What this checklist covers
The Warranty Audit Checklist Template is a 15-point scorecard for claim sampling methodology, fraud indicators, process gaps, and audit closure. Each criterion is scored from 1 to 5 on what the auditor sees on the day, and every gap goes into an action plan with an owner and a close date.
AutoSmart tip: This checklist is the meta-audit — the framework for auditing the warranty function itself, as distinct from auditing individual claims, documentation, or parts retention day to day. Findings here should feed directly into whichever of the other warranty checklists (submission, documentation, retention, approval) the root cause points to, rather than being tracked in isolation.
The checks
Tap Yes, No or Maybe to try it: your answers stay in this page and clear when you refresh. For a detailed walkthrough, download our PDF or book a demo.
Claim sampling and documentation review
- Is a statistically meaningful sample of claims selected for review (e.g., randomised, not pre- selected by the dealership)?
- Does the sample include a mix of high-value, high-frequency, and randomly selected claims rather than only the easiest to review?
- Is each sampled claim's documentation reviewed for completeness and internal consistency (job card, diagnostic report, photos, invoice all aligned)?
- Are findings from the documentation review categorised by type (missing document, coding error, policy breach) to support trend analysis?
Parts verification and policy compliance
- Are claimed parts physically verified against retained parts in storage for the sampled claims, where applicable?
- Is parts pricing and quantity on the claim cross- checked against the dealership's parts inventory records?
- Are sampled claims checked against current OEM warranty policy to confirm eligibility and correct application of claim limits?
- Is genuine parts usage verified for sampled claims, with no evidence of aftermarket substitution claimed as OEM?
Fraud indicators
- Are sampled claims checked for duplicate submissions (same fault, same vehicle, claimed more than once)?
- Are claims checked for patterns suggesting fabricated faults (e.g., identical complaint wording across unrelated vehicles, implausible fault frequency)?
- Is technician and advisor claim activity reviewed for unusual concentration (one individual responsible for a disproportionate share of high- value or rejected-then-resubmitted claims)?
Process gaps and audit closure
- Are process gaps identified during the audit (not just individual claim errors) documented separately for action by dealership management?
- Is a formal audit findings report issued to the dealership, distinguishing between claim-level errors and systemic process issues?
- Is a corrective action plan agreed with the dealership for all significant findings, with target closure dates set?
- Is audit closure confirmed only after corrective actions have been verified as implemented, not merely acknowledged?
How to run it
How the scoring works
Before the visit, fill in the dealer or centre, the auditor, the date and the audit cycle. Then score each of the 15 checks from 1 to 5 on what you see on the day, not on what the site aims for, and add them up out of 75.
- 1Not in place
- 2Attempted
- 3Defined
- 4Managed
- 5Fully sustained
- Green60–75 · 80–100%Compliant. Keep the standard.
- Amber38–59 · 50–79%Improvement needed: a structured action plan within 30 days.
- Red0–37 · Below 50%Priority intervention, escalated to regional management.
Then close every gap
Each gap goes into the action plan tracker and moves through four stages until the auditor closes it.
- 1PendingOwner and close date set
- 2In progressWork under way, evidence gathered
- 3CompletedEvidence submitted for review
- 4ApprovedVerified and closed by the auditor
