towing community got behind it and echoed my call. I'd also like to see future towing community people use the fundraiser page also when they have to do what I did, and I really don't care if I don't raise a cent - at least I don't get blocked in saying what needs to be said.

I'm sure there will be interest in couplings being OK to sell but not to use, and who is responsible for them, along with State/Federal conflicts which allow both to ignore the issues and wash their hands of it.

Cheers

Clive

Peter_n_Margaret · Guru

You might not like ADR 62/02, but I suggest that it is legislated and is the law.

Standards on the other hand may or may not be legislated.

www.infrastructure.gov.au/infrastructure-transport-vehicles/vehicles/vehicle-design-regulation/australian-design-rules
www.legislation.gov.au/F2007L02226/latest/details
Cheers,
Peter

-- Edited by Peter_n_Margaret on Wednesday 11th of November 2026 03:06:17 PM

Clive Britten · Member

Peter, your own references refer to the appropriate legislation, being the Road Vehicles Standards Act.

Peter_n_Margaret · Guru

You seem to be confusing the Road Vehicle Standards Act 2018 which is administered by Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts who develop ADRs (such as ADR 62/02, which are legislated) with Standards Australia who are an independent, non Government organisation who (for example) developed AS 4177, which are not legislated in their own right, but might be included in an ADR which is legislated.
Cheers,
Peter

-- Edited by Peter_n_Margaret on Wednesday 11th of November 2026 07:40:30 PM

rgren2 · Guru

We need Yobar back.

Wol · Member

Hello Clive,

I have read your gofundme page, Quite a story. Were you happy with the settlement? (This is Not a question about the terms).

regards

-- Edited by Wol on Wednesday 11th of November 2026 10:51:58 PM

Clive Britten · Member

Hi Wol, thanks for reading my gofundme page. For legal reasons I cannot comment on the settlement at all.

What I am not happy about is Australian Consumer Law (ACL) putting consumers through a process designed to fund lawyers, allow retailers and manufacturers to hide behind their business insurers, for Courts to allow insurers to run interference with the legal system, and for ACL to be backwards - consumers should only have to provide reasonable cause for sellers to have to fund their own investigations and to prove their products are legitimate. And, of course, for the caravan and aftermarket industry to be so unregulated. All of this is why I am posting and sharing this information, starting with the insurance post above (which is just a simple start) which people can explore themselves and work out without much difficulty. There have been various people with lemon products sharing their experiences in the past, I'm just trying something different with the gofundme approach.
Cheers
Clive

TimTim · Guru

All very interesting.

Just a few points.

Firstly, there is no need for the Australian Standards to specify the standards that you are required to meet when replacing your coupling with another device. This is because the required standards are specified in Section 12 of ADR 62/02.

https://www.legislation.gov.au/F2007L02226/latest/text

It is standard practice for car manufacturers to include a clause that excludes warranty claims if aftermarket accessories cause damage to the vehicle and I would suggest it is probably contained in every warranty, and rightly so. In your case the question to be asked is whether the hitch caused the damage, the failure of the shank or was it caused by the way the vehicle was loaded and or being driven. You could state what you like but the car manufacturer nor the caravan manufacturer would have no way of knowing how you loaded the vehicle or the way it was driven.

Given that you state you were in the insurance industry associated with approving and rejecting claims it is ironic now that you are on the other side of the fence. If you read my past posts you will see that I have dealt with unreasonable insurance companies and the last one had AFCA involved. Any decision would have been made by the Ombudsman but it didnt come to that as the insurance company paid out despite three insurance assessors and many people around me saying we wouldnt win. As you well know insurance companies work on the odds that the majority of claimants will not put up a fight when a claim is refused.

Again, as you will so well know, insurance companies can write anything they like in a PDS but AFCA or a court can over rule clauses they consider unreasonable etc. I agree insurance companies are not your friend and you only have to look who own the largest buildings in every major city, along with banks and law companies.

I see you stated in your answer to Peter that you didnt say that the coupling caused any damage but on your Go Fund Me page you state there was damage to your tow vehicle which was repaired by the insurance company.

Actually, Peter is correct. The ADRs are a Legislative Instrument under Section 12 of the Road Vehicles Standards Act 2018.

A legislative instrument (often called delegated legislation, subordinate legislation, or statutory instruments) is a law made by a person or bodysuch as a minister, government department, or office holderwho has been given the power to do so by an Act of Parliament.

Legislative instruments or LIs are laws on matters of detail made by a person or body authorised to do so by the relevant authorising legislation. Examples of LIs include regulations, rules and determinations. Under the Legislation Act 2003, all legislative instruments must be registered on the Federal Register of Legislation.

So in reading here and your Go Fund Me page you took on the caravan seller for a refund for the camper and not just for the coupling. Personally I think you would of lost anyway because it would be almost certain that the camper manufacturer would put forward the suggestion of a different replacement coupling. The Court, on the basis that the coupling is only one small but important element of the camper as a whole, would in all possibility consider it to be an acceptable solution.

Im no engineer but personally I would like to see the calculations that you had an equivalent tow ball weight of 563kg simply because of the 150mm setback. My son, who is an engineer would take great delight in explaining the calculations to me.

Looking at the X9, which I take would be a similar size to yours, the specifications state it has a tare weight of approximately 850kg, a GVM of approximately 1600kg and importantly a tow ball weight of 70kg to 75kg unloaded. Interesting that they now use a DO35 hitch.

So if we take the 75kg, multiplied by your engineers 2.26 coupling factor, we have a 169.5kg equivalent download. So in loading your camper, somehow if the figures are correct, you added 393.5kg on the loading. All approximate really because I do not know what your specifications are.

Just for the record, I had an issue with my tow bar shank socket in that the welds were cracking and a friend of mine confirmed that it was due to the poor welding. As it was a car manufacturers tow bar I made a warranty claim. They wrote back wanting a large amount of detail that would have taken considerable time and expense. Was it worth fighting? Of course not because it they had accepted my claim then in all probability I would have received a tow bar of the same poor quality. Interestingly I mentioned it to a very good friend who has the same type of vehicle and he had exactly the same issue. We both now have aftermarket tow bars.

At the end of the day I think your lawyers saw you coming and I think you made the wrong pathway choice.

Good luck
Tim