What this checklist covers
The Warranty Claim Submission Checklist is a 15-point scorecard for claim creation, coding accuracy, labour operations, and submission timelines. 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: Claim submission audits should sample a mix of recently submitted claims and trace each one back to its original job card and diagnostic report. Coding accuracy is best verified by checking whether the claimed labour operation and fault code genuinely match the technician’s documented diagnosis, not just whether the claim was submitted on time.
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 creation and required documents
- Is a warranty claim created in the system for every eligible repair, with no warranty-eligible work left unclaimed?
- Is the customer complaint accurately transcribed from the job card into the claim, without summarisation that loses diagnostic detail?
- Are all OEM-required supporting documents (diagnostic printout, technician notes, photos) attached to the claim before submission?
- Is the vehicle's chassis/VIN, mileage, and in- service date verified and correctly entered on every claim?
Claim coding accuracy
- Is the correct fault code or defect code selected for each claim, consistent with the diagnostic findings?
- Are labour operation codes selected accurately, matching the actual repair performed rather than a similar but incorrect code?
- Is claimed labour time consistent with the OEM standard time for the operation code used, with deviations explained where required?
- Is a second-person review (warranty administrator or service manager) conducted on claim coding before submission?
Labour operation and parts detail
- Are part numbers on the claim verified against the parts actually fitted, with no generic or placeholder part numbers used?
- Is the quantity of parts claimed consistent with the quantity issued from parts inventory for that job?
- Are sublet or outsourced repair costs (where applicable) included in the claim with appropriate supporting invoices?
Submission timelines
- Are warranty claims submitted to the OEM/distributor within the required timeframe from completion of the repair?
- Is a tracker maintained showing claim submission status, with overdue or pending submissions flagged for action?
- Are claims requiring pre-authorisation submitted and approved before repair work begins, where required by policy?
- Is a root-cause review conducted when claims are submitted late, to identify and resolve recurring process delays?
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
