C.A.R.S Protection Plus Inc

Revdex.com:
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.
I reviewed that response from CARS, however, in the response, it states that yes they contacted me and explained to me that AUDI was charging $115.00 /hr for labor and they pd $60/hr, and suggested that I take my car somewhere else, in the response it states that I was given a decision to either take the allowance that they would give me or approve the repairs, CARS states they told the repair faculty to explain to me and get back to them with my decision, Well the repair shop NEVER explained that it me, my question is, Why didn't my warranty company call me and explain to me what my options were, just as you did when my car was at the audi shop. My main reason for filing this complaint is that CARS in violation the Consumer Protection Law by making me pay for tear down and diagnostics for this warranty. Also, I called and spoke with my adjuster ( Tanner) he stated that I my transmission was rebuilt, The repair shop says it was replaced. They also give a complete different issue as to what was actually wrong with my transmission,  My point is that had the warranty company called and let me know what my options were, I could have saved myself a lot of money by possibly going to a place that would work with the money given to me from the warranty company.
Regards,
[redacted]

July 5, 2017VIA: Revdex.com WEBSITE[redacted]Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220Pittsburgh, PA 15220RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted]VIN (Last 8): [redacted]OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]:I am in receipt of your letter dated June 28, 2017, enclosing the above-referenced consumer...

complaint.Please be advised that CARS has resolved all the issues regarding this complaint with the customer.Therefore, at this time, CARS is requesting that you mark this complaint as resolved. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact my office.Sincerely,Jason *. M[redacted]General Counsel

RE:       COMPLAINT ID #[redacted] 2004 GMC YUKON VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted] Dear Ms. [redacted] I received your letter dated January 26, 2015, enclosing the customer’s concerns contained in the above-referenced consumer complaint. Our records indicate...

that on December 30, 2014, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle and on that same date, he also applied for a CARS Value Limited Service Contract Service Contract (3 Months/4,500 Miles), which was accepted with payment by CARS on January 2, 2015 (the attached "Service Contract"). On January 21, 2015 at 10:06 a.m., the customer advised a CARS customer service representative in a recorded telephone call that the check engine light came on during the same date of vehicle purchase, December 30, 2014. Our customer service representative then reviewed the customer's service coverage and our claim procedures with him. On January 26, 2015 at 9:53 a.m., the customer advised a CARS' customer service representative that he had his vehicle repaired and that he was advised on that he would be entitled to a reimbursement. We advised the customer that is not our claim procedure and that we would not have given him that information. We then reviewed our claim procedure with him several times. The customer was then transferred to the refund department. On January 26, 2015 at 10:01 a.m., the customer advised a representative in our refund department that he believed he was told on January 23, 2015 that he could have his vehicle repaired, pay for it out of pocket and CARS would reimburse him for 50% of his expenses. He was again advised that this is not our policy. The customer advised CARS that he would like to be reimbursed for his Service Contract. CARS then advised the customer that he was eligible for a prorated refund. The customer requested to speak to a manager. The manager was not available to speak to the customer and the customer refused to leave a voicemail. The above stated telephone calls are the only communication CARS received regarding the customer's mechanical issues prior to CARS' receiving the customer's Revdex.com consumer complaint. No claims were properly opened by any repair facility on behalf of the customer’s vehicle pursuant to the claims procedures outlined on the customer’s service contract. By his signature, the customer acknowledged that he read, understood, and agreed to the terms and conditions contained therein. It is stated in the customer's service contract: "Paragraph 3(a): “SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: Your vehicle must be at a qualified repair facility, within the continental United States, open to the public during normal business hours and capable to: perform tear-down to the point of component failure, determine the cause and extent of damage, and rebuild the component if CARS deems necessary. The vehicle must remain at the repair facility until repairs are complete. CARS reserves the right to have the repairs performed at a location other than the one you have selected.” In addition, it is also stated at Paragraph 3(b): “The repair facility MUST call CARS at 888-335-6838 to open a claim BEFORE any repairs have begun.” A CARS' customer service representative went over CARS' claims procedures during a January 21, 2015 telephone call. The specific information on how to open a claim as stated above was also provided to the customer on his identification card (see attached) which CARS mailed to him after the approval of his Value Limited Service Contract (3 Months/4,500 Miles). The customer did not follow the claim procedures outlined in his service contract or on his identification card to properly open a claim pursuant to the terms and conditions of his service contract. The service contract 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 CARS 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: "CARS Protection Plus 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 to the customer's vehicle. At no time did any representative of CARS advise the customer to have his vehicle repaired and that we would reimburse him afterwards for his expenses. All telephone calls between our customer service representatives and customers are documented by date, time and summary of the conversation. Pursuant to [redacted] state statutes the customer is entitled to cancel his service contract with CARS and receive a prorated refund, less a 10% service fee, for the amount of money received from the selling dealer for the cost of the customer's service contract. Please advise if the customer is agreeable to a cancellation and refund. If so, the refund we will be mailed to the selling dealer who would then issue a check to the customer. By issuing the refund check to the dealer, it would enable them to also refund the customer any profit they received as well. 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.

Attached please find CARS'...

response.March 24, 2016VIA: SUBMITTED TO Revdex.com WEBSITERE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted]2001 DODGE 2500 VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: C-[redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]1 am in receipt of your letter dated March 24, 2016 advising CARS of the above-referenced consumer additional concerns. I would like to respond in the following manner:The customer states in his March 23, 2016 reply to the Revdex.com regarding our March 22, 2016 response letter that he would like to know what happens next during the processing of his claim.By the customer’s signature, he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions contained therein. The Service Contract states under Terms and Conditions 3(c): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURES: 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." We include teardown to the point of component failure in our diagnostics in order for CARS to determine if the failed component is covered. This increases the probability that the vehicle will be repaired properly the first time. We are not requiring unnecessary tear-down and diagnosis; we are only trying to determine the cause of failure. As stated in our previous letter, CARS advised the repair facility on February 29, 2016 and March 4, 2016 that in order for CARS to move forward with the processing of the customer’s claim, the repair facility must let CARS know the cause of failure and the extent of damage to the customer's vehicle. As of today, March 24, 2016, the repair facility has not provided that information to CARS.It 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 3(g): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: The repair facility must provide CARS with an estimate and obtain an authorization number BEFORE any repairs have begun, and "....No invoice will be processed without a valid authorization number, your signature, repair facility’s warranty on repairs (if applicable) and repair facility’s identifying information." The claim procedures outlined on the customer’s Service Contract 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.Additionally, at Paragraph 1(c): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Any repair done without prior authorization from C.A.R.S." All CARS customers must follow and adhere to the claim procedures above listed for their claims to be processed. CARS will provide an authorization number to the repair facility for repair of the customer's vehicle when it is determined that the failure of the customer’s vehicle is covered under the customer's Service Contract.CARS would like to point out here that the claim procedures have been reviewed with the repair facility chosen by the customer to repair his vehicle on February 24, 2016, February 29, 2016 and March 4, 2016.Additionally, on March 22, 2016 at 4:18 p.m., and March 23, 2016 at 9:25 a.m., CARS left voice messages for the repair facility to find out the status of the customer's engine claim.As stated in our March 22, 2016 letter, 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. Here, it is necessary for the repair facility to provide CARS with a proper diagnosis and extent of damage to the customer's vehicle as stated in the above paragraphs. CARS cannot move forward with the engine claim made on behalf of the customer’s vehicle until the repair facility provides CARS with the cause of failure to the engine and the extent of damages to the customer’s vehicle.If you have any further question, please contract my office.Sincerely,JPM/jmmAttachment

[redacted] Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania[redacted] RE:          COMPLAINT ID #[redacted] 2010 DODGE JOURNEYVIN (Last 8): [redacted]OUR FILE NO.: [redacted] Dear Ms. [redacted]: I am in receipt of your letter dated January 15, 2016...

and January 20, 2016 enclosing the above- referenced consumer complaints and respond as follows: On January 21, 2016 CARS telephoned the customer to explain the processing and the amount of her refund. CARS now considers this matter resolved.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. M[redacted]General Counsel

I have read the response sent by C.A.R.S. Protection Plus and I continue to stand firmly on the grounds that I did not authorize the tear down of my car  on January 19, 2015. Authorization was given by [redacted] at ext: [redacted] with C.A.R.S Protection Plus. I have faxed in a statement sent by [redacted] with [redacted] Auto Service stating that [redacted] requested this to be done; not myself. The statement was faxed to me on 2/11/15 from Ritchies as date and time are on top of fax. In the response from CARS Protection Plus; it states that "the motor they could supply for the repairs has fewer miles than the engine currently in the customer's vehicle." However; as I have stated before: [redacted] at [redacted]s; and myself; were told by [redacted] (with CARS) that the number of miles would not be released to either one of us. I find it very odd; that now it is being said that the motor they could supply has fewer miles. It states in their response "CARS did not authorize the teardown of my vehicle; which is not true; as [redacted] did authorize repairs which are at a current total of $400. It is not my responsibility to pay for repairs that I did not authorize. It also states in their response "To be clear, CARS service contracts are to be utilized to assist with the repair of the customers vehicles and do not provide "all inclusive" coverage. Therefore, pursuant to the customers Service Contract, CARS is not required to pay the full cost of the repairs." I am not asking for FULL COST of the repairs; as the total cost for repairs is $2,480 plus any fluids, filters, etc that I am responsible for. I am asking for CARS to pay for labor that they authorized. The amount of labor hours for tear down at $60/hr needs to be paid by CARS; as [redacted] authorized these repairs and I am not responsible. Regards,[redacted]

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,
[redacted]

December 13, 2016VIA: EMAIL THROUGH Revdex.com WEBSITE[redacted]Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania 400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted]2006 SCION TC VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]:I am in receipt of your letter dated December 7, 2016, enclosing...

the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On September 30, 2016, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a Power Train Service Contract (6 Months/7,500 Mile) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on September 30, 2016 (the attached "Service Contract").On October 31, 2016 at 10:41 a.m., the customer advised CARS that her vehicle shut down while driving and would not start. CARS then reviewed our claim procedures and her Service Contract coverage.On November 8, 2016 at 3:49 p.m., a repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was experiencing engine, radiator, water pump and upper and lower radiator hose issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.On November 8, 2016 at 4:48 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was towed to the repair facility on November 4, 2016. The repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle started to lose power, sputter and white smoke was coming from the rear of the vehicle. The repair facility advised that the vehicle then made a clucking noise and then would not start. The repair facility then advised that both radiator hoses blew off and the serpentine belt was covered in oil. The repair facility further advised that the customer continued to drive the vehicle and melted all the plastic that was attached to the engine.On November 9, 2016 at 10:54 a.m., in a recorded telephone call, the repair facility advised CARS that the radiator in the customer's vehicle was new. The repair facility advised CARS that the technician believed that when the radiator was replaced the coolant system was not properly bleed and pressure built causing the hoses to blow off the radiator which subsequently caused the engine to overheat. The repair facility further advised that the customer stated that there was no indication that the vehicle was driven in an overheated condition.On November 9, 2016 at 4:56 p.m., CARS advised the repair facility that CARS was unable to assist with the repair of the customer's vehicle because the issues to the customer's vehicle were caused by the radiator, radiator hoses and/or an improper previous repair. The radiator and radiator hoses are non-covered components under the customer's Service Contract. The customer's Service Contract does not cover any failures or damage caused by an improper previous repair.On November 17, 2016 at 9:47 a.m., a claims manager advised the customer that CARS was unable to assist with the repair of the customer's vehicle because the issues to the customer's vehicle were caused by the radiator, radiator hoses and/or an improper previous repair. The radiator and radiator hoses are non-covered components under the customer's Service Contract. The customer's Service Contract does not cover any failures or damage caused by an improper previous repair. The customer advised that she would like a refund of her Service Contract.On November 17, 2016 at 10:43 a.m., CARS advised the customer that she was not eligible for a refund under her Service Contract.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 contained therein. The customer's Service Contract states at Paragraph 1 (i): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Damage resulting from any previous improper repair." Based on the findings of the repair facility provided to CARS during the recorded telephone calls on November 8, 2016, CARS determined that the failures to the customer's vehicle were caused by the failure of the radiator, radiator hoses and/or an improper previous repair due to the air not being bled during the replacement of the cooling system.It is stated in the service contract under terms and conditions at Paragraph 1 (f): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Damage/failure to a covered component caused by failure of a NON-covered component." Here, the repair facility chosen by the customer to repair her vehicle found that the failures of non-covered components (i.e. radiator, radiator hoses) caused the engine to overheat causing the failure of a covered component (i.e. engine).It is stated in the Service Contract 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 by providing 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, under Virginia the customer is not eligible for a refund of her Service Contract.CARS service contracts are to be utilized to assist with the repair of customers' vehicles and do not provide "all inclusive" coverage. Therefore, 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 and is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and her 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, we stand behind our decision and are unable to assist with the November 8, 2016 mechanical claim for the reasons stated above.The customer has Service Contract coverage on her vehicle through March 30, 2017. Should the customer's vehicle incur future mechanical problems, 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 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 my office.Jason [redacted] General CounselJPM/jmmAttachment

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,
[redacted]

Revdex.com:
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,
[redacted] To Whom It May Concern,Thank you for letting me tell my side of the story since I could not get a chance to give a full explanation to the customer service rep that I had talked to when I had filed my claim.I could tell that he did not want to hear anything else after I had said that for a few seconds I could not get it into gear.This car was to be for my eldest son who had just gotten his drivers license and needed a car to get to work after school. When we first went to see the car, I took it out for a test drive. I had not driven a manual transmission for a number of years and was looking forward to see how well I could drive it. When I had the trouble of getting it into gear, I simply took my foot off of the clutch and then pressed the clutch back in and it went right into gear. I figured that I just didn't have the clutch in far enough the first time. The rest of the test drive went without any problems.The next time we went to see the car I had asked my friend, who is a mechanic, to come along and to bring his code reader to see if anything would show up. Well when he plug it in and no codes showed I was glad to hear that. He started up the car and listened to how it sounded. He also tried shifting the gears in the car lot and had no problems shifting. He seemed to think that it was a nice running car.  When we finally made the decision to buy the car I gave it a once over again, turning it on, looking around the body of the car, took it out for one more quick drive and had no problems with the way the car had operated.A few days after we got it home we had our regular mechanic check it out for us just to have someone take a closer look at it. He said that it looked good and that it would pass inspection with out any problems. I have the paper work to prove that.After having the car for about a month and a half we noticed that there might be a problem developing. So we took it to a transmission repair shop to have them check it out. After checking some things out they said that the gears seemed to be slipping. I would like to know how, having not driven a manual transmission for a number of years, and not being a mechanic, how was I supposed to know that anything was wrong with the car before buying it?I felt that I did everything I could to determine whether or not this was a good car to buy.I bought the car with a warranty and would just like to have that warranty honored by having the car fixed.Thank you,[redacted]

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is legal and that is all. 
Regards,
[redacted]

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. 
Regards,
[redacted]

[redacted]Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania 400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted]2006 AUDI A4 VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]I am in receipt of your letter dated December 5, 2016, enclosing the additional concerns of the customer and respond as follows:A CARS claims manager has reviewed the customer's additional concerns and also the attachments he provided. As indicated on the illustration provided by the customer, the TCM specific part numbers requiring to be repaired on the customer's vehicle are part of the TCM, which is bolted to the back of the valve body. This part is not internally lubricated in the transmission. In addition, the TCM is not listed for coverage under the customer's Service Contract. Furthermore, the repair facility that the customer chose to repair his vehicle advised CARS that the TCM is external to the valve body and can be purchased separately. Please see a copy of the illustration, which I have highlighted for further explanation and clarification of the location of the TCM.The customer is requesting that CARS have an independent inspection performed on his vehicle. Please note that if CARS would send an independent inspector to inspect the customer's vehicle, the inspection would only confirm and verily that the TCM failure on the customer's vehicle is external to the transmission, which would not alter CARS' decision regarding the status of the customer's mechanical claim.Therefore, CARS stands behind its original decision and is not able to offer any assistance with the September 13, 2016 mechanical claim, because the items requiring repair are not covered components pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract.JPM/cll

I am in receipt of your letter dated November 3, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: According to our records, the customer purchased her 2002 Kia Sportage on October 6, 2014. On that same date the customer also applied for a CARS Independence Service...

Contract (Month to Month Recurring Debit) and the same was received with payment and approved by CARS on October 7, 2014 (See attached Service Contract).
On October 30, 2014 at 4:28 p.m., a repair facility telephoned CARS' customer service department and advised that the customer's vehicle was experiencing a radiator leak, and a valve cover gasket issue. We advised that these components were non-covered components under the customer's service contract. The repair facility then put the customer on the telephone with CARS. We then went over the customer's service coverage with her.
The above stated telephone call was the only communication CARS received regarding the customer’s mechanical issues. No claims were properly opened by any repair facility on behalf of the customer's vehicle pursuant to the claims procedures outlined on the customer's service contract.
By her signature, the customer acknowledged that she read, understood, and agreed to the terms and conditions contained therein. It is stated in the customer's service contract: "COVERED COMPONENTS: COVERAGE LIMITED TO ABOVE COMPONENTS.” and at Paragraph 1 (a): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Components not listed regardless of failure." Here, the repair facility advised a CARS customer service representative of the following mechanical issues with the customer's vehicle: radiator leak and a valve cover gasket issue. These components are not listed as covered components on the front of the service contract; therefore, CARS is not able to assist with the repair or replacement of these components even if a claim would be properly opened on behalf of the customer's vehicle.
The customer’s service contract states: "COVERED COMPONENTS: SEALS & GASKETS: Seals and gaskets are covered only required in conjunction with the replacement of a covered component. Additionally cylinder head and intake manifold gaskets are covered for coolant leaks. Oil/combustion leaks are not covered and at Paragraph 1 (r): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Fluid leaks and damage caused by fluid leaks." Although our records do not show that the oil pan issues were discussed by the repair facility, leaks, specifically oil leaks are not covered under the customer's service contract.
Pursuant to the customer’s service contract, CARS is not required to pay the full cost of repairs. The service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components. The service contract is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and her financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible.
For all the reasons stated above, CARS is unable to assist with the repairs to the customer's vehicle. To reiterate, a claim was not opened by the repair facility, and all the mechanical issues addressed by the repair facility with our customer service representative were non-covered items under the customer's service.
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 am in receipt of your letter dated February 26, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: On October 16, 2014, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Power Train Service Contract (12...

Months/15,000 Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on October 27, 2014 (the attached "Service Contract”). On February 24, 2015 at 1:18 p.m., the customer's father advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was experiencing transmission issues. We then reviewed the terms and conditions of his service contract with him and our claim procedures. On February 25, 2015 at 11:08 a.m., the customer's father advised CARS that the transmission on the customer’s vehicle had already been repaired. We advised that pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer's Service Contract, CARS was unable to assist with the repair since the repairs were completed without prior authorization. We then reviewed the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract with his father and our claim procedures. On February 25, 2015 at 11:29 a.m., the customer's mother telephoned CARS to obtain the status of the customer's claim. We advised that since the repairs were performed without prior authorization from CARS, we were unable to assist with the repair pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract. We then reviewed the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract and our claim procedures. The customer's mother then advised us that she was contacting the Revdex.com. On February 25, 2015 at 3:54 p.m., we received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing mechanical problems; specifically the transmission. We then went over claim procedures in detail with the repair facility. On February 25, 2015 at 4:38 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was towed to his repair facility on February 16, 2015. The repair facility further advised that the transmission was already overhauled and ready to be installed in the customer's vehicle. The repair facility explained to CARS that the customer did not notify him that the customer had a Service Contract until the repair was basically complete. The repair facility advised that they would send CARS an invoice for our review. On February 27, 2015 at 8:01 a.m., CARS advised the repair facility that pursuant to the Terms and Condition of the customer's Service Contract, we were unable to assist with the repair of the customer's vehicle because the repairs were done without prior authorization from CARS. On February 27, 2015 at 1:09 p.m., CARS advised the customer’s mother that we could not assist with the claim because the repairs to the failed parts had been performed without a claim being opened by the repair facility and authorization given by CARS. 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 service contract states at Paragraph 1(c): "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 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. It was not until February 25, 2015 at 3:54 p.m., that the repair facility telephoned CARS to open a claim and advised CARS that the transmission had already been overhauled and was ready to install in the customer's vehicle. The claim procedures outlined on the customer’s Service Contract and identification card are the same claim procedures that ab 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 paragraphs, the customer and the repair facility were fully aware that the repairs were performed prior to the February 25, 2015 opening of the transmission claim. To reiterate, CARS was never given the opportunity to review the transmission repairs to determine if the failed components were covered pursuant the customer’s Service Contract or to determine the amount we would be able to assist with the repair of the customer’s vehicle. 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 failed to follow the claim procedures that must be followed by ab CARS' customers. If the customer experiences mechanical failures prior to the expiration of his service contract on October 27, 2015 or when the vehicle reaches 155,901 miles, whichever occurs first, the customer and any repair facility chosen by him must follow the claims procedures outlined above, which are contained on his Service Contract and the identification card provided to the customer. 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 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.

There was a considerable mark up from the car lot that I bought the warranty through. I paid $899 and received a check from the car protection warranty for $249. I believe I should also receive the remaining balance from [redacted], their mark up for the warranty. The contract Car Protection has that states the price of $249 is a forged document with my name.
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. 
Regards,
[redacted]

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.

Revdex.com:
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.My vehicle would not be repaired by Cars Protection Plus due to a previous owners wreck and as such I believe it falls under the federal Magnuson-Moss Act (15 U.S.C. 2301-2312) for a pro-rated refund.
Regards,
[redacted]

November 28, 2016VIA: EMAIL/WEBSITE[redacted]Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania 400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted]2006 AUDI A4 VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]:I am in receipt of your letter dated November 17, 2016, enclosing the above-...

referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on October 2, 2015. On that same date the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Contract (24 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was received with payment and approved by CARS on October 2, 2015 (See attached Service Contract).On September 13, 2016 at 10:52 a.m., a repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was experiencing transmission issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.On September 13, 2016 at 11:51 a.m., CARS again reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facility. The repair facility then advised CARS that the customer left his vehicle at the repair facility on September 10, 2016 because the vehicle was not shifting and the check engine light was displayed. The repair facility advised that the diagnostic trouble code p0722 for the input speed sensor was displayed.CARS advised the repair facility to obtain the customer's authorization to tear-down his vehicle to the point of failure to verify the cause of failure and extent of damage to his vehicle. CARS further advised that the customer was responsible for all tear- down/diagnostic charges pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract. The repair facility advised CARS that they would telephone the customer regarding further diagnostic/tear-down.On October 17, 2016 at 10:26 a.m., CARS left a message for the repair facility to telephone CARS.On October 31, 2016 at 11:08 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS in a recorded telephone call that the failure of the valve body was caused by the conductor plate which is part of the Transmission Control Module (TCM). The repair facility further advised that the TCM can be purchased separately from the valve body. The repair facility also advised that they pulled and the pan and did not find any mechanical failures that caused the failures to the valve body.On November 3, 2016 at 10:54 a.m., CARS advised the repair facility that pursuant to the customer's Service Contract, we would not able to assist with the repair of the customer's vehicle because the conductor plate which is part of the TCM, a non-covered component, failed causing damage to the valve body.On November 7, 2016 at 11:21 a.m., the customer advised CARS that the repair facility advised him that CARS gave authorization for the repair of his vehicle and then advised the repair facility that the repair was not covered. CARS advised the customer that we never authorized the claim made on behalf of his vehicle. We advised that on October 31, 2016, we told the repair facility that the conductor plate which is part of the TCM, a non-covered component, failed causing damage to the valve body. Pursuant to the customer's Service Contract, we would not able to assist with the repair. CARS then referred the customer to the repair facility.On November 7, 2016 at 11:32 a.m., CARS again reviewed the transmission claim with the customer. The customer advised that the failed component should be covered under his Service Contract since it was not excluded on the Service Contract. CARS again reviewed his coverage with the customer. The customer asked to be transferred to a claims manager.On November 7, 2016 at 1:30 p.m., a claims manager returned the customer's telephone call. The customer questioned why the TCM was not covered since it is a lubricated part. The claims manager advised the customer that he TCM is not an internally lubricated part and is bolted to the bottom of the transmission and not located in the transmission case itself. The customer advised that the repair facility told him it was an internally lubricated part. The customer then advised that he did not feel well and could not deal with this at the time. The claims manager advised the customer to telephone him when the customer was up to it and provided his contact information.On November 7, 2016 at 1:39 p.m., the customer telephoned the claims manager and advised that his mechanic told him the TCM was an internally lubricated part and he wanted an inspector to look at his vehicle. CARS advised that the repair facility stated on a recorded line that the failure was due to the conductor plate, which is part of the TCM and a non-covered component under the customer's Service Contract. Our claims manager advised the customer that there was no reason to send out an independent inspector since CARS was familiar with where the TCM was located on vehicle. The customer advised that he was going to contact his attorney and ended the telephone call.On November 10, 2016 at 2:43 p.m., the customer telephoned a claims manager to check on the status of his claim. The claims manager advised that as per the telephone conversation they had on November 7, 2016, CARS was unable to assist with the repair of his vehicle. The customer advised that he would turn the claim over his attorney and the Revdex.com.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 customer's Service Contract under: "COVERED COMPONENTS (Transmission): Lubricated parts contained within the transmission or transfer case housing; torques converter; bands; pump; pump housing; carrier assembly; planetary gears; chain; drum;..." Here, the repair facility that the chose to repair his vehicle advised CARS that conductor plate, which is part of the TCM, had failed. The repair facility further advised that the TCM can be purchased separately from the valve body. The TCM is external and is not an internally lubricated part of the valve body assembly; therefore, this repair is not covered under the customer's Value Plus Service Contract or any other service contract offered by CARS.In addition, it is stated in the customer's Service Contract: "Covered Components: “Coverage limited to above components." And under Term and Conditions at Paragraph 1(a): "Components and Expenses Not Covered: Components not listed regardless of failure." The conductor plate, which is part of the TCM, is not listed for coverage on the customer's Service Contract. The TCM can be purchased separately from the valve body. Please see the attached descriptions of the TCM and valve body showing that they can be purchased separately.For the reasons stated above, CARS stands by its decision and is unable to offer any assistance with the September 13, 2016 claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of his Service ContractThe customer has Service Contract coverage through October 6, 2017. 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 Service Contract.I hope this letter serves to explain the reasoning CARS used to properly deny the customer's claim. 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 my office.|ason [redacted] General CounselJPM/jmmAttachments

June 2, 2015 VIA:    EMAIL/Revdex.com WEBSITE RE:      COMPLAINT ID #[redacted] 2003 VOLKSWAGEN BEETLE VIN (Last 8[redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted] Dear Ms. [redacted]:    I am in receipt of your letter dated June 2, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer...

complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on January 10, 2014. On that same date she also applied for a CARS Value Limited Service Contract (36 Months/45,000 Miles] and the same was received with payment and approved by CARS on January 15, 2014 (See attached Service Contract).    First Claim:      On April 25, 2014, at 9:05 a.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing air conditioning compressor and secondary air flow pump issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.    On April 25, 2014, at 9:22 a.m., CARS advised the repair facility that these were non- covered components under the customer's Service Contract and CARS would not be able to assist with the repair of the vehicle. We then closed the claim.    Second Claim: On May 19, 2014, at 1:14 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing water pump issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.    On May 19, 2014, at 1:32 p.m., CARS went over the amount we could authorize for the claim as follows: We could supply the water pump for $55.22. [redacted] labor guide stated the total repair should take 3.4 hours to complete, and the customer's Service Contract pays $50.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $170.00. 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 $125.22, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $70.00 towards labor or pay $125.22 towards the repair of the customer's choice. The customer chose to take the cash allowance to use toward the repair of her choice.   The attached invoice was submitted to CARS by the repair facility for payment on June 2, 2015. As shown on the invoice, the repair facility invoiced CARS in the amount of $82.08 for our portion of the repairs to the customer's vehicle. Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the service contract, on June 3, 2014, CARS paid the repair facility a total of $82.08 via check. The claim was then closed.    However, after CARS review of this invoice, CARS is willing to pay the customer an additional $43.13, which represents the difference between what CARS authorized and the amount we were invoiced for the repairs made on behalf of the customer's vehicle. A check in the amount of $43.13 will be mailed directly to the customer.    Third Claim: On April 29, 2015, at 3:54 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing driver and passenger window regulator and window motor issues. The repair facility further advised that the customer's door module needed to be coded. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.    On April 29, 2015, at 4:28 p.m., CARS advised the repair facility that these were non- covered components under the customer's Service Contract and CARS would not be able to assist with the repair of the vehicle. We then closed the claim.    By the customer’s signature on her Value Limited 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 Term and Conditions at Paragraph 1(a):                    "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Components not listed regardless of failure." The driver and passenger window regulators and window motors are not listed for coverage under the customer’s Service Contract; therefore, they are the responsibility of the customer to repair.    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 components are specifically covered and the customer’s financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, and taxes.    CARS stands by its decision and is unable to assist with the April 29, 2015 claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract.    We would like to point out here that the Form number B1003 [redacted] is not the Service Contract form number for the Service Contract submitted by the selling dealer to CARS. The selling dealer submitted a Value Limited Service Contract and CARS approved a Value Limited Service Contract with payment on January 15, 2014.   The customer has service contract coverage through January 15, 2017 or when the odometer registers 145,558 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 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 her Value Limited 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,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       [redacted]                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            General Counsel