Warranty claims are not tracked

A gap in the day-to-day record can be easy to miss. Claims settled one by one, cost and pattern unknown. The risk grows when teams use different versions of what was agreed.

What it looks like

• The quality or customer-service coordinator has to search the complaint register and customer file before answering a routine question.
• Claims settled one by one, cost and pattern unknown.
• Staff cannot locate the complaint reference, batch record and customer acknowledgement for the latest case.
• People spot the gap after a disputed condition is remembered differently by the customer and factory.
• The open case has no documented owner, due date or proof of closure.

Why it happens

The specific failure is left unchecked. Claims settled one by one, cost and pattern unknown. If there is no recorded owner for that condition, the effect travels to the next team.

The work and its evidence move separately. Teams respond to the immediate customer demand but may not preserve the defect, affected batch and agreement in one case file.

A later hand-off exposes the gap. Sales, quality and dispatch can each close their own task while the customer issue remains unresolved.

The less obvious cause: A control may exist on paper but still fail in practice. Test whether someone actually performs this check: check which parts and technician visits are being charged to warranty.

Find the first failed hand-off before changing staff targets. A completed register alone cannot prove that physical work happened.

What to check first

1. Compare warranty claims against serial numbers, installation dates and terms. Compare dates, quantities and references. Mark an unconfirmed difference as unverified. Finish the first pass in under 30 minutes and name the missing source if needed.
2. Check which parts and technician visits are being charged to warranty. Record the affected item or party and the person who can verify the detail. Finish the first pass in under 30 minutes and name the missing source if needed.
3. Group claims by model and failure description. Mark each exception open, waiting for evidence or resolved, with a named next owner. Finish the first pass in under 30 minutes and name the missing source if needed.

How to fix it

1. Start with one live case. Compare warranty claims against serial numbers, installation dates and terms. Keep the source reference before changing the record.
2. Make the control explicit. Keep a warranty register with eligibility, resolution and cost. Put the rule in the register or sheet that staff already use.
3. Set a second guardrail. Review repeat faults with the production or service team each month. Keep customer containment separate from permanent corrective action. The customer needs an immediate response even when the cause is still being investigated.
4. Assign the next decision. The quality or customer-service coordinator records the action and its due date. A separately authorised person signs off changes affecting money, safety or customer terms.
5. Review the open list. Start with items affecting today or tomorrow. Keep third-party commitments separate from completed actions.
6. Check whether the rule holds. For four weeks, count cases reopened or unresolved past their agreed response date. Reopen repeat cases and identify where the control failed.

Copy this complaint and corrective-action register into a register or sheet:

Retain the source reference and limit access to authorised staff.

A worked example

Illustrative example only. A pump seller replaces six seals at ₹1,800 each and never records the model pattern. Start by locating the source that would verify these amounts or quantities. The quality or customer-service coordinator records the exact exception, gives it an owner and checks the next relevant event. This example shows how to structure the decision. It does not claim that a business achieved a saving or avoided a loss.

How you know it is fixed

• Completeness: Count cases reopened or unresolved past their agreed response date at the same time every week. Record the count and the oldest item, rather than just saying things are better.
• Timeliness: Check whether the assigned person took the next action before the agreed cut-off. Keep missed dates visible instead of replacing them silently.
• Proof of closure: Sample three closed cases and locate the complaint reference, batch record and customer acknowledgement. A tick without supporting evidence is still an open control gap.

When it is more serious

Product safety concerns, suspected misuse disputes or unreserved liabilities grow. Hold irreversible decisions until the material facts are verified. For contracts, tax, wages or legal rights, retain source documents and consult a qualified adviser. Repeated exceptions after four reviews may require changing the control.

This works if someone does it every day. In most businesses, that someone is you.

Questions people ask

What should we check before taking action?

Compare warranty claims against serial numbers, installation dates and terms. Keep its date and reference. Then compare it with the complaint reference, batch record and customer acknowledgement; if they disagree, record the difference before changing either one.

Who should own the next action?

The quality or customer-service coordinator should own the open item. The person authorised to change money, a technical standard or a customer commitment must still approve that decision.

Can we run this control without new software?

No. Start with a shared sheet or register containing the reference, owner, promised date, status and evidence. Once those fields are reliable, decide whether a system connection is worth setting up.

When is the issue serious enough to escalate?

Product safety concerns, suspected misuse disputes or unreserved liabilities grow. Keep supporting records and get specialist help where relevant.