Sign in

C.A.R.S Protection Plus Inc

Sharing is caring! Have something to share about C.A.R.S Protection Plus Inc? Use RevDex to write a review
Reviews C.A.R.S Protection Plus Inc

C.A.R.S Protection Plus Inc Reviews (345)

Review: I purchased a 3 year extended vehicle warranty. A year into the coverage I decided to cancel the warranty. Car Protection Plus received $2000 for this 3 year warranty. One year later the value of remaining on the warranty should be $1300 dollars. When I cancelled my policy, car protection plus did not want to discuss any refund amounts and rather told me to deal with the dealership. I went to the dealership after car protection plus mailed the check, and have only received 25% which is $500. I'm filing this complaint as I should receive 66% of the amount paid to car protection plus, and thus far have only received 25%.

The expected refund amount: $1300

The received refund amount: $500

Pending refund amount from car protection plus: $800Desired Settlement: Refund an additional $800

Business

Response:

RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted] 2003 MERCEDES CL500 VIN (Last8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted] Dear Ms. [redacted]: I am in receipt of your letter dated February 17, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on December 2, 2013. On that same date the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Contract (36 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was received with payment and approved by CARS on January 9, 2014 (See attached Service Contract). On December 4, 2014, CARS received a coverage cancellation request from the customer. The customer’s request for cancellation of his Service Contract was processed on December 5, 2014. The customer acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the terms and conditions contained therein. The customer's service contract clearly states under terms and conditions at Paragraph 5 (a through d): CANCELLATION PROVISIONS: "There is no credit for early termination except if the vehicle is declared a total loss by the carrier insuring the vehicle or if the vehicle is repossessed by the lien holder as stated. C.A.R.S. shall refund to the dealer a portion of the amount received by C.A.R.S. for your Service Contract on a monthly prorated basis, less a service fee (not to exceed $50.00), as long as no claims have been made against the vehicle. If a vehicle is altered or modified after purchase and if a claim has been made or paid, the Service Contract is cancelled and no refund shall be issued; and If the Service Contract is financed, you have the right to cancel the contract within the first 20 days by providing a written request to cancel for a full refund of the amount received by C.A.R.S. for the Service Contract, less any claims paid. The refund shall be paid to the lien holder. After 20 days, you have the right to cancel the Service Contract at any time by providing a written request to cancel. The lien holder will be refunded a prorated refund of the amount received by C.A.R.S. for the Service Contract, less a service fee (not to exceed $50.00), less any claims paid." CARS is regulated on refund policies by each state that CARS conducts business in and we strictly adhere in those states where their statutes supersede our cancellation provisions. Here, the customer signed the service contract application when he purchased the above-referenced vehicle stating that he had read, understood and agreed to the terms of the service contract. Therefore, CARS is directed by [redacted] state statute to refund a pro-rated amount of the monies CARS received for the Service Contract, less any claims paid and less a 10% service fee.

Review: Attempted cancelation of contract under false reasons.Desired Settlement: A running, moving, working vehicle.

Business

Response:

1 am in receipt of your letter dated March 4, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: On January 22, 2015, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (24 Months/Unlimited Miles] and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on January 26, 2015 (the attached "Service Contract”]. On February 12, 2015, at 1:59 p.m., the repair facility telephoned CARS advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing encoder motor issues. We advised the repair facility an encoder motor was not covered under the customer’s Service Contract; therefore, CARS was unable to assist with the claim. On February 16, 2015, at 11:10 a.m., the repair facility telephoned CARS advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing rear differential issues. After we went over our claim procedures with the repair facility, the repair facility advised CARS that the vehicle was equipped with aftermarket rims. On February 16, 2015, at 4:26 p.m., the repair facility telephoned CARS advising that the customer's vehicle was equipped with 285/45/R22 tires that appeared to be aftermarket. The repair facility further advised that the tire pressure sensors were not reading. On February 16, 2015, at 4:40 p.m., the customer advised CARS that he had made no changes to anything on the vehicle since he purchased it. He further advised that he heard a popping noise from the rear differential on February 14, 2015. On February 16, 2015, at 4:40 p.m., CARS advised the repair facility that the customer’s claim was denied due to oversized tires on the vehicle and his service contract was cancelled. We explained that we would refund the amount CARS received for the Service Contract with a signed General Release. CARS then closed the claim. On February 17, 2015, at 11:40 a.m., a CARS customer service representative reviewed the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract with him. The customer service representative then transferred the customer to a claims manager. The claims manager explained that CARS denied the rear differential claim and cancelled the customer’s service contract due to oversized tires on the vehicle. On February 24, 2015 CARS sent a General Release (see attached) to the customer for his notarized signature for the full amount that CARS received from the selling dealer. We advised that once we receive the original General Release back with the customer's notarized signature via regular mail, we would forward the refund through the selling dealer. To date, we have not yet received the notarized General Release. CARS believed that the customer's vehicle met our eligibility requirements when the vehicle was approved by CARS on January 26, 2015. It was not until the processing of the February 16, 2015 claim that CARS became aware of the alterations/modifications to the customer's vehicle. The alterations/modifications (i.e. oversize tires) of the customer's vehicle are not according to the manufacturer's specifications. Even though options may have been offered for larger wheels, the manufacturer's specifications for the customer’s vehicle are 265/65R/18 (See attached [redacted] standard tire sizes for 2007 [redacted]). In addition, the alterations/modifications can affect the way the vehicle performs and also can cause undue mechanical problems with the vehicle. By the customer’s signature on his service contract, he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the terms and conditions contained therein. It is also stated under terms and conditions at Paragraph 1(d) and Paragraph 2(g) and 2(e): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Vehicles that are modified or altered from the original manufacturer’s specifications, including but not limited to the following modifications: frame, suspension or body lift kits, wheels/tires (not to OEM specifications), emission system, exhaust system, engine, transmission and drive axle, regardless of when modifications or alterations were performed." Also, "PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: "Altered or modified vehicles are not covered and shall void the Service Contract." Additionally, "CARS reserves the right to reject or cancel any application or Service Contract for cause as determined by CARS." To reiterate, it was not until the processing of the February 16, 2015 claim that CARS became aware of the alterations/modifications to the vehicle. As stated above, the alterations/modifications to the customer’s vehicle are not according to the manufacturer's specifications and can affect the way the vehicle performs and also can cause undue mechanical problems with the vehicle. CARS relies on the information provided to us by the dealers and/or repair facilities, since we cannot inspect every vehicle that has a service contract with us. Once notified of a modified/altered vehicle, CARS has the right to cancel the service contract immediately. The customer's service contract is void and the customer does not have service coverage under any of CARS’ service contracts. However, CARS is still willing to refund the amount CARS received for the customer's Service Contract from the selling dealer upon receipt of a notarized General Release. The refund will be made through the selling dealer. When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

Regards,

Review: On 01/30/14 I bought a 2001 Honda Accord automatic transmission with 129k miles at [redacted]. The dealer talked to me about CARS PROTECTION PLUS and they offered me a 3 months/4,500 miles service contract warranty telling me that if something goes wrong with the vehicle I can take it to any licensed mechanic and if they found out there is a covered component within the contract CARS PROTECTION PLUS will pay for the repair. I drove away happy and satisfied with the customer service at the car dealership. Unfortunately couple months later automatic transmission started to act strange and wasn't working the way it was supposed to work. I took the vehicle to a licensed repair shop and they found out automatic transmission was over heating. We called CARS PROTECTION PLUS and filed a claim. Vehicle was at the repair shop for over a month while the representatives from CARS PROTECTION PLUS were called back and forth for so many times and explaining them the problems found with the automatic transmission. The Contract that I signed with CARS PROTECTION PLUS stated clearly they will cover the expenses if something goes wrong within the transmission or transfer case housing. They asked one thousand questions asking WHY the automatic transmission went wrong. They even spoke with the mechanics at the repair shop. Then when the bill repair was sent it to CARS PROTECTION PLUS they refused to pay looking for excuses and saying the repair shop should not repair the vehicle without their authorization again, vehicle was there for over a month waiting for their authorization. Now they don't want to pay the repair bill stating that the dealer that sold me the contract only has sold one contract for them and the dealer needs to sell more contracts. I don't understand what does it have to do with this situation. I signed a contract with CARS PROTECTION PLUS and if the car dealer has sold one or two or ten contracts for them got nothing to do with this problem. They are just looking for excuses NOT to payDesired Settlement: CARS PROTECTION PLUS should pay for the repair bill of the vehicle. I signed a contract with them and they are just looking for excuses NOT to pay. They should honor their contract

Business

Response:

I received your recent correspondence and respond as follows: On January 30, 2014 the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle and on the date he also applied for a CARS Power Train Service Contract (3 Months/4,500 Miles). On February 7, 2014 the service contract application was accepted with payment and approved by CARS (the attached “Service Contract”).

FIRST CLAIM: On March 31, 2014 at 2:51 p.m., a repair facility contacted CARS stating

that the customer’s vehicle had a transmission issue. During that telephone call, we explained how to open a claim and also explained the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract.

Thereafter a claim was opened on March 31, 2014 at 2:55 p.m., by the repair facility. Our claims adjuster then again went over claim procedures in detail with the repair facility. We also advised that the customer was responsible for any difference in labor rate, tax, fluid, filters, and deductible, diagnostic or teardown charges where applicable and any charges/expenses beyond what CARS authorizes. We also advised the repair facility to obtain the customer’s permission to teardown/diagnose to the point of component failure and contact us with the repair facility’s findings/estimate prior to beginning any work on the vehicle. The repair facility was advised that CARS would not be responsible for any repairs done without prior authorization. Additionally, our claims adjustor noted that there was a possible language barrier with working with the repair facility.

On April 14, 2014 at 3:48 p.m., we returned a telephone call to the repair facility asking several times during the recorded telephone call if the cause of failure and extent of damage to the customer’s vehicle had been determined. The only response we could obtain from the repair facility was to give us the VIN number for the vehicle. The repair facility advised us that they would return our telephone call. Again the adjustor made note of a language barrier. A few minutes later, we again telephoned the repair facility and attempted to obtain the cause of failure in order to move forward with the claim. However, the person answering the telephone could not communicate with our claims adjustor and we explained that the customer’s vehicle must be moved to a repair facility where communication would not be a problem in order to move forward with the claim.

SECOND CLAIM: Thereafter on April 30, 2014 at 2:01 p.m., a new claim was opened by the same repair facility regarding the customer’s transmission issues. During a subsequent recorded telephone call that day the repair facility advised us that a new transmission was already installed in the customer’s vehicle. The repair facility then put the customer on the phone. We advised to the customer that due to the communication barrier, his vehicle would need to be moved to a facility capable of moving forward with the claim. The customer then advised us that he was there to translate and he also advised that the transmission had been replaced in his vehicle and the repair facility was waiting on payment from CARS.

On April 30, 2014 at 3:50 p.m., we left a voice mail for the repair facility advising that pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract we were unable to assist with the repair of the customer’s vehicle because the repair to the vehicle was done without prior authorization.

Please be advised that by the customer’s signature on his Power Train Service Contract, he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the terms and conditions contained therein. The customer’s service contract clearly states at Paragraph 1(c): “1. COMPONENTS AND

EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Any repair done without prior authorization from CARS. The service contract further states at 3(e) and at 3(g): “SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: The repair facility must provide C.A.R.S Protection Plus, Inc. with an estimate and obtain an authorization number before any repairs are begun and “....No invoice will be processed without a valued authorization number, your signature, repair facility’s warranty on repairs (if applicable) and repair facility’s identifying information.” The identification card also clearly states: “C.A.R.S. will not be held responsible for paying any unauthorized repair invoices.” By requiring the claim procedures to be properly followed, CARS is able to calculate the money allowance if it is determined that the repair is covered under the service contract and it increases the probability that the vehicle would be fixed right the first time. Here, however, CARS was not given the opportunity to determine if the repairs would be covered and give authorization for the repair, prior to the repairs being performed prior to the April 30, 2014 recorded telephone with the repair facility and the customer advising that the transmission had been replaced.

The claim procedures outlined on the customer’s service contract and identification card are the same claim procedures that all CARS’ customers must follow in order for the claim to be properly opened, authorized and paid, if it is determined that the repairs are covered under the customers’ service contract. It also states clearly on the identification card clearly states “WARNING: YOUR REPAIR FACILITY MUST OBTAIN AN AUTHORIZATION NUMBER PRIOR TO STARTING ANY REPAIR WORK. C.A.R.S. Protection Plus will NOT be held responsible for paying any unauthorized repair invoice.” As you can clearly see from the above information, the repair facility and the customer were fully aware that the repairs were performed prior to the April 30, 2014 telephone call would not be covered under the service contract. To reiterate, CARS was never given the opportunity to review the transmission claims to determine if the failed components were covered pursuant to the customer’s service contract.

Accordingly, CARS has fulfilled all of its obligations under the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract; therefore, we were unable to assist with the claim because the customer and the repair facility that was chosen by the customer to repair the vehicle failed to follow the claim procedures that MUST be followed by ALL CARS’ customers.

For all the reasons stated above CARS stands behind its position and is unable to assist with the transmission claims made on behalf of the customer’s vehicle. Please be further advised that the customer’s service contract expired on May 7, 2014; and he no longer has coverage under any of CARS’ service contracts.

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

Claim was opened on March 31, 2014 where CARS advice the repair facility to obtain customer's permission to tear down and diagnose to the point of component failure and contact CARS with the repair facility finding and estimates. Same day I have given the repair facility the authorization to do what CARS asked. In order to tear down and diagnose the transmission car has to be on the mechanic's lift. Repair facility called and called and called CARS adjuster for many days to tell them the problem with the vehicle and every time receptionist was given our case number they transferred our phone call to a somebody's line that rang 3 or 4 times and then goes to voice mail.

On April 14, 2014 CARS adjuster finally returned a phone call to the repair facility. After 14 days (can you believe that) I mean we understand we are not the only one's customer CARS has in their list but my car has to be for 14 days on the mechanic lift until they call us ??? I am not the only one customer the repair facility has either and they needed their lift to work with other vehicles as well. So CARS finally got in the phone with somebody and they could not communicate each other (so CARS says) . That is a lie because the mechanic told CARS the issue with the vehicle and the adjuster didn't understand or didn't want to understand so adjuster CLOSED my case. CARS did not give us the authorization number and told the repair facility they will call later. Because of language barrier they CLOSED my case. CARS says the only response they could get from the repair facility is the VIN number of the vehicle. Another lie, so CARS could understand the VIN number of the vehicle but could not understand when the mechanic told CARS the problem with the transmission of the vehicle.

Yes they CLOSED MY CASE just like that. They didn't even care that my vehicle was already at the repair facility for 2 weeks and transmission all opened up because they asked the repair facility to do that. No, CARS didn't even called me to tell me that my case would be CLOSE DOWN for X reason, CARS didn't have the courtesy to call me and tell me my case was CLOSE DOWN and CARS didn't even mention they CLOSED my case with the Revdex.com.

So on April 14, 2014 CARS could not understand each other with the repair facility because of language barriers, so CARS closed down my case. Instead of giving us the required authorization number CARS closed my case, simple as it. We, the repair facility and me didn't know about that and the vehicle still on the repairs facility for one more week (vehicle is on the lift for 3 weeks already waiting for CARS to give us the so called authorization number) the repair facility keep asking me what we gonna do? what we gonna do? vehicle is on the lift for 3 weeks already waiting for any answer from CARS and repair facility needed their lift and their room to work with other vehicles. So I have to tell the repair facility to go ahead and finish the job. What was I supposed to do? keep waiting for CARS to call us? even if CARS would not approve my case, (although on that date I had the hope they would approve it) the vehicle was already transmission opened up at CARS request.

So on April 30, 2014 (one month since case was opened) I called CARS to find out what is going on with my case and I almost had a heart attack when I heard my case was CLOSED 2 weeks before. I was in shock so the receptionist told me the repair facility has to call in order to open the claim again. I was like: open the claim again?? when did it was closed? why? and the most important question WHY CARS did not called me to tell me the case was closed. I went to the repair facility myself and told them about the problem and they called CARS and re-opened the case. There was a phone call with CARS adjuster same day and it is funny he could understand clearly when repair facility told him transmission was installed on the vehicle. (I guess he was just waiting to hear that and since CARS did not approve the installation of a new transmission then it would be easy to dismiss the case again) .The difference is that me and my brother were there when the phone call was placed and we spoke with the adjuster but adjuster did not tell us vehicle has to be moved to another location to move forward with the claim. That part is another lie from CARS. My brother speaks good English and that was not part of the conversation we had with CARS adjuster on April 30, 2014. Let's pretend they did, Even if they told us that, why CARS would ask me to move the vehicle to another location if transmission was already replaced on my vehicle?

Yes, the contract states we have to obtain an authorization number before any repair are begun but, for how long should we wait for that authorization number? Car was on the mechanic lift for one month waiting for that called authorization number. Repair facility told CARS the problem with the vehicle on April 14, 2014 and CARS instead of giving us the authorization number CARS closed down my case because language barriers and did not contact me to tell me about it. Plus a big , a huge company as CARS does not have any Spanish representative ?? what a company huh? so they can use language barriers as an excuses not to comply with their contracts and let time pass by and pass by and just close cases because of that. It is interesting how come CARS representatives understood the repair facility phone call to open up the case but did not understand the same repair facility phone call explaining CARS the problem with the vehicle. CARS just don't want to honor their contract.

CARS Protection Plus provides little service and will not follow terms of their contract. The Company holds if not contacted during working hours they wil not be held accountable for tows, etc. The Company isn't even available during working hours at times to take calls and provides lack of willligness to assist with actual requested claims and proof of said work/ towing of inoperable vehicles. This Company is nothing but a facade to obtain money and operate without providing any actual administration of stated coverage. This company needs to be investigated thoroughly.

I called this Company, because I had purchased one of their warranties 4_\2 months ago, and now had to use it. My AC was not working, so I went to the garage where I had purchased the vehicle and warranty I was suspicious that the garage gave me no paperwork for the "warranty" work I had just gotten done. They said I needed a new condenser and Freon. But when I got it back with no paperwork, and called the garage, they said it was "free" so there was no paperwork, I then called Car Protection Plus, and was told, the Garage was told to call and offer me the part, or a cash option. They said the garage called them, and said I had selected "cash". I told Car Protection Plus, nobody had called with any such question. They said they already credited the garage the money, so it was between me and the garage. I'm sure Al I ever got was Freon. Car Protection Plus should call the Customer, not the Garage. They also said I would have had to sign something. I was given nothing to sign! My warranty was bought from them, not the garage. I am in the process of filing complaints

Review: I bought a 2001[redacted] on 10/26/2013 and they told me that I could also get a warranty on the car so I did.once I got drove the car home it started sounding funny on the passenger side.so I went to my mechanic and he said the bal joint is bad, also the check engine light came on and now the lights on the license plates in the back dont work.they told me that they wont fix anything on the car because something was wrong with it before I bought it.I paid $39.95 for this warranty and they wont honor it.I should not have to pay to get my car fixed.Desired Settlement: I want them to fix what is wrong with the car because from my contract they are supposed to fix the problem with the check engine light and they are suppose to fix the bal joint. I have my copy of the contract from the dealer.I feel they lied to me to buy this warranty and then deny me the work.They can be sued for not honoring their warranties.

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated November 13, 2013, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: According to our records, the customer contacted CARS on November 6, 2013 at 1:14 p.m., advising that there were mechanical problems with the above-referenced vehicle, specifically the passenger side ball joints and the check engine light was on. During that same telephone conversation, we thoroughly searched our database and could find no record that the selling dealer submitted to us a service contract with payment for the customer’s vehicle. We then referred the customer back to the selling dealer.

Later that same date, we received in the mail the customer’s service contract; however, the same was rejected by CARS because we were notified that the customer’s vehicle was in need of repair.

Ori that same date, we advised both the customer and the selling dealer in writing that the service contract application was rejected. Copies of both letters are attached for your review. At no time did CARS accept any monies from the selling dealer or from the customer for the service contract.

Please also be advised that by the customer’s signature on the service contract application, the customer acknowledged that he read its terms and conditions. Directly below his signature, it clearly states: “I understand that the Service Contract goes into effect when the application is received with payment and approved by C.A.R.S. Protection Plus, Inc.” In addition, the service contract application clearly states: 2.PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT (dl): “We reserve the right to reject or cancel any application or Service Contract for cause as determined by C.A.R.S.” Since CARS did not accept any monies for the customer’s service contract and CARS was previously notified that the vehicle was in need of repair work, CARS was correct in rejecting/sent back the customer’s service contract application.

Review: I purchased the CARS Protection Plus through [redacted] in the middle of January 2015 when I purchased my pre-owned [redacted] SUV. This was to give my wife and I a peace of mind in buying a used vehicle. Yesterday, I had to bring it to a local [redacted] dealer to investigate the check engine light. The dealer diagnosed that the intake manifold needs to be replaced as well as the steering rack and pinion. The dealer sent their estimates to CARS and started communicating with the adjuster. The dealer called me and explained that CARS is offering to send a used intake manifold and a used rack and pinion to the shop. The shop representative explained to me their deep concern in using a used intake manifold on a [redacted] uses only new intake manifold to repair their vehicles but now I am stuck with a used or salvaged manifold of unknown source or history. As I have asked the CARS adjuster, what kind of quality control are done on the used parts to make sure that they are reliable and safe to use in the vehicle? Are they from a remanufacturing company or a salvage shop (which poses a deep concern to me). I understand that [redacted] parts are not cheap and that's why consumers like me spend our hard earned money to purchase these extended warranties. Another issue that I have is the time to wait for this vehicle to be done. Based on the estimate by the shop, factoring the waiting period for the "USED" parts to arrive and the time to fix the vehicle, I may not get the vehicle until Thursday or Friday next week (a total of 11-12 days). This is really an inconvenience because we use the SUV as a family vehicle (CARS only pay for the actual time that the shop is working on the vehicle for rental car). This is just unacceptable beyond any explanation because now, I have to leave work and make multiple trips to drop-pick my wife from work as well as the children to-from school. The worst part is, we are left with a small sedan that would not fit a family of seven so we are stuck on base until we get the SUV. I know that time and money is very important to CARS and so it is with its every single customers. CARS Protection Plus, I am getting ready to deploy to [redacted] soon and I am deeply hoping that the used part that you are giving me to repair my vehicle will not cause any harm or problem to my wife and my children so I can focus on fighting the battle that very few of us have been chosen to fight.Desired Settlement: Change the policy to minimize customer inconvenience. Provide the shop with a new intake manifold from other sources to save money (i.e. new intake manifold with a gasket is sold at [redacted] for $800 and ships within 24 hours).

Business

Response:

1 am in receipt of your letter dated February 25, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: On January 15, 2015, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Ultimate Value Service Contract (48 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on January 15, 2015 (the attached "Service Contract”). On February 24, 2015 at 10:18 a.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising us that the customer was experiencing intake manifold and rack and pinion issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility. After CARS reviewed the estimate faxed to us from the repair facility (see attached), CARS went over the amount we could authorize with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the intake manifold for $550.00 and we could pay $11.00 to the repair facility for gaskets. We could also supply the rack and pinion for $462.00. We could also authorize $8.70 for fluids for the repair. Mitchell's OnDemand labor guide stated that the repair should take 8.0 hours to complete and the customer’s service contract paid up to $75.00 per hour. Therefore, total labor covered was $600.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $1,631.70, and we could supply the parts and assist with the cost of fluids and gaskets as stated above; and pay $519.70 towards labor or pay $1,631.70 towards the repair of your choice. We then asked the repair facility to get back us with the customer's decision. On February 24, 2015 at 3:45 p.m., the customer telephoned CARS to inquire about the claim allowance and the supplied parts. On February 24, 2015 at 3:54 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer would like to have the parts shipped to the repair facility. On February 25, 2015 at 8:43 a.m., CARS advised the repair facility on the estimated shipping time of the parts and gave the repair facility an authorization number to begin repairs on the vehicle. By the customer's signature on his Ultimate Value Service Contract, he acknowledged that he read, understood, and agreed to the terms and conditions of his service contract. The customer's service contract states under terms and conditions at Paragraph 3(f): “SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM

Review: I bought a used car this year and because it's a 2001 decided to purchase

a warranty on repairs. The dealership offered Cars Protection Plus and

I purchased 4 years of it. I paid for the fullest coverage offered.

First repair was due to the front axels on the car. They covered nothing

and the repair was $1700. The second repairs were to the blower motor and

a problem with the internal computer system that made the transmission

light come on. First they told the repairman that they would cover the

repairs, but changed their mind the next day.

I called and complained which did no good. I requested they refund me

what I paid for the warranty since they don't cover their portions and

I was hung up on.

If they're not going to stand by their warranty I want my money back.Desired Settlement: At this point, since they don't stand behind their warranty I just want

my money back.

I paid for 4 years....at the very least refund 3 years worth.

Business

Response:

VIA: Revdex.com WEBSITE[redacted]Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania 400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted]2001 JEEP GR CHEROKEE VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: C-[redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]I am in receipt of your letter dated December 9, 2015 enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: On July 23, 2015, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (48 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on July 24, 2015 (the attached "Service Contract”).First Claim: On September 1, 2015 at 1:50 p.m., a repair facility contacted CARS advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing mechanical problems. CARS then reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facility.On September 1, 2015 at 2:51 p.m., in a recorded telephone call, the repair facility advised CARS that the axle tube seal was leaking. The repair facility further advised that there was no internal failure to the front differential and the wheel bearings would have to be replaced because the wheel bearings would break during the replacement of the axle seal.On September 1, 2015 at 3:45 p.m., CARS advised the repair facility that the axle tube seal was a non-covered component under the customer's Service Contract; therefore, we were unable to assist with the repair of her vehicle. The claim was then closed.Second Claim: On December 4, 2015 at 9:34 a.m., a repair facility contacted CARS advising that the check engine light was displayed in the customer's vehicle. CARS then advised the repair facility to obtain the customer's permission to tear down her vehicle down to the point of component failure pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of her Service Contract. CARS further advised the repair facility to contact us to open a claim when they determined the cause of failure.Third Claim: On December 8, 2015 at 1:19 p.m., a repair facility contacted CARS advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing blower motor resistor and engine computer issues. CARS then advised the repair facility that the blower motor resistor and engine computer were non-covered components under the customer's Service Contract; therefore, CARS was unable to assist with the repair of the customer’s Service Contract. The claim was then closed.On December 8, 2015 at 1:39 p.m., a CARS customer service representative reviewed the December 8, 2015 claim with the customer. The customer then stated that she wanted a full refund of her Service Contract. She was then transferred to the cancellation department.On December 8, 2015 at 1:49 p.m. our cancellation department advised the customer that she was not eligible for a refund of her Service Contract pursuant to her Service Contract.By the customer's signature on her Value Plus Service Contract, she acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of her Service Contract. It is stated in the Service Contract: "COVERED COMPONENTS: COVERAGE LIMITED TO ABOVE COMPONENTS.” and under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 1(a) and 1(f): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Components not listed regardless of failure." and "Damage/failure to a covered component caused by a non-covered component.” Here, the blower motor resistor and engine computer are not listed for coverage under the customer's Service Contract. Therefore, it is the customer is responsibility to repair the blower motor resistor and engine computer.It is also stated under the Terms and Conditions at 1 (f): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED Damage/failure to a covered component caused by a non-covered component." Here, during the processing of the September 1, 2015 mechanical claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle, the repair facility advised CARS that the axle tube seal (non-covered component) was leaking. The repair facility further advised that there was no internal failure to the front differential and the wheel bearings would have to be replaced because they would break during the replacement of the front axle seal. Therefore, the failures to the front differential (covered component) and the wheel bearings (covered component) were not covered because the failures were caused by the axle tube seal (non-covered component). It is the customer's responsibility to repair/replace the axle tube seal and any damage caused by the failure of the axle tube seal.For all the reasons stated above, CARS stands behind our original decision and is unable to assist with the September 1, 2015 and December 8, 2015 claims made on behalf of the customer's vehicle.In her consumer complaint the customer has requested a refund of her Service Contract. The customer's service contract states under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 5 (a) and (b): “CANCELLATION PROVISIONS: You have the right to cancel the Service Contract up to 20 days from the effective date as stated on Your CARS I.D. card byproviding a written request to cancel for a full refund, paid to Your dealer or lienholder, of the amount received by CARS, less any claims paid. The Service Contract will not be reinstated after a cancellation is requested.” and "After 20 days, there is no credit for early termination except in the case of a total loss, as determined by the insurance carrier, or repossession by the lienholder as stated."Additionally, CARS is regulated on refund policies by each state that CARS conducts business in and we strictly adhere in those states where their statutes supersede our cancellation provisions. Here, the customer signed the service contract application when she purchased the above-referenced vehicle in Michigan stating that she had read, understood and agreed to the terms of the Service Contract. CARS is not directed by any state statute in Michigan to refund any monies to the customer for the cancellation of a service contract. Therefore, pursuant to her Service Contract the customer is not entitled to a refund.Under the customer's Service Contract, we were not required to cover the full cost of the repair. The service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it was not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what components are specifically covered and the customer's financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, and taxes.The customer has Service Contract coverage on her vehicle through July 24, 2019. Should her vehicle incur future mechanical problems, CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under the Service Contract. If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract.When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.Sincerely,Jason P. [redacted] General CounselJPM/jmmAttachment

Review: We purchased a used vehicle from [redacted] Auto Sales in [redacted] 2 months ago, which came with a 3 month 3,000 mile limited warranty from CARS Protection Plus. 10 days ago, the vehicle was making a horrible shaking in the front end, so We took it to a mechanic. CARS REFUSED to even discuss covering the problem without the mechanic completely dismantling the entire front end, which they did over 2 days. Then then faxed the estimate to CARS. We have since been waiting for the approval, which they have been dragging on for a week. Today, we were told theY REFUSE TO COVER IT because "the differential had no fluid", claiming it is a pre-existing issue. How are WE supposed to check for something that has NO WAY of checking?! This is not the oil that has a dipstick! So now the mechanic wants $500 just to cover the labor for tearing out the front end per CARS's demand.Desired Settlement: I want the company to cover and pay for the repairs. The internet is FULL of complaints, rip-off reports, and lawsuits against this company for these fraudulent practices. There are over 160 complaints here on the Revdex.com alone.

Business

Response:

RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted]2005 [redacted] VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]:1 am in receipt of your letter dated July 28, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: According to our records the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on May 26, 2015 and on that same date he applied for a CARS Power Train Service Contract (3 Months/4,500 Miles). The same was accepted with payment by CARS on that same day, May 26, 2015 (the attached "Service Contract").On July 17, 2015, at 3:10 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from the customer advising that the front ball joint axle needed to be replaced. CARS advised that this was a non-covered component under his Service Contract. CARS advised the customer that the drive shaft was covered under his Service Contract. We then reviewed our claim procedures with the customer.On July 21, 2015 at 10:57 a.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing front differential and intermediate shaft bearing issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.On July 21, 2015 at 11:12 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the vehicle was experiencing front end vibration, the fluid was very low, and issues with the driveshaft seal. The repair facility further advised that the passenger side intermediate bearing had issues possibly caused by low fluid. CARS again went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.On July 21, 2015 at 2:08 p.m., the customer advised CARS that he was not sure of the date of purchase for his vehicle but thought it was about a month since he purchased the vehicle. He further advised that he never saw oil spots on his driveway. CARS advised that we could not move forward with the claim until we received the repair facility's findings.On July 22, 2015 at 5:03 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the cause of failure to the customer's vehicle was low fluid. The repair facility advised there was evidence of an old fluid leak on the undercarriage. CARS requested that the repair facility fax the cause of failure and an estimate for the repair of the customer's vehicle to us.On July 23, 2015 at 10:00 a.m., the customer telephoned regarding the status of the mechanical claim. CARS advised him that we were waiting on the repair facility's fax providing us with the cause of failure and an estimate for the repair of the customer’s vehicle.On July 23, 2015 at 4:51 p.m., the customer telephoned to advise he could not reach the repair facility. CARS again reviewed that we needed the cause of failure and an estimate for the repair of the customer's vehicle in order to move forward with the claim. CARS put the customer on hold and left a message for the repair facility to contact us. The customer advised that he may move his vehicle to another repair facility.On July 24, 2015 at 11:34 a.m., the repair facility advised us that the customer's vehicle was still at the repair facility and torndown. The repair facility advised that the cause of failure was the axle seal leaking fluid. We advised that we needed the cause of failure and an estimate for the repair of the customer’s vehicle faxed to CARS.On July 24, 2015, after CARS reviewed the estimate and cause of failure (attached) faxed to us from the repair facility, CARS determined that we could not offer any assistance for the repair of the customer's vehicle because fluid leaks are non-covered components under the customer's Service Contract.On July 24, 2015 at 4:20 p.m., CARS advised the repair facility in a voice message that CARS was unable to assist with the repair of the customer’s vehicle. The repair facility found that the differential leaked fluid and the vehicle continued to be driven causing bearing, pinion and ring gear damage. Additionally, the intermediate shaft bearing was void of fluid resulting in damage of the bearing.On July 27, 2015 at 9:38 a.m., a claims manager attempted to review the mechanical claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle; however, the customer was very argumentative with him.By the customer’s signature on his Power Train Service Contract, he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract. It is stated in the customer’s Service Contract at Paragraph l(q): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Fluid leaks and damage caused by fluid leaks.” Here, fluid leaks to the customer’s vehicle caused damage to the front differential, bearing, pinion and ring gear damage as well as damage to the intermediate shaft bearing.Under the customer’s Service Contract, we were not required to cover the full cost of the repair. The service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Variousprovisions of the service contract inform the customer what components are specifically covered and the customer's financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, and taxes.For the reasons stated above, CARS stands by its decision and is unable to offer any assistance with the June 21, 2015 mechanical claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract.The customer has Service Contract coverage through August 26, 2015 or when the odometer registers 140,138 miles, whichever occurs first. If a claim is opened CARS will process will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under his Service Contract. If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Power Train Service Contract.When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.Sincerely,Jason [redacted]General Counsel

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

Regards,

The truck in question did lose fluid that is true , however the vehicle lost all the fluid when a u turn was made and and the Alex seal broke witch is covered by the warranty according to my paper work. As 2 different auto shops has said. Also the miles that cars gave is wrong. If you look at the other 200 + complaints you will see that most of them will tell you the same thing I am. Also I would like to see the " signed contract because I don't remember signing anything.

Review: When I purchased my truck from the dealer, he offered me the extended warranty and I told him I intended on putting rims on my truck and asked him if that would affect the warranty if I so decided to purchase it, he told me no, that they sell cars with rims all the time and still over that warranty. He told me that it was not going to be any issue, so at that point he offered me options of how long of a warranty I wanted so I decided one of the longer warranty's. My truck then had issues and I put it in the shop and then got a call from cars protection plus saying they are canceling my warranty and I cannot receive a refundDesired Settlement: I want a refund. They are keeping my money for a service I purchased and they refused to render that service to me

Business

Response:

RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted] DODGE 1500 VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted] Dear Ms. [redacted] I am in receipt of your letter dated May 29, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: On October 24, 2013, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (36 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on November 15, 2013 (the attached "Service Contract”). On January 6, 2014, at 10:59 a.m., the repair facility telephoned CARS advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing tensioner pulley, air conditioning, starter and oil gauge issues. We then went over our claim procedures. The repair facility further advised that there were 22 inch rims on the customer's vehicle. On January 7, 2014, at 10:59 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the rims on the customer's vehicle were actually 26 inch rims. On January 7, 2014, at 11:26 a.m., the customer advised CARS that the rims on her vehicle were 26 inch rims and that she installed the rims. On January 7, 2014 at 11:47 a.m., CARS advised the customer that her Service Contract had been cancelled and the January 6, 2014 mechanical claim made on behalf of her vehicle was denied because the rims on her vehicle were modified from the manufacturer’s specifications. CARS further advised that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of her Service Contract, she was not eligible for a refund from CARS. On January 7, 2014 at 11:48 a.m., CARS advised the repair facility that the customer's claim was denied due to oversized rims on the vehicle and her Service Contract was cancelled. CARS then closed the claim. On January 8, 2014 at 1:43 a.m., CARS' office manager reviewed the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract with the customer. Our office manager explained that CARS denied the mechanical claim and cancelled her Service Contract due to oversized rims on the vehicle. On January 8, 2014 at 1:53 a.m., a customer service representative advised the customer that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the Service Contract, CARS does not provide refunds for service contracts when the service contract is cancelled for alterations/modifications of a vehicle. The customer's vehicle met our eligibility requirements when the vehicle was approved by CARS on November 15, 2013. It was not until the processing of the January 6, 2014 claim that CARS became aware of the alterations/modifications to the customer's vehicle. The alterations/modifications (i.e. rims) of the customer's vehicle are not according to the manufacturer's specifications. By the customer's signature on her Service Contract, she acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to the terms and conditions contained therein. It is also stated under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 1(d) and Paragraph 2(f) and 2(d): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Vehicles that are modified or altered from the original manufacturer’s specifications, including but not limited to the following modifications: frame, suspension or body lift kits, wheels/tires (not to OEM specifications), emission system, exhaust system, engine, transmission and drive axle, regardless of when modifications or alterations were performed." Also, "PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: "Altered or modified vehicles are not covered and shall void the Service Contract." Additionally, "CARS reserves the right to reject or cancel any application or Service Contract for cause as determined by CARS." Finally, it states at Paragraph 5(c): "CANCELLATION PROVISIONS: If a vehicle is altered or modified after purchase and if a claim has been made or paid, the Service Contract is cancelled and no refund shall be issued." Here, on January 7, 2104, the customer advised CARS that she installed 26 inch rims on her vehicle; therefore she is not entitled to a refund of her Service Contract. To reiterate, it was not until the processing of the January 6, 2014 claim that CARS became aware of the alterations/modifications to the vehicle. Here, on January 7, 2014, the customer advised CARS that she installed the larger rims on her vehicle. The alterations/modifications to the customer’s vehicle are not according to the manufacturer’s specifications and can affect the way the vehicle performs and also can cause undue mechanical problems with the vehicle. CARS relies on the information provided to us by the dealers and/or repair facilities, since we cannot inspect every vehicle that has a service contract with us. Once notified of a modified/altered vehicle, CARS has the right to cancel the service contract immediately. The customer’s Service Contract is void and the customer does not have service coverage under any of CARS' service contracts. Pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract, the customer is not entitled to any refund from CARS. When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely,[redacted]General Counsel

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

Regards,

Review: My car is under warranty by this company. My car had antifreeze in two cylinders and needed to go to the shop. My car spent 7 days in the shop during five of those days I had to rent a vehicle. According to the warranty, they will pay for a rental up to $300. My rental for the 5 days cost $121. They told me that they only pay for car rental for the time the car is actually being worked on. REALLY? So am I supposed to rent a car for two hours a day?

I am without my vehicle. Bad enough they don't even cover the entire repair (well it had to be repaired), but the fact that I am without a vehicle that is under warranty for 7 days of which I only rented a car for five of those days, that should be covered in full. My rental is less than HALF of what their maximum pay out is.Desired Settlement: I would like total reimbursement of my rental.

Business

Response:

RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted]2005 NISSAN ALTIMA VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]:I am in receipt of your letter dated April 27, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On February 20, 2015, the customer purchased the above- referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Power Train Service Contract (3 Months/4,500 Miles] and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on March 2, 2015 (the attached "Service Contract”).On April 17, 2015 at 2:48 p.m., we received a telephone call from the customer advising us that her vehicle was experiencing intake cylinder issues. We then reviewed with the customer CARS' claim procedures, the customer's service coverage and rental benefits.On April 23, 2015 at 4:04 p.m., CARS returned a voice message from the customer. We advised the customer that CARS was waiting for the repair facility to get back to us with their findings. We again reviewed our claim procedures, the customer's service coverage and rental benefits with her. The customer was unhappy about the rental benefits and a customer service representative advised that CARS service contracts are limited in their coverage and emailed an outline of coverage to her.On April 24, 2015 at 1:13 p.m., we again received a telephone call from the customer advising us that her vehicle was experiencing intake cylinder issues. We then reviewed our claim procedures, the customer's service coverage and the rental benefits with her.On April 24, 2015 at 1:48 p.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising us the head gasket was leaking from the coolant port on the #3 cylinder and coolant was getting into the combustion chamber. The chamber head was warped .006. CARS advised the repair facility to fax the estimate to us for review.On April 24, 2015 at 4:03 p.m., after CARS received and reviewed the estimate from the repair facility and had the opportunity to check on the availability of parts, we then went over the amount we could authorize with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the head set for $123.63, bolts for $62.41, and pay $75.00 towards the decking. ProDemand stated that the repair should take 10.0 hours to complete and the customer’s service contract pays up to $60.00 per hour. Therefore, total labor covered was $600.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $761.04, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $500.00 towards labor or pay $761.04 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. The repair facility advised CARS that the customer would take the cash allowance towards the repair of her choice. We then gave the repair facility an authorization number to begin the repairs to the customer’s vehicle.By the customer's signature on her Power Train Service Contract, the customer acknowledged that she read, understood, and agreed to the terms and conditions of the her Service Contract. The customer’s service contract states under terms and conditions at Paragraph 3(f): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: CARS has the option to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs.” When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement parts we use the cost of the parts to either be shipped to the repair facility and to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. It is the customer's decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicle. Here, the repair facility advised CARS that the customer chose to take the cash allowance to assist with the repair of her vehicle.The rental benefits of the customer’s Service Contract states: "RENTAL BENEFITS The Service Contract Holder will be reimbursed $25.00 for each eight hours of ProDemand labor guide time to repair or replace the covered component with a maximum benefit of $300.00 per claim, if proof of rental is provided with an authorized claim. Down time, regardless of reason, is not included.” ProDemand Labor Guide stated that the repair should take 10.0 hours to complete; therefore, the customer is entitled $25.00 of rental benefits under her Service Contract. The customer needs to submit a proof of rental to CARS to be reimbursed the $25.00 she is entitled under her Service Contract.The Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract states at 2 (m): "PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: C.A.R.S. will not be responsible for any time lost, any inconvenience caused by the loss of use Your vehicle, the quality of the repair by the repair facility or for any other incidental or consequential damages You may have." As you can see from the above information, CARS replied to the repair facility in a timely manner. CARS received the final repair estimate from the repair facility on Friday, April 24, 2015 and on that same day, we provided options to the repair facility for the customer's decision on how CARS could assist with April 23, 2015 claim.The customer's vehicle has service coverage through June 2, 2015. CARS will review any claims opened on behalf of the customer’s vehicle and if the failures are covered pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract, CARS will pay accordingly.When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.Sincerely,[redacted]General Counsel

Review: We bought a warranty to cover transmission issues on a used vehicle. We purchased the warranty from the same dealer from I got the car. We picked the vehicle and park the car at home. After sixty (60) miles the car did not work, then we took the car to the garage and we were in shock when the mechanic guy told us that the transmission was broken but we were in calm because we trusted the warranty would pay the difference after we pay the deductible. However, we were wrong, the garage call us stating that the claim will not be covered because the car was repaired before. We are not mechanics how we would know that the car was repaired previously. We purchased the car and warranty in good faith hoping that both the car and warranty are good products. Unfortunately neither of them is useful. Car Protection is making huge money selling warranties but they DO NOT COVER. Ive realized that many people make a lot of complaints about Car Proctection. My question how [redacted]and other states) allows Car Protection to run a business since they have not honored what they offer on contract. They are tricking to the people who in good faith is buying warranty.Desired Settlement: Desired Settlement: We would like to have the warranty company cover the expenses to have the truck fixed, per their warranty that we paid for.

Business

Response:

RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted] 2005 NISSAN XTERRA VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted] Dear Ms. [redacted] I am in receipt of your letter dated January 23, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: According to our records, the customer purchased the above- referenced vehicle on November 19, 2014 and on that same date she applied for a CARS Power Train Service Contract (3 Months/4,500 Miles). The customer’s Service Contract was received by CARS and approved with payment on December 2, 2014 (See attached "Service Contract"). On December 5, 2014 at 3:30 p.m., we received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing transmission issues. We then went over our claim procedures in detail with the repair facility. On December 9, 2014 at 11:23 a.m., the repair facility advised us that the torque converter came apart internally and shot metal shavings through the unit damaging the valve body and the clutches. The repair facility advised that they would send an estimate to CARS. After receiving the information provided by the repair facility, CARS determined that an independent inspection of the customer's vehicle was necessary to verify the cause of failure and extent of damage to the customer’s vehicle. The independent inspection occurred on December 11, 2014. The independent inspector found that the clutches were dark, overheated and material was missing from them. The valve body showed signs of metal contamination. The independent inspector had the repair facility's technician drain residual fluid from the torque converter. The drained fluid was milky in color and consistent with coolant contamination. The independent inspector examined the cooling system and found that the coolant was in good condition and there were no signs of any intermix. The radiator looked to be brand new and was not a Nissan radiator. There were no signs of any impact damage or external leaks. The independent inspector found that the failure was consistent with a radiator/transmission cooler failure which resulted in coolant contamination to the transmission and subsequent damage. The radiator replacement and the internal transmission failure pre-existed the customer's purchase of the vehicle on November 19, 2014. On December 11, 2014 CARS advised both the repair facility and the customer that we were unable to assist with the December 5, 2014 transmission claim pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract. The failure to the customer's vehicle was caused by previous coolant contamination due to a previous improper repair. By the customer's signature on her Power Train Service Contract, she acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to the terms and conditions contained therein. The service contract states at Paragraph 1 (i): “COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Damage resulting from any previous improper repair” is not covered. Based on the findings of the independent inspector, CARS determined that the transmission failure was caused by an improper previous repair due to the transmission and torque converter not being flushed when the radiator was replaced prior to the customer purchasing the vehicle on November 19, 2014. The failure of the radiator/transmission cooler caused coolant contamination to the transmission and subsequent damage to the customer's vehicle. The radiator replacement and internal transmission failure pre-exist the customer's purchase of the vehicle on November 19, 2014. Pursuant to the customer's Service Contract, CARS is not required to pay the full cost of the repairs. The service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it was not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and your financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible. CARS has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract and therefore, we are unable to assist with the December 5, 2014 claim for the reasons stated above. The customer has Service Contract coverage on her vehicle through March 2, 2015. Should her vehicle incur future mechanical problems, CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under the service contract. If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the terms and conditions of the Service Contract. When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell, and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

Apparently, there is no way that customer could win. CARS Protection is taking advantage of system and unfortunately the system does not do too much to help us. I read a lot of complaints about this company. ( I regret myself not do it before I pay for it). They claimed it was inspected by the "independent" inspector. The independent inspector is actually someone who received his paid from Cars Protection , therefore it cannot be called independent, because "coincidentally" for any inspection, the inspector provides the same diagnostic: "Not to be covered". In other words, the inspector works in function who pays his services CARS Protection, which obviously is less than CARS could pay its obligation. In order to verify if CARS Protection is honoring the contract I would like to get the records about how many claims they receive and how many of them are actually paid. If my assumption is correct then we can get the conclusion the Cars Protection is taken advantage of business and the system by selling "insurances" that they know in advance that they are NOT going to cover. When someone buys a used car, the customer cannot checked the car internally, that is the reason why we (the customers) buy a warranty to prevent any issue. However, Cars Protection knows that and selling "insurance" that they know in advance they are not going to cover because their "independents" inspectors are going to say the same thing. It is a good business, isn't it? Unfortunately, we, the customers are naive buying this type of insurance for getting nothing, we just loose our money. I formally request the information from the "independent" inspector, name and license. Also, I would like to get from Cars Protection the information about how many claims were received and how many of them were actually paid them. Otherwise I will take this issue to [redacted] Consumer Affairs complaint, General Attorney of [redacted], media (newspaper and television), and social webs to share this type of business.

Review: This company is terrible. They advertise their services through dealerships and tell the consumer one thing; and then when the time comes to utilize the services they find reasons to not cover the work needing to be done. My truck broke down and in looking over the package my husband and I purchased, the parts are supposed to be covered and $60/hour of labor are supposed to be coverd. The repair shop quoted us $1,000-$1,200 for the repair and the C.A.R.S will only cover up to $225 worth of work because we aren't using refurbished parts. The repair shop said if the drive shaft, which is the part needing the repair, were to go out on the highway, we would lose control and the vehicle could flip. This is my family vehicle and we haul our young children around in this vehicle, so we don't want to take any risks and don't think it's fair that they want us to use refurbished parts to fix something so serious. If I would have known they would try to pull these types of scams, I would have never purchased the coverage. When you call the company to complain, all they do is read a script and don't try to help you. C.A.R.S has ways they will try to pay less for the work that needs to be repaired and they also don't want to cover parts. I need my car repaired and don't think it's necessary to have this large bill left when I purchased a warranty to cover me in the event of an issue.Desired Settlement: I would like to be refunded for the money I paid to purchase the warranty since they do not want to cover the repairs on my vehicle.

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated October 13, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and I would like to respond in the following manner: On November 13, 2013, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (48 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on November 13, 2013 (the attached "Service Contract”).

On October 10, 2014 at 2:53 p.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising us that the customer was experiencing driveshaft issues. The repair facility advised CARS that the U-Joint in the rear driveshaft had broken and damaged the yoke on the rear end. The repair facility further advised that the driveshaft was damaged from contact with the ground. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.

Later that same day, we went over the amount we could authorize with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the rear driveshaft for $225.00. Mitchell's OnDemand stated that the repair should take .7 hours to complete and the customer’s service contract pays up to $60.00 per hour. Therefore, total labor covered was $42.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $167.00, and we could supply the parts as stated above; however, we would not be able to assist with the cost of labor ($42.00), since the labor cost was less than the $100.00 deductible, or pay $167.00 towards the repair of the customer's choice. We then asked the repair facility to get back us with the customer’s decision.

On October 13, 2014 at 1:20 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer would like the cash allowance towards the repair of her vehicle. We then gave the repair facility an authorization number to begin repairs to the customer's vehicle.

On October 13, 2014, CARS customer service representatives reviewed the customer' service contract during three (3) separate telephone conversations. On that same day at 11:56 a.m., the customer advised CARS that she would like to cancel the service contract. We then went over refund policy and emailed a cancellation form to the customer. However, the email was returned as undeliverable, the customer's signature on the Value Plus Service Contract, the customer acknowledged that she read, understood, and agreed to the terms and conditions of her service contract. The

customer’s service contract clearly states under terms and conditions at Paragraph 3(f): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: CARS has the right to select and supply used, rebuilt, or

aftermarket components when authorizing repairs." When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement parts we use the cost of the parts to either be shipped to the repair facility and to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. It is the customer's decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicle. Any supplied parts we provide are tested and known to be in good working condition. Nowhere in our contract does it state that we must provide the customer with a new part when replacing a failed component.

Pursuant to the customer's service contract, CARS is not required to pay the full cost of the repairs. The service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it was not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and the customer's financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible.

In her consumer complaint the customer is requesting a refund her service contract. The customer's service contract clearly states under terms and conditions at Paragraph 5 (a) and (d): CANCELLATION PROVISIONS: Cancellation Provisions: "There is no credit for early termination except if the vehicle is declared a total loss by the carrier insuring the vehicle or if the vehicle is repossessed by the lien holder as stated." and “If the Service Contract is financed, you have the right to cancel the contract within the first 20 days by providing a written request to cancel for a full refund of the amount received by C.A.R.S. for the Service Contract, less any claims paid. The refund shall be paid to the lien holder. After 20 days, you have the right to cancel the Service Contract at any time by providing a written request to cancel. The lien holder will be refunded a prorated refund of the amount received by C.A.R.S. for the Service Contract, less a service fee (not to exceed $50.00), less any claims paid."

Please be advised that the customer is entitled to a prorated refund of the amount CARS' received from the selling dealer if the customer's vehicle currently has a lienholder and the customer is willing to sign a General Release before a notary as follows:

Amount received from dealer for service contract: $ 899.00

Term of service contract - 48 months

Less twelve (12) months proration $18.73 per month - $ 206.02

Less claim authorized - $ 167.00

Less service fee - $ 50.00

Total refund owed by CARS $ 475.98

CARS service contracts are sold wholesale between selling dealers and CARS. Therefore, any issues with regard to any additional monies owed the customer are between the customer and the selling dealer.

Should the customer be agreeable to a refund, we will prepare a General Release for the service contract holders' execution. In addition, in order for CARS to send the refund to the lienholder, the customer must provide the name and address of the lienholder to CARS.

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Review: Despite the fact that this Automotive Warranty Protection Plan was presented as a complete mechanical coverage for any engine or transmission issue, it was nothing of the sort. I took very good care of my vehicle and when it started having an issue with running too hot, I took extra precaution to never allow it to over heat. Even though it never overheated, it was determined that it had a head gasket issue. From the very beginning of dealing with the CARS Protection Plus company, the staff at my selected repair facility, as well as myself, carefully followed the restrictive instructions of the CARS Protection Plus company. It was clear from the beginning that we would be required to go through a litany of impossible requirements only to end up with the inevitable final result of denied coverage. Not only was it made clear that I had to pay for the entire tear down of the vehicle just to even determine the issue, but even at that point they had another restriction that stated if the head gasket was due to losing coolant it would be covered, but if it was due to losing combustion it would not be covered. Well, that is ridiculous. They would cover it if I let it run out of coolant? But since it was clearly not due to neglect, I am not covered? Again, I was not surprised at the outcome after the first day of contact with the CARS Plus Protection company. I expect that even if that were not the reason, then there would be many other fine print restrictions that would more than cover this unethical company from doing what it advertises it does. CARS Protection Plus does NOT cover what it claims to cover. Save your money. Automotive Dealers, You need to know that whatever incentive you are being offered from the CARS Protection Plus company to offer this program to your customers is not a value to your customers. It could also end up hurting your business if you continue to offer this bogus coverage. Do NOT do business with CARS Protection Plus!Desired Settlement: I paid $3500 for a repair that I feel should have been covered. I would have been happy to have even half of it covered after it became apparent this company was not going to be reliable.

Consumer

Response:

As I stated in the complaint, this coverage is represented as a motor train protection plan. Therefore since this is a motor train issue, and without any indication of neglect, this should be covered. I do not have a copy of my contract. I am referring to the contract information on their website: [redacted]Whether or not the fine print of this contract removes any obligation from the CARS company or not, this product, the advertising on the website, the message from the 3rd party vehicle salesperson, and even the details of the CARS online contract imply protection against motor train issues. Only after an issue exists, when you are forced to drill into the details of this contract, do you realize that every individual mechanical component of your engine may be covered as listed on the contract, but nothing else. Not even the parts that hold these mechanical components together are covered, nor the gaskets that hold these components together, nor the labor to take that component off to look and see the issue, etc. If one part of this job had started before we contacted the CARS company, coverage would have been denied. Yet, They don't even cover that part anyway. It is simply one more fine print line written to enable this company a legal excuse to deny coverage. This company is misrepresenting coverage that does not exist.

This may not be a legal contract violation, but it is a misrepresentation that is being manipulated by an unethical company for profit.

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated February 12, 2014, enclosing the above­referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on February 11, 2011. On that same date the customer applied for a CARS Value Plus Limited Warranty (36 Months/Unlimited Miles). CARS received with payment and approved the customer’s service contract on February 18, 2011 (See attached Service Contract).

On January 27, 2014 at 3:43 p.m., a mechanical claim was called in by the repair facility. The repair facility advised that the customer’s vehicle was running hot but not losing coolant. We then went over our claim procedures. At that time we explained that the repair facility needed to obtain the customer’s permission to tear the customer’s vehicle down to the point of failure. We were subsequently advised that the customer gave approval for the teardown of the customer’s vehicle.

During the processing of the claim, we were advised verbally by the repair facility that the pressure test showed hydrocarbons, which is a combustion leak. We were further advised of failure to the head gasket at cylinder #1 and that the head gasket was leaking combustion.

On February 10, 2014 at 3:07 p.m., we advised the repair facility that pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract CARS was not able to assist with the repair of the customer’s vehicle.

By the customer’s signature on the customer’s Value Plus Limited Warranty, the customer acknowledged that the customer read and understood the terms and conditions of the service contract contained therein. Our service contracts are clear and unambiguous. The customer’s limited warranty clearly states, “cylinder head gaskets are covered for coolant leaks only.” Here, the repair facility chosen by the customer found that the cylinder head gasket failure was due to a combustion leak. Therefore, we were correct in our denial of the claim in accordance to the terms and conditions of the customer’s Value Plus Limited Warranty.

We would like to point out here that the customer’s service contract clearly states: “A proper diagnosis shall include tear-down to the point of component failure, performed by the repair facility, to determine the cause of failure and the extent of damage. You are responsible for all charges relating to the tear-down and diagnosis of the vehicle.” The customer is responsible for all tear down and diagnostics performed on the customer’s vehicle. We were not requiring unnecessary tear down and diagnosis; we were only trying to determine that the cause of failure to the customer’s vehicle would be properly repaired the first time and to determine if the failure would be covered pursuant to the customer’s service contract.

Furthermore, under the customer’s service contract, we were not required to cover the full cost of the repair. Said service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it was not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and the customer’s financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible.

Accordingly, CARS has fulfilled all of its obligations under the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract; therefore, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s servicer contract, we were unable to assist with the January 27, 2014 mechanical claim made on behalf of the customer’s vehicle. In closing I would also like to point out that CARS pays hundreds of thousands of dollars each and every week in customers’ claims.

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Consumer

Response:

Review: I brought a used jeep from [redacted] and which I had to turn another car a VW bettle bug back to this same dealer. The reason being was that the VW was a lemon and we had invested atlest four thosand dollars into this car before we was told by the vw dealer that this car was a lemon, and to take the car back to the seller. We were then given 2,100 hunderd dollars back as long as we purchase some other car from them. So we Purchase the 2004 jeep liberty in which we had to pay out another 3,500 hundred dollars. We were told by the seller that the cars contract would be a longer contract then the one that was given with the VW.I have only had the jeep a month, and the thermostat, went bad . When I called cars service contract I was told that they would not be covering any of the repairs, even though the thermostat is covered by the service contract. I then said that this is a bougas contract and I would be writting to Revdex.com. The dealership is dodge chryslar of [redacted] I was told by the service represted Mr. [redacted] that he has never heard of a warrenty that states they cover the repair but refuse to cover it eventhough its on the contract.My car broke down in Erie Penn and I had to leave the jeep and catch a train back home. The warrenty has no statments saying that their is an amount for which the service contract will or will not pay for the repair of a thermostat.If I had to pay out pocket for this service which is 356.00. I fill that the service should pay atleast 256.00 of the repair and I pay my one hundred dollar deductable.I feel I should be refunded the amount of 256.00 dollars and this compant should be investagated for fraud on their contract.Desired Settlement: I would like a two hundred fifty six dollors refund and a investagation on these cars contracts there breaking the law and I feel I"m not the first to complain.

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated September 29, 2014, enclosing the above­referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On August 9, 2014, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, he also applied for a CARS Value Limited Service Contract (6 Months/7,500 Miles), which was accepted with payment by CARS on August 12, 2014 (the attached "Service Contract").

On September 29, 2014 at 9:33 a.m., we received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing mechanical problems, specifically the thermostat. During the processing of the claim, the repair facility advised that the thermostat would not open and that the radiator needed flushed. After the repair facility provided us with its cause of failure and extent of damage, we went over the amount we could authorize for the repair pursuant to the terms and conditions of the service contract as follows: We could supply a thermostat for $23.70. Mitchells OnDemand stated that the above repair would take .9 hours and the customer’s service contract paid up to $50.00 per hour. Therefore, total labor was $45.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible.

The total value of the thermostat claim pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract was $68.70, which was less than the $100.00 deductible; therefore, it would be the customer's sole responsibility to repair the thermostat. Additionally, radiators are non-covered components under the customer’s service contract. Here, the repair facility advised that the radiator was not failed, but only needed flushed. The flushing of the radiator is a maintenance item and also the customer's responsibility for repair.

Please be advised that the customer's service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform what is specifically covered and the customer's financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and times and also the deductible.

Review: I purchased an unlimited warranty with my vehicle. Long story short, 1/2 turbochargers is bad and needs replacing. The manufacturer of the vehicle recommends, both turbos be replaced at the same time yet, CARS will not honor that. Okay fine my second issue is that the manufacturer also warranties, the turbo till 82000 miles. ImI'm at94000 miles just out.of.the mileage, but CARS wants to replace the turbo with a turbo of similar mileage. This makes zero since except for being cheap. I want them to at least supply a rebuilt or remanufactured turbo.Desired Settlement: I Want cars to pay for a rebuilt or remanufactured turbo. Not a used one with similar mileage.

Business

Response:

RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted]2008 BMW 135i VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]:I am in receipt of your letter dated February 29, 2016, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. 1 would like to respond in the following manner: On or around June 16, 2014, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Ultimate Plus Service Contract (24 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on July 2, 2014 (the attached "Service Contract”).Since the inception of the customer’s Service Contract, two (2) mechanical claims were called in by repair facilities on behalf of the customer’s vehicle as follows:First Claim: On July 8, 2015 at 1:29 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing mechanical issues, specifically the left door latch and the left window regulator. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.On that same date, July 8, 2015 at 1:40 p.m., CARS went over the amount we could authorize for the claim with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the starter for $125.00. Mitchell OnDemand labor guide stated the total repair, including tear-down, should take 2.2 hours to complete and the repair facility labor rate was $85.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $187.00. We explained that the total value of the claim was $312.00, and we could supply the part as stated above and pay $187.00 towards labor or pay $312.00 towards the repair of the customer's choice. The repair facility advised CARS that the cash allowance would be used towards the repair of the customer's vehicle.On July 24, 2015 CARS paid the repair facility in the amount of $312.00 via credit card pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract. The claim was then closed.Second Claim: On February 25, 2016 at 1:59 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing mechanical issues, specifically the rear turbo charger issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.On February 26, 2016 at 1:26 p.m., CARS went over the amount we could authorize for the claim with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the turbo charger for $250.00 and gaskets for $25.00. Mitchell OnDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 12.0 hours to complete, and the repair facility labor rate was $85.00 per hour for labor. CARS will also pay for 1.0 hours of diagnostics/tear- down at the repair facility's $85.00 per hour labor rate. Therefore, total labor was $1,105.00. We explained that the total value of the claim $1,380.00, and we could supply the part as stated and assist with the cost of labor in the amount of $1,105.00 or pay $1,380.00 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. The repair facility advised that they would get back to CARS with the customer's decision.On February 29, 2016 at 11:44 a.m., CARS reviewed the claim with the customer. The customer advised that he did not want a used turbo charger. CARS advised that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract, CARS could offer a used turbo charger for the repair of the customer’s vehicle.By the customer’s signature on his Value Plus Service Contract he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract. It is stated in the Service Contract at Paragraph 3 (f): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: CARS has the right to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs." When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement parts we use the cost of the parts to either be shipped to the repair facility and to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. It is the customer’s decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicle. Nowhere in our contract does it state that we must provide the customer with a new, rebuilt or remanufactured part when replacing a failed component. Here, the customer has the option of taking the cash allowance of $1,445.00 towards the repair of his choice or having CARS supply the used turbo charger and gasket.CARS would like to point out here that the turbo charger that was quoted to the customer and the repair facility did in fact have fewer miles than the turbo charger that was in the customer’s vehicle. It is very likely that the replacement turbo charger for the customer’s vehicle will have less mileage than the turbo charger in his vehicle; however, the original replacement turbo charger may no longer be available since several days have passed since we discussed this part with our supplier.At this time CARS is waiting to hear back from the repair facility regarding the customer's decision so that we may move forward with February 26, 2016 turbo charger claim.The customer has Service Contract coverage through July 2, 2016. If a claim is opened CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under the customer's Service Contract. If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract.When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Review: On November 21, 2015 we purchased a used car from a dealer. We bought a 90 day warranty from CARS Protection Plus. On Dec 30, 2015 engine light came on we went to the dealer. Told us it was nothing; car was old but solid. On Jan 1st, the car lurched forward, the engine light came on, remained on and would not go past forty(40) mph. I then took the car to a mechanic the next day and was diagnosed as the transmission. This information about the incident was reported to CARS services to file a claim. When speaking to a representative, they spoke to me dismissively and rapidly fired questions. They asked about the condition of the car, I mentioned that I heard a noise at the time of purchase , thinking off the top of my head that it could've been the transmission, but not knowing that at the time, but relaying to them what the mechanic told me. They took down the information and I waited to hear from them. I called the mechanic who told me to call them. CARS said they couldn't accept the claim due to a "pre-existing issue with the car at the time of purchase." They said because I had mentioned there was a potential transmission issue meant I had already been aware there was a problem with the car at the time. I contested, that I am not a car expert and had no idea what the problem was only bringing up the possibility of transmission issue because of the information given to me from the mechanic. They have left us with the inability financially to have the car repaired leaving us with no other options and with a car that doesn't run and out of twenty six hundred dollars. The contract expires in Feb 29, 2016Desired Settlement: Repair the vehicle as promised in the contract.

Business

Response:

January 28, 2016 VIA: Revdex.com WEBSITE RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted] 2000 CHRYSLER LHS VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: C-[redacted] Dear Ms. [redacted]: 1 am in receipt of your letter dated January 25, 2016 enclosing the customer's consumer complaint. Our records indicate that on November 21, 2015 the customer purchased the above- referenced vehicle and on that date the vehicle registered 70,108 miles on the odometer. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Power Train Service Contract (3 Months/4,500 Miles). The customer's Service Contract was accepted with payment and approved by CARS on November 30, 2015 (the attached “Service Contract”). On January 7, 2016 at 2:29 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from the repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing transmission issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility. During the processing of the claim on January 7, 2016 at 2:45 p.m., in a recorded telephone call, the customer advised CARS that his vehicle began to experience transmission issues during a test drive of his vehicle and that the transmission issues were present on November 21, 2015. On January 7, 2016 at 4:01 p.m., CARS contacted the repair facility and advised that since the failures were present prior to CARS acceptance of the customer's Service Contract on November 30, 2015, CARS could not offer any assistance with the repairs. On January 7, 2016 at 4:34 p.m., CARS reviewed the reasons CARS could not assist with the transmission claim with the customer and his mother. By the customer’s signature on his service contract application, he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to its Terms and Conditions. Directly above the customer's signature, it states: "This Service Contract does NOT go into effect until: (1) this service application is received by CARS Protection Plus ("CARS"), (2) with proper payment, and (3) approved by CARS, which may be different than my date of vehicle purchase." Additionally, under the Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 1(b): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Component failures occurring before CARS Protection Plus, Inc. ("CARS") approves this Service Contract application are NOT covered. CARS does NOT warrant the condition of the vehicle at the time of purchase." As stated previously, the customer advised CARS in a recorded telephone call on January 7, 2016 that his vehicle experienced transmission problems on November 21. 2015 which was prior to CARS acceptance of his Service Contract on November 30. 2015. When processing claims, CARS relies on the information that is received from the customer and the repair facility to determine if a repair is covered pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the Service Contract. As stated in the above paragraphs, the customer’s vehicle is not eligible for assistance with the January 7, 2016 transmission claim because the transmission issues were present prior to CARS’ acceptance with payment of the customer's Service Contract. For all the reasons stated above, CARS stands behind our original decision and we are not able to assist with the January 7, 2016 transmission claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle. CARS service contract applications provide that they go in effect after they are received with payment, processed and approved by C.A.R.S. Protection Plus, Inc., which may be different than the date of vehicle purchase. The customer's Service Contract was processed and approved on November 30, 2015. The customer has Service Contract coverage on his vehicle through February 29, 2016 or when the odometer on his vehicle registers 74,608 miles, whichever occurs first. If a claim is opened CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under the customer’s Service Contract. If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Power Train Service Contract. When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

I purchased a extended warranty for $998.00

read carefully the claims center does not pay for much out of the cost to get my car on the road of 1200.00 the insurance paid 60.00

the hours of operation are inconvenient they close for lunch and the service is rude. I 100 percent. Would not ever purchase through them again.

Review: I purchased an extended warranty for my used car that I recently bought from [redacted] Auto Sales. I have had the car for little over a month and that now requires a full replacement of the rear differential seal. I purchased this warranty to cover expensive repairs-such as this one- but when the dealer called the warranty company, they said they do NOT cover this component. I am furious that I purchased a warranty that I cannot use, at a price of ~$1300, and still have to cover the cost of the repair myself which is about $1800 at the dealer. I WANT A FULL REFUND OF MY WARRANTY POLICY AND TO CANCEL WITH THIS COMPANY, but they claim that I can "cancel but without any refund". WHY AM I NOT ENTITLED TO A REFUND FOR SOMETHING THAT I CANNOT USE!? This seems like a very questionable practice and I am an extremely angry, unhappy customer.Desired Settlement: I'd like Cars Protection Plus to fully refund the warranty as I have not had the car very long and it will not cover the required repairs. I simply cannot afford to pay the $1300 for the warranty plus the $1800 for the repairs at the dealer.

Business

Response:

RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted]2009 [redacted]VIN (Last 8): [redacted]OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted] I received your letter dated July 17, 2015, enclosing the customer's concerns contained inthe above-referenced consumer complaint. Our records indicate that on May 30, 2015, thecustomer purchased the above-referenced vehicle and on that same date, she also applied for aCARS Value Plus Service Contract Service Contract (24 Months/Unlimited Miles), which wasaccepted with payment by CARS on June 8, 2015 (the attached "Service Contract"). The customer'sService Contract expires on June 8, 2017. On July 13, 2015 at 4:30 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advisingthat the customer’s vehicle was experiencing rear main seal issues. We advised the repair facilitythat the rear main seal was a non-covered component under the customer's Service Contract. On July 16, 2015 at 9:44 a.m., CARS customer service representative reviewed the July 13,2015 claim with the customer. The customer was then transferred to the cancellation department. On July 16, 2015 at 9:47 a.m., the customer advised the cancellation departmentrepresentative that she wanted to cancel her Service Contract because the July 13, 2015 claim wasnot covered by her Service Contract. CARS advised that we could cancel the Service Contract;however, the customer would not be eligible for a refund. The customer stated that she wanted afull refund. The cancellation department representative went over the Terms and Conditions ofher Service Contract with her regarding non-covered components and our cancellation policy asstated on her Service Contract. CARS again reiterated that the customer was not eligible for arefund. By her signature, the customer acknowledged that she read, understood, and agreed to theterms and conditions contained therein. It is stated in the service contract: "COVEREDCOMPONENTS: COVERAGE LIMITED TO ABOVE COMPONENTS." and under Terms andConditions at Paragraph 1(a): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Componentsnot listed regardless of failure.” The rear main seal is not listed for coverage; therefore, it is the responsibility of the customer to repair. It is also stated in the customer’s Service Contract under "COVERED COMPONENTS: SEALS, GASKETS, & FLUIDS Seals, gaskets, and fluids are covered only when required in conjunction with replacement of a covered component. Additionally, cylinder head gaskets are covered for combustion and coolant leaks. Intake manifold gaskets are covered for coolant leaks only. NOT COVERED: oil and vacuum leaks." The rear main seal is not covered because no covered component failed in the customer's vehicle that would require that the rear main seal to be replaced. In her consumer complaint the customer is asking for a refund of her Service Contract. CARS is regulated by state statutes regarding customer refunds. Here, no state statute in the state she purchased her vehicle requires CARS to refund the service contract; therefore, the customer is not entitled to any refund at this time. The customer has Service Contract coverage through June 8, 2015. If it is determined that the failed component is covered, CARS will pay the claim pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Value Plus Service Contract. When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.Sincerely,Jason [redacted] General CounselJPM/jmm

Review: [redacted]On October 6,2014 I purchased a used 2001 Dodge Ram truck from [redacted] used car dealer in [redacted] The dealer suggested that I get a used car warranty for the vehicle which was with C.A.R.S. Protection Plus. It was purchased for $399.00 plus tax which came to a total of $427.00 for 3 month protection. I was given written confirmation that I was covered on from the company on October 15, 2014. About a week later I took the truck to the mechanic to check a noise I heard while driving on the highway. The mechanic stated that the racket pinion and transmission both has issues. The company approved the racket pinion but once the transmission was mentioned they stated they need to come inspect the vehicle. It took about two weeks for someone to come from C.A.R.S. Protection Plus to inspect the vehicle. At that time the told the mechanic that they were denying the claim because the tires were too big. This is how the vehicle was purchased with these tires. Apparently the original tires from the dodge dealer when the car was new were a different number but the actual height is 16" and the tires on there now are 16". I feel that I was mislead in purchasing this vehicle and warranty since as soon as a problem occurred they refused to pay. Now I am stuck with a car thats not working and a mechanic bill to pay. I called them spoke to someone named [redacted] and was treated rude and in an unprofessional manner. He stated that the car dealership should had never sold us the truck with that warranty. I have already lost 4 weeks of work due to not having the vehicle. Now I am stuck with a bill that I can't afford due to not having being able to work.Desired Settlement: I would like for them to honor the warranty and pay for the repairs. As now the mechanic has to be paid. I purchased the vehicle with warranty in case a problem should arise or I would had never purchased it. Sincerely,Still walking and in debt [redacted]

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated November 24, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on October 6, 2014. On that same date the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (3 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was received with payment and approved by CARS on October 15, 2014 (See attached Service Contract). On October 30, 2014 at 3:58 p.m., a repair facility telephoned CARS advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing rear differential and transmission issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility. On November 5, 2014, at 9:22 a.m. and at 10:46 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the cause of failure was wear and tear to the customer's vehicle. We advised the repair facility that we needed to know the exact cause of failure to the customer's vehicle. On November 5, 2014 at 11:02 a.m., the repair facility advised that the seal in the overdrive drum failed creating a loss of pressure. The clutches were burnt and the rear differential spider gears were chipped. The pinion seal had a slight leak. There were no signs of overheating. After the repair facility gave CARS the cause of failure and after we received the repair facility’s estimate for the repair for the customer's vehicle, CARS determined that an independent inspection of the customer's vehicle was necessary to verify the cause of failure and extent of damage. The independent inspection occurred on November 10, 2014. During the inspection of the customer’s vehicle the independent inspector found the customer's vehicle to be altered/modified with oversized tires. On November 10, 2014 at 1:14 p.m., CARS advised the repair facility that the customer's claim was denied and his service contract denied due to oversized tires on the vehicle. We then explained that the customer would eligible for a full refund of the amount CARS received from the selling dealer if the customer signed a General Release. On November 11, 2014 at 9:22 a.m., the customer telephoned CARS and spoke to our customer service manager. Our customer service manager went over the terms and conditions of the service contract and advised that altered/modified vehicles void the service contract. CARS also went over the General Release with the customer. During this telephone call our customer service manager had to warn the customer that this was a professional telephone call when the customer began to use inappropriate language. A General Release (see attached) for the full amount that CARS received from the selling dealer was sent to the customer on November 11, 2014 for his notarized signature. As of said date, CARS has not received the signed and notarized General Release back from the customer. Upon our receipt of the fully executed and notarized General Release, CARS will send the refund check to the selling dealer. Since CARS' service contract are sold wholesale to the dealers, by sending the refund check to the selling dealer, this allows the dealer to refund his portion of the monies to the customer. CARS believed that the customer's vehicle met our eligibility requirements when the vehicle was approved by CARS on October 15, 2014. It was not until the processing of the October 30, 2014 claim that CARS became aware of the alterations/modifications to the customer's vehicle. The alterations/modifications (i.e. oversize tires) of the customer’s vehicle are not according to the manufacturer's specifications. In addition, the alterations/modifications can affect the way the vehicle performs and also can cause undue mechanical problems with the vehicle. By the customer's signature on his service contract, he acknowledged that he read and understood the terms and conditions contained therein. It is also stated under terms and conditions at Paragraph 1(d) and Paragraph 2(f) and 2(d): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Vehicles that are modified or altered from the original manufacturer's specifications, including but not limited to the following modifications: frame, suspension or body lift kits, wheels/tires (not to OEM specifications), emission system, exhaust system, engine, transmission and drive axle, regardless of when modifications or alterations were performed." Also, "PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: "Altered or modified vehicles are not covered and shall also void the service contract." Additionally, "We reserve the right to reject or cancel any application or Service Contract for cause as determined by CARS." To reiterate, it was not until the processing of the October 30, 2014 claim that CARS became aware of the alterations/modifications to the vehicle were made by the customer after the date of vehicle purchase. As stated above, the alterations/modifications to the customer's vehicle are not

Check fields!

Write a review of C.A.R.S Protection Plus Inc

Satisfaction rating
 
 
 
 
 
Upload here Increase visibility and credibility of your review by adding a photo

C.A.R.S Protection Plus Inc Rating

Overall satisfaction rating

Description: AUTO WARRANTY PROCESSING SERVICE

Address: 4431 William Penn Hwy Ste 1, Murrysville, Pennsylvania, United States, 15668

Phone:

Show more...

Web:

www.carsprotectionplus.com


Add contact information for C.A.R.S Protection Plus Inc

A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | New | Updated