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.This explanation is the exacting reason of the problem They say it took them days to get back to them from the origination of the initial claim.....what does that have to do with anything My truck is not the only truck in his shop It wouldn't of been there had they did what a warranty is designed to do A warranty replaces a defective product which is what this claim is The transmission has a torque converter problem which caused failure They can say all they want about what the process is but they offered a transmission to the shop of According to the shop there's NO TRANSMISSION ON EARTH that's any good for At best a rebuilt decent one is MINIMAL The shop I took it too has a impeccable reputation and was recommended by my former shop that didn't have the facilities to tear down a transmission Even the shop I took it to had to send it out to be cut open to get to the point of failure Which I firmly believe this process is in effect to frustrate the warranty holder in hopes they just get the process over with Additionally I dare them to find transmission shop they forced me to take it to that charges $50/hr Just because that's what their policy is doesn't make it a good one They caused every delay with how their policy goes Why I'm even paying for anything on top of the deductible is ridiculous A deductible is something an insurance company does not a warranty company If they had just authorized the replacement which was determined at the beginning of April my truck would be fixed but that wouldn't be profitable They can hide behind all of their policy claim mumbo jumbo they want and I am not claiming that I read it and didn't agreed to it....I am saying that if I had there would of been no chance I would have agreed to it I did sign off that I agreed to it and I'm not denying that either I went to a respectable dealership and beleived that I was getting a decent warranty and wouldnt have to read it but this is obviously not the case The bottom line here is I can plainly see what their policy is on repairs....Im objecting to it being not a fair business practice and their also their labor rates seriously outdated Also I'd like to emphasize my point about the replacement transmission they were going to provide the shop for a transmission is not even anywhere close to what it costs for one....even a rebuilt one The shop has promised me a month guarantee on the transmission....not some dollar transmission the warranty company was going to "find" at some bargain basement God knows where place Im out of pocket for $which includes the "deductible" for a transmission that probably will out live the truck, but at least I know it will function and where the parts came from If this is not resolved I'll file a review on every site I can find and make sure people do not make the same mistake I did about this company by not reading the all the rules of every little section of their worthless warranty Regards, [redacted]
I received your letter of April 2, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaintI would like to respond in the following manner: On October 31, 2014, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle and on that same date, the customer applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract ( Months/Unlimited Miles)The same was accepted with payment by CARS on November 3, (the attached "Service Contract”)On March 25, at 2:p.m., the customer’s wife advised a CARS customer service representative that a repair facility advised her that the above-referenced vehicle was experiencing upper timing gasket and bracket gasket issuesOur customer service representative then reviewed the service coverage for the vehicle and our claim procedures with herOn March 26, at 2:p.m., a repair facility telephoned CARS and advised that the customer's vehicle was experiencing ignition coil, bracket gasket, and timing gasket issuesThe repair facility further advised that the customer's vehicle was not at the repair facilityCARS then advised that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract that the vehicle must be at the repair facility in order for a claim to be opened on behalf of the vehicleOn March 26, at 3:p.m., a CARS customer service representative again reviewed our claim procedures with the customer's wifeCARS then advised that under the customer's Service Contract ignition coils are listed as covered components; however, seals and gaskets are non-covered components under the Service ContractThe above stated telephone calls are the only communication CARS received regarding the customer's mechanical issuesNo 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 contractPlease be advised that by the customer's signature, the customer acknowledged that he read, understood, and agreed to the terms and conditions contained thereinIt is stated in the customer's service contract under terms and conditions at Paragraph 3(a): “SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: Your vehicle must be at a qualified repair facility, within the continental United States, in order for a claim to be opened, and the vehicle must remain at the repair facility until repairs are complete." In addition, it is also stated at Paragraph 3(b): "The repair facility must call C.A.R.Sat 888-335-to open a claim.” The specific information on how to open a claim as stated above was reviewed with the customer’s wife during telephone conversations on March 25, and March 26, Claim procedures were also provided to the customer on his identification card (see attached) which CARS mailed to him after the approval of his Value Plus Service Contract (Months/Unlimited Miles)It is clear that 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 ContractThe customer's Service Contract states: "COVERED COMPONENTS: COVERAGE LIMITED TO ABOVE COMPONENTS.” and "COVERED COMPONENTS: SEALS & GASKETS: Seals and gaskets are covered only when required in conjunction with the replacement of a covered componentAdditionally cylinder head and intake manifold gaskets are covered for coolant leaksOil/combustion leaks are not covered and at Paragraph (r): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Fluid leaks and damage caused by fluid leaks." Here, even if the customer properly opened a claim as outlined on the Service Contract, CARS would not be able to assist with the replacement of any gaskets or any damaged caused by fluid leaksThe engine coils are listed on the customer's Service Contract as covered componentsIn her complaint the customer's wife states that that the engine is covered but not the parts of the engineAll of the parts covered under the customer's Service Contract are listed under "COVERED COMPONENTS” on the front of the customers' Service ContractThe attached Service Contract highlights the covered components listed under the "ENGINE/FUEL SYSTEM"The Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract state at Paragraph (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 damageYou 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 was coveredThis increases the probability that the vehicle will be repaired properly the first timeTherefore, it is the customer’s responsibility to pay for all diagnosis and tear down chargesThe customer's service contract states under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 3(f): “SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: CARS has the right to select and supply usedrebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs.” Nowhere in our contract does it state that we must provide the customer with a new part when replacing a failed componentCARS' service contracts are to be utilized to assist with the repair of customers' vehicles and do not provide "all-inclusive" coverageTherefore, pursuant to the customer’s Service Contract, CARS is not required to pay the full cost of the repairsThe service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components and is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverageVarious provisions of the service contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and his financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductibleIf the customer's vehicle has not yet been repaired, the customer should take his vehicle to a repair facility to have a claim opened on behalf of his vehicle as outlined on his Service Contract and contract identification cardCARS will review all information provided by the repair facility to determine if CARS is able to assist with the repair of the customer's vehicle pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service ContractWhen a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claimWe 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 October 16, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on October 1, On that same date he also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (Months/Unlimited Miles) On October 6, at 9:a.m., the customer telephoned CARS and advised that he purchased his vehicle on October 1, and was checking on his coverageA customer service representative explained that his service contract application had not yet been received by CARSOur customer service representative reviewed the terms and conditions of the service contract with himLater that same day on October 6, 2014, the customer's service contract was received by CARS and approved with payment (See attached Service Contract) On October 15, at 8:a.m., a customer service representative telephoned the customer in response to an email submission requesting informationThe customer service representative reviewed the terms and conditions of the service contract with him On October 16, at 9:a.m., we received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing heater core, ball joint, axle, axle seal, and valve cover gasket issuesWe then went over claim procedures with the repair facility On October 16, at 9:a.m., the customer advised us in a recorded telephone conversation that his vehicle began to experience heater core issues just one (1) day after vehicle purchase (i.eOctober 2014) Later that same day we advised the repair facility that pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer's service contract we would not be able to assist with the oil leak, tie rod end or any other fluid leaksIn addition, we would not be able to assist with the heater core repair, because this failure occurred prior to service contract acceptance as stated aboveWe then went over the components and amounts we could authorize for the customer's vehicle with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the left upper and left front lower ball joints for $and two (2) front axles for $Mitchell's OnDemand labor guide stated that the repair should take hours to complete and the customer's service contract paid up to $per hourTherefore; total labor was $The claim was also subject to a $deductibleWe explained that the total value of the claim for the covered components after the deductible was applied was $252.73, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $towards labor or pay $towards the repair of the customer's choiceWe then asked the repair facility to get back to us with the customer's decisionThe repair facility advised us that the customer would take the cash allowanceAn authorization number was given to the repair facility to begin repairs on the customer's vehicle By the customer’s signature on his service contract application, he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to its terms and conditionsDirectly below the customer's signature, it states: "The service contract goes into effect when this application is received with payment and approved by C.A.R.SProtection Plus, Inc." In addition, at Paragraph 1(b): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Component failures that occur before C.A.R.SProtection Plus, Inc("C.A.R.S.") approves this Service Contract application are not coveredC.A.R.Sdoes not warrant the condition of the vehicle at the time of purchase.” 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 contractHere, based upon the customer's information, it was determined that the heater core failure was present on October 2, 2014, which was prior to the customer's service contract acceptance with payment by CARS on October 6, 2014; therefore, no assistance for the heater core repair could be offered The customer’s service contract 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 statedIt is the customer’s decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicleAny supplied parts we provide are tested and known to be in good working conditionNowhere in our contract does it state that we must provide the customer with a new part when replacing a failed component The service contract states under COVERED COMPONENTS: "SEALS, GASKETS & FLUIDS Seals, gaskets and fluids are covered only when required in conjunction with the replacement of a covered component." In addition, the service contract states under terms and conditions at Paragraph l(r): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Fluid leaks and damage caused bv fluid leaks.” Pursuant to the customer's service contract the leaks and gaskets repairs needed for the repair of his vehicle are not covered Pursuant to the customer's service contract, CARS is not required to pay the full cost of the repairsThe service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it was not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverageVarious 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 summary, during the October 16, recorded telephone call, the customer stated that he began to experience heater core issues on October just one (1) day after he took his vehicle home from the selling dealershipCARS did not receive and approve the customer's service contract until October 6, 2014: therefore, we are unable to assist with this portion of the mechanical claimFurthermore, CARS would not be able to assist with any repair regarding the oil leaksHowever, as stated above, CARS did authorize the amount of $towards the covered component repairs (i.eupper ball joints and front axles) of the customer's vehicle When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claimWe 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 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 vehicleOn that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on November 13, (the attached "Service Contract”) On October 10, at 2:p.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising us that the customer was experiencing driveshaft issuesThe repair facility advised CARS that the U-Joint in the rear driveshaft had broken and damaged the yoke on the rear endThe repair facility further advised that the driveshaft was damaged from contact with the groundWe 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 $Mitchell's OnDemand stated that the repair should take hours to complete and the customer’s service contract pays up to $per hourTherefore, total labor covered was $The claim was also subject to a $deductibleWe 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 $deductible, or pay $towards the repair of the customer's choiceWe then asked the repair facility to get back us with the customer’s decision On October 13, at 1:p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer would like the cash allowance towards the repair of her vehicleWe 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 conversationsOn that same day at 11:a.m., the customer advised CARS that she would like to cancel the service contractWe then went over refund policy and emailed a cancellation form to the customerHowever, 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 contractThe 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 statedIt is the customer's decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicleAny supplied parts we provide are tested and known to be in good working conditionNowhere 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 repairsThe service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it was not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverageVarious 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 contractThe customer's service contract clearly states under terms and conditions at Paragraph (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 days by providing a written request to cancel for a full refund of the amount received by C.A.R.Sfor the Service Contract, less any claims paidThe refund shall be paid to the lien holderAfter days, you have the right to cancel the Service Contract at any time by providing a written request to cancelThe lien holder will be refunded a prorated refund of the amount received by C.A.R.Sfor 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: $ Term of service contract - months Less twelve (12) months proration $per month - $ Less claim authorized - $ Less service fee - $ Total refund owed by CARS $ CARS service contracts are sold wholesale between selling dealers and CARSTherefore, 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' executionIn 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 claimWe 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 March 20, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer’s additional concerns and respond as follows: On March 17, at 11:a.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising us that the customer's vehicle was experiencing fuel pump and rack and pinion issuesThe repair facility advised that that there was an internal failure in the CARS supplied rackWe then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility and advised that our suppler would be calling the repair facilityOn March 17, at 1:p.m., CARS advised our supplier of the failure to the steering gear and that the repair facility was waiting on his callOn March 18, at 1:p.m., CARS arranged with our supplier to have the steering gear shipped overnight to the repair facility to avoid any delays in down time for the customerOn March 18, at 3:p.m., CARS went over the amount we could authorize with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the fuel pump for $Mitchell's OnDemand labor guide stated that the repair of the fuel pump should take hours to complete and the customer's service contract paid up to $per hourTherefore, total labor covered was $The claim was also subject to a $deductibleWe explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $451.00, and we could supply the fuel pump and pay $towards labor or pay $towards the repair of the customer's choiceThe repair facility advised CARS that the customer would like the cash option towards the repair of his choiceCARS then gave the repair facility a CARS' authorization number to begin work on the customer's vehicleCARS also advised the repair facility that CARS would supply the rack to the repair facility at no charge to the customer and pay for the related rack labor charges at the repair facility rates of $per hour for a total of $Therefore, the customer will incur no additional costs as a result of the repair facility advising CARS that the rack had failedCARS then gave the repair facility a CARS’ authorization number to begin work on the customer's vehicleWe would like to point out here that CARS did not verily the internal failure of the rackCARS ordered a replacement rack immediately and paid extra overnight shipping to avoid any inconvenience to the customerDuring that same telephone call on March 18, 2014, CARS advised the repair facility that the core from the February 24, mechanical claim must be returned to the supplier as well as the failed rackWe further advised that the supplier would send call tags for the requested returnCARS has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service ContractThe customer has service contract coverage on the above- referenced vehicle through January 16, 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 accordinglyIf you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.Sincerely, [redacted] General Counsel
I am in receipt of your letter dated April 30, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaintI would like to respond in the following manner: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on February 17, On that same date he also applied for a CARS Value Limited Service Contract (Months/30,Miles) and the same was received with payment and approved by CARS on February 18, (See attached Service Contract)On April 8, at 2:p.m., CARS received a telephone call from the customer advising that his vehicle was experiencing transmission issuesA customer service representative reviewed with the customer, his coverage, criteria for a repair facility, and our claim proceduresOn April 13, at 9:a.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing transmission issuesA customer service representative reviewed the customer's coverage and claim procedures with the repair facilityOn April at 10:a.m., CARS received a telephone call from another repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing transmission issuesWe then went over our claim procedures with the repair facilityOn April 15, at 11:a.m., a claim adjuster attempted to call the person at that repair facility that opened the claim on behalf of the customer’s vehicle; however, he was advised that that person would not be in until the next dayOn April 16, at 10:a.m., CARS reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facilityThe repair facility advised CARS that there was a "chatter noise:" coming from the transmissionCARS then advised the repair facility to obtain the customer's permission to tear the vehicle down to the point of component failure and get back to us with their findings and an estimate for repairTwelve (12) days later, on April 28, at 9:a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the torque converter failed which sent metal through the unitOn April 28, at 11:a.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 transmission for $Mitchell’s OnDemand labor guide stated that the repair should take hours to complete and the customer's service contract pays up to $per hourTherefore, total labor covered was $The claim was also subject to a $deductibleWe explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $875.00, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $towards labor or pay $towards the repair of the customer's choiceWe also advised the repair facility that it should take four (4) to five (5) business days for any supplied parts to get the repair facilityWe then asked the repair facility to get back us with the customer’s decisionBy the customer’s signature on the Service Contract, he acknowledged that he has read, understood, and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of his Service ContractIt states under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph (f): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURES CARS has the right to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs.” When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement part we use the cost of the part to either be shipped to the repair facility and to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously statedIt is the customer's decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicleAny supplied parts we provide are tested and known to be in good working conditionNowhere in our contract does it state that we must provide the customer with a new part when replacing a failed componentThe Service Contract states under Labor: "The authorized time for a repair shall be based on the Mitchell OnDemand labor guideThe hourly labor rate will be the repair facility’s rate up to $per hourShould your repair facility's rate exceed this amount, you are responsible for the difference.” On the estimate faxed to CARS on April 28, (attached) the repair facility lists the cost of labor as $per hourAs stated above, Mitchell’s OnDemand Labor Guide states the repair to the customer's vehicle should have taken hours to repair and his Service Contract will pay $per hour for the labor charges; therefore, CARS is able to pay $if the customer chooses to use the repair facilities parts and $if the customer chooses to use our supplied partsPursuant the customer's Service Contract, the customer is responsible for the differenceIt states in bold at Paragraph (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 damageYou are responsible for all charges relating to the tear-down and diagnosis of the vehicle in excess of coverage outlined under Labor and Diagnostics.” We include teardown to the point of component failure in our diagnostics in order for CARS to determine if the failed component was coveredThis increases the probability that the vehicle will be repaired properly the first timeWe were not requiring unnecessary teardown and diagnosis; we were only trying to determine the cause of failureIt is stated at Paragraph (j): "PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: CARS will arrange for payment of the amount of the authorized repair, less related charges not covered by the Service Contract, less a $deductible per claim." The customer’s claim is subject to a $deductible as per his Service ContractCARS' service contracts are to be utilized to assist with the repair of customers’ vehicles and do not provide "all inclusive” coverageTherefore, pursuant to the customer's Service Contract, CARS is not required to pay the full cost of the repairsThe Service Contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components and is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverageVarious 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 deductibleWe would like to point out here that it took the repair facility twelve (12) days to get back to CARS with the cause of failure to the customer’s vehicleOnce the cause of failure was provided to us, CARS provided the amount we could assist with for the repair of the customer's vehicle the same dayFor all these reasons above, CARS is unable to provide any additional assistance with the repair of the customer's vehicleOnce the repair facility gives us the customer’s decision on which option for assistance he would like to use to repair his vehicle, CARS will provide an authorization number to the repair facility to begin the repairs to the customer's vehicleWhen a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claimWe 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 meSincerely, [redacted] General Counsel [redacted] Attachment
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 [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, we would like to know your view on the matter.] 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 I was told by Cars Protection Plus Representative that if I chose to have my car repaired I would be reimbursed for 50% of the Labor and % of approved parts I needed to get my vehicle out of the body shop so I would have a car to drive over the weekend since I was in a bind, therefore I paid the body shop thinking in good faith I would be able to use the warranty to recover part of my expenses I paid $towards the repairThe Cars Protection Plus Warranty is misleading and it was implied to me by both Cars Protection Plus Warranty and the dealer I would only be responsible for % of repairs and labor The way the warranty is written, Cars Protection Plus can easily get out of doing any repairs to the vehicle, it does not specifically state that OSensors is not a covered part, it list other parts that are covered and parts that are not and then gives them the opportunity to say any part not listed is not coveredI have decided to refer this to the [redacted] Attorney General Office of Consumer Protection to file a complaint ] Regards, [redacted]
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 vehicleOn that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract ( Months/Unlimited Miles] and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on January 26, (the attached "Service Contract”]On February 12, 2015, at 1:p.m., the repair facility telephoned CARS advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing encoder motor issuesWe advised the repair facility an encoder motor was not covered under the customer’s Service Contract; therefore, CARS was unable to assist with the claimOn February 16, 2015, at 11:a.m., the repair facility telephoned CARS advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing rear differential issuesAfter we went over our claim procedures with the repair facility, the repair facility advised CARS that the vehicle was equipped with aftermarket rimsOn February 16, 2015, at 4:p.m., the repair facility telephoned CARS advising that the customer's vehicle was equipped with 285/45/Rtires that appeared to be aftermarketThe repair facility further advised that the tire pressure sensors were not readingOn February 16, 2015, at 4:p.m., the customer advised CARS that he had made no changes to anything on the vehicle since he purchased itHe further advised that he heard a popping noise from the rear differential on February 14, On February 16, 2015, at 4: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 cancelledWe explained that we would refund the amount CARS received for the Service Contract with a signed General ReleaseCARS then closed the claimOn February 17, 2015, at 11:a.m., a CARS customer service representative reviewed the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract with himThe customer service representative then transferred the customer to a claims managerThe claims manager explained that CARS denied the rear differential claim and cancelled the customer’s service contract due to oversized tires on the vehicleOn February 24, CARS sent a General Release (see attached) to the customer for his notarized signature for the full amount that CARS received from the selling dealerWe 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 dealerTo date, we have not yet received the notarized General ReleaseCARS believed that the customer's vehicle met our eligibility requirements when the vehicle was approved by CARS on January 26, It was not until the processing of the February 16, claim that CARS became aware of the alterations/modifications to the customer's vehicleThe alterations/modifications (i.eoversize tires) of the customer's vehicle are not according to the manufacturer's specificationsEven though options may have been offered for larger wheels, the manufacturer's specifications for the customer’s vehicle are 265/65R/(See attached [redacted] standard tire sizes for [redacted] )In addition, the alterations/modifications can affect the way the vehicle performs and also can cause undue mechanical problems with the vehicleBy the customer’s signature on his service contract, he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the terms and conditions contained thereinIt 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, claim that CARS became aware of the alterations/modifications to the vehicleAs 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 vehicleCARS 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 usOnce notified of a modified/altered vehicle, CARS has the right to cancel the service contract immediatelyThe customer's service contract is void and the customer does not have service coverage under any of CARS’ service contractsHowever, 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 ReleaseThe refund will be made through the selling dealerWhen a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claimWe 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 have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.SINCE THIS COMPLAINT WAS FILED THE SELLING DEALER SPOKE WITH C.A.R.SAND EXPLAINED THAT THIS WAS A CONDITION FOR THIS CAR WHICH THEY REFUSED TO BELIEVE, SO THEY (CARS ) WAS REFERRED TO AN ELECTRICAL SHOP TO WHICH THEY SPOKE AND TOLD THE SELLING DEALER TO RETURN THE PAPER WORK TO THEMWHICH YOU BELIEVE THAT THEY WERE GOING TO ACCEPT THE CONTRACT.WELL SUPRISE THEY SENT A LETTER BACK (INCLOSED) STATING NOW IT WAS PAST THE DAYS SINCE THE CAR WAS PURCHASED SO THEY WERE NOT GOING TO HONOR THE CONTRACT UNLESS THE CAR WAS INSPECTED,WHICH I HAVE NO PROPLEM WITH AS LONG AS THEY PAY THE BILL.I AM NOT GOING TO SPEND MY MONEY TO HAVE A CAR INSPECTED THAT IS IN PERFECT WORKING ORDERTHEY SHOULD HAVE PEOPLE ON THERE STAFF WHO HAVE A WORKING KNOWLEDGE OF AUTOMOBILES,AFTER ALL THEY ARE A AUTOMOTIVE WARRANTY COMPANYSHOULD THIS HAVE BEEN THE CASE THEY WOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT THIS CAR HAS AN ALTERNATOR WITH THE ELECTRIC POWER MANAGEMENT( PAGE 3-OF THE OWNERS MANUAL) DO YOU NEED A COPY OF THAT TO PROVE MY POINT THAT THE CAR DOES NOT NEED AN INSPECTION.THIS IS JUST ANOTHER TACTIC THEY USE IN HOPING THAT THE CUSTOMER WILL GO AWAY INSTEAD OF HELPING THE CUSTOMER
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.This explanation is the exacting reason of the problem They say it took them days to get back to them from the origination of the initial claim.....what does that have to do with anything My truck is not the only truck in his shop It wouldn't of been there had they did what a warranty is designed to do A warranty replaces a defective product which is what this claim is The transmission has a torque converter problem which caused failure They can say all they want about what the process is but they offered a transmission to the shop of According to the shop there's NO TRANSMISSION ON EARTH that's any good for At best a rebuilt decent one is MINIMAL The shop I took it too has a impeccable reputation and was recommended by my former shop that didn't have the facilities to tear down a transmission Even the shop I took it to had to send it out to be cut open to get to the point of failure Which I firmly believe this process is in effect to frustrate the warranty holder in hopes they just get the process over with Additionally I dare them to find transmission shop they forced me to take it to that charges $50/hr Just because that's what their policy is doesn't make it a good one They caused every delay with how their policy goes Why I'm even paying for anything on top of the deductible is ridiculous A deductible is something an insurance company does not a warranty company If they had just authorized the replacement which was determined at the beginning of April my truck would be fixed but that wouldn't be profitable They can hide behind all of their policy claim mumbo jumbo they want and I am not claiming that I read it and didn't agreed to it....I am saying that if I had there would of been no chance I would have agreed to it I did sign off that I agreed to it and I'm not denying that either I went to a respectable dealership and beleived that I was getting a decent warranty and wouldnt have to read it but this is obviously not the case The bottom line here is I can plainly see what their policy is on repairs....Im objecting to it being not a fair business practice and their also their labor rates seriously outdated Also I'd like to emphasize my point about the replacement transmission they were going to provide the shop for a transmission is not even anywhere close to what it costs for one....even a rebuilt one The shop has promised me a month guarantee on the transmission....not some dollar transmission the warranty company was going to "find" at some bargain basement God knows where place Im out of pocket for $which includes the "deductible" for a transmission that probably will out live the truck, but at least I know it will function and where the parts came from If this is not resolved I'll file a review on every site I can find and make sure people do not make the same mistake I did about this company by not reading the all the rules of every little section of their worthless warranty Regards, [redacted]
I received your letter of April 2, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaintI would like to respond in the following manner: On October 31, 2014, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle and on that same date, the customer applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract ( Months/Unlimited Miles)The same was accepted with payment by CARS on November 3, (the attached "Service Contract”)On March 25, at 2:p.m., the customer’s wife advised a CARS customer service representative that a repair facility advised her that the above-referenced vehicle was experiencing upper timing gasket and bracket gasket issuesOur customer service representative then reviewed the service coverage for the vehicle and our claim procedures with herOn March 26, at 2:p.m., a repair facility telephoned CARS and advised that the customer's vehicle was experiencing ignition coil, bracket gasket, and timing gasket issuesThe repair facility further advised that the customer's vehicle was not at the repair facilityCARS then advised that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract that the vehicle must be at the repair facility in order for a claim to be opened on behalf of the vehicleOn March 26, at 3:p.m., a CARS customer service representative again reviewed our claim procedures with the customer's wifeCARS then advised that under the customer's Service Contract ignition coils are listed as covered components; however, seals and gaskets are non-covered components under the Service ContractThe above stated telephone calls are the only communication CARS received regarding the customer's mechanical issuesNo 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 contractPlease be advised that by the customer's signature, the customer acknowledged that he read, understood, and agreed to the terms and conditions contained thereinIt is stated in the customer's service contract under terms and conditions at Paragraph 3(a): “SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: Your vehicle must be at a qualified repair facility, within the continental United States, in order for a claim to be opened, and the vehicle must remain at the repair facility until repairs are complete." In addition, it is also stated at Paragraph 3(b): "The repair facility must call C.A.R.Sat 888-335-to open a claim.” The specific information on how to open a claim as stated above was reviewed with the customer’s wife during telephone conversations on March 25, and March 26, Claim procedures were also provided to the customer on his identification card (see attached) which CARS mailed to him after the approval of his Value Plus Service Contract (Months/Unlimited Miles)It is clear that 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 ContractThe customer's Service Contract states: "COVERED COMPONENTS: COVERAGE LIMITED TO ABOVE COMPONENTS.” and "COVERED COMPONENTS: SEALS & GASKETS: Seals and gaskets are covered only when required in conjunction with the replacement of a covered componentAdditionally cylinder head and intake manifold gaskets are covered for coolant leaksOil/combustion leaks are not covered and at Paragraph (r): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Fluid leaks and damage caused by fluid leaks." Here, even if the customer properly opened a claim as outlined on the Service Contract, CARS would not be able to assist with the replacement of any gaskets or any damaged caused by fluid leaksThe engine coils are listed on the customer's Service Contract as covered componentsIn her complaint the customer's wife states that that the engine is covered but not the parts of the engineAll of the parts covered under the customer's Service Contract are listed under "COVERED COMPONENTS” on the front of the customers' Service ContractThe attached Service Contract highlights the covered components listed under the "ENGINE/FUEL SYSTEM"The Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract state at Paragraph (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 damageYou 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 was coveredThis increases the probability that the vehicle will be repaired properly the first timeTherefore, it is the customer’s responsibility to pay for all diagnosis and tear down chargesThe customer's service contract states under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 3(f): “SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: CARS has the right to select and supply usedrebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs.” Nowhere in our contract does it state that we must provide the customer with a new part when replacing a failed componentCARS' service contracts are to be utilized to assist with the repair of customers' vehicles and do not provide "all-inclusive" coverageTherefore, pursuant to the customer’s Service Contract, CARS is not required to pay the full cost of the repairsThe service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components and is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverageVarious provisions of the service contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and his financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductibleIf the customer's vehicle has not yet been repaired, the customer should take his vehicle to a repair facility to have a claim opened on behalf of his vehicle as outlined on his Service Contract and contract identification cardCARS will review all information provided by the repair facility to determine if CARS is able to assist with the repair of the customer's vehicle pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service ContractWhen a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claimWe 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 October 16, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on October 1, On that same date he also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (Months/Unlimited Miles) On October 6, at 9:a.m., the customer telephoned CARS and advised that he purchased his vehicle on October 1, and was checking on his coverageA customer service representative explained that his service contract application had not yet been received by CARSOur customer service representative reviewed the terms and conditions of the service contract with himLater that same day on October 6, 2014, the customer's service contract was received by CARS and approved with payment (See attached Service Contract) On October 15, at 8:a.m., a customer service representative telephoned the customer in response to an email submission requesting informationThe customer service representative reviewed the terms and conditions of the service contract with him On October 16, at 9:a.m., we received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing heater core, ball joint, axle, axle seal, and valve cover gasket issuesWe then went over claim procedures with the repair facility On October 16, at 9:a.m., the customer advised us in a recorded telephone conversation that his vehicle began to experience heater core issues just one (1) day after vehicle purchase (i.eOctober 2014) Later that same day we advised the repair facility that pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer's service contract we would not be able to assist with the oil leak, tie rod end or any other fluid leaksIn addition, we would not be able to assist with the heater core repair, because this failure occurred prior to service contract acceptance as stated aboveWe then went over the components and amounts we could authorize for the customer's vehicle with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the left upper and left front lower ball joints for $and two (2) front axles for $Mitchell's OnDemand labor guide stated that the repair should take hours to complete and the customer's service contract paid up to $per hourTherefore; total labor was $The claim was also subject to a $deductibleWe explained that the total value of the claim for the covered components after the deductible was applied was $252.73, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $towards labor or pay $towards the repair of the customer's choiceWe then asked the repair facility to get back to us with the customer's decisionThe repair facility advised us that the customer would take the cash allowanceAn authorization number was given to the repair facility to begin repairs on the customer's vehicle By the customer’s signature on his service contract application, he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to its terms and conditionsDirectly below the customer's signature, it states: "The service contract goes into effect when this application is received with payment and approved by C.A.R.SProtection Plus, Inc." In addition, at Paragraph 1(b): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Component failures that occur before C.A.R.SProtection Plus, Inc("C.A.R.S.") approves this Service Contract application are not coveredC.A.R.Sdoes not warrant the condition of the vehicle at the time of purchase.” 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 contractHere, based upon the customer's information, it was determined that the heater core failure was present on October 2, 2014, which was prior to the customer's service contract acceptance with payment by CARS on October 6, 2014; therefore, no assistance for the heater core repair could be offered The customer’s service contract 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 statedIt is the customer’s decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicleAny supplied parts we provide are tested and known to be in good working conditionNowhere in our contract does it state that we must provide the customer with a new part when replacing a failed component The service contract states under COVERED COMPONENTS: "SEALS, GASKETS & FLUIDS Seals, gaskets and fluids are covered only when required in conjunction with the replacement of a covered component." In addition, the service contract states under terms and conditions at Paragraph l(r): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Fluid leaks and damage caused bv fluid leaks.” Pursuant to the customer's service contract the leaks and gaskets repairs needed for the repair of his vehicle are not covered Pursuant to the customer's service contract, CARS is not required to pay the full cost of the repairsThe service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it was not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverageVarious 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 summary, during the October 16, recorded telephone call, the customer stated that he began to experience heater core issues on October just one (1) day after he took his vehicle home from the selling dealershipCARS did not receive and approve the customer's service contract until October 6, 2014: therefore, we are unable to assist with this portion of the mechanical claimFurthermore, CARS would not be able to assist with any repair regarding the oil leaksHowever, as stated above, CARS did authorize the amount of $towards the covered component repairs (i.eupper ball joints and front axles) of the customer's vehicle When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claimWe 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 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 vehicleOn that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on November 13, (the attached "Service Contract”) On October 10, at 2:p.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising us that the customer was experiencing driveshaft issuesThe repair facility advised CARS that the U-Joint in the rear driveshaft had broken and damaged the yoke on the rear endThe repair facility further advised that the driveshaft was damaged from contact with the groundWe 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 $Mitchell's OnDemand stated that the repair should take hours to complete and the customer’s service contract pays up to $per hourTherefore, total labor covered was $The claim was also subject to a $deductibleWe 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 $deductible, or pay $towards the repair of the customer's choiceWe then asked the repair facility to get back us with the customer’s decision On October 13, at 1:p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer would like the cash allowance towards the repair of her vehicleWe 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 conversationsOn that same day at 11:a.m., the customer advised CARS that she would like to cancel the service contractWe then went over refund policy and emailed a cancellation form to the customerHowever, 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 contractThe 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 statedIt is the customer's decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicleAny supplied parts we provide are tested and known to be in good working conditionNowhere 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 repairsThe service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it was not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverageVarious 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 contractThe customer's service contract clearly states under terms and conditions at Paragraph (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 days by providing a written request to cancel for a full refund of the amount received by C.A.R.Sfor the Service Contract, less any claims paidThe refund shall be paid to the lien holderAfter days, you have the right to cancel the Service Contract at any time by providing a written request to cancelThe lien holder will be refunded a prorated refund of the amount received by C.A.R.Sfor 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: $ Term of service contract - months Less twelve (12) months proration $per month - $ Less claim authorized - $ Less service fee - $ Total refund owed by CARS $ CARS service contracts are sold wholesale between selling dealers and CARSTherefore, 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' executionIn 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 claimWe 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 March 20, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer’s additional concerns and respond as follows: On March 17, at 11:a.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising us that the customer's vehicle was experiencing fuel pump and rack and pinion issuesThe repair facility advised that that there was an internal failure in the CARS supplied rackWe then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility and advised that our suppler would be calling the repair facilityOn March 17, at 1:p.m., CARS advised our supplier of the failure to the steering gear and that the repair facility was waiting on his callOn March 18, at 1:p.m., CARS arranged with our supplier to have the steering gear shipped overnight to the repair facility to avoid any delays in down time for the customerOn March 18, at 3:p.m., CARS went over the amount we could authorize with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the fuel pump for $Mitchell's OnDemand labor guide stated that the repair of the fuel pump should take hours to complete and the customer's service contract paid up to $per hourTherefore, total labor covered was $The claim was also subject to a $deductibleWe explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $451.00, and we could supply the fuel pump and pay $towards labor or pay $towards the repair of the customer's choiceThe repair facility advised CARS that the customer would like the cash option towards the repair of his choiceCARS then gave the repair facility a CARS' authorization number to begin work on the customer's vehicleCARS also advised the repair facility that CARS would supply the rack to the repair facility at no charge to the customer and pay for the related rack labor charges at the repair facility rates of $per hour for a total of $Therefore, the customer will incur no additional costs as a result of the repair facility advising CARS that the rack had failedCARS then gave the repair facility a CARS’ authorization number to begin work on the customer's vehicleWe would like to point out here that CARS did not verily the internal failure of the rackCARS ordered a replacement rack immediately and paid extra overnight shipping to avoid any inconvenience to the customerDuring that same telephone call on March 18, 2014, CARS advised the repair facility that the core from the February 24, mechanical claim must be returned to the supplier as well as the failed rackWe further advised that the supplier would send call tags for the requested returnCARS has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service ContractThe customer has service contract coverage on the above- referenced vehicle through January 16, 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 accordinglyIf you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.Sincerely, [redacted] General Counsel
I am in receipt of your letter dated April 30, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaintI would like to respond in the following manner: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on February 17, On that same date he also applied for a CARS Value Limited Service Contract (Months/30,Miles) and the same was received with payment and approved by CARS on February 18, (See attached Service Contract)On April 8, at 2:p.m., CARS received a telephone call from the customer advising that his vehicle was experiencing transmission issuesA customer service representative reviewed with the customer, his coverage, criteria for a repair facility, and our claim proceduresOn April 13, at 9:a.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing transmission issuesA customer service representative reviewed the customer's coverage and claim procedures with the repair facilityOn April at 10:a.m., CARS received a telephone call from another repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing transmission issuesWe then went over our claim procedures with the repair facilityOn April 15, at 11:a.m., a claim adjuster attempted to call the person at that repair facility that opened the claim on behalf of the customer’s vehicle; however, he was advised that that person would not be in until the next dayOn April 16, at 10:a.m., CARS reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facilityThe repair facility advised CARS that there was a "chatter noise:" coming from the transmissionCARS then advised the repair facility to obtain the customer's permission to tear the vehicle down to the point of component failure and get back to us with their findings and an estimate for repairTwelve (12) days later, on April 28, at 9:a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the torque converter failed which sent metal through the unitOn April 28, at 11:a.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 transmission for $Mitchell’s OnDemand labor guide stated that the repair should take hours to complete and the customer's service contract pays up to $per hourTherefore, total labor covered was $The claim was also subject to a $deductibleWe explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $875.00, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $towards labor or pay $towards the repair of the customer's choiceWe also advised the repair facility that it should take four (4) to five (5) business days for any supplied parts to get the repair facilityWe then asked the repair facility to get back us with the customer’s decisionBy the customer’s signature on the Service Contract, he acknowledged that he has read, understood, and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of his Service ContractIt states under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph (f): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURES CARS has the right to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs.” When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement part we use the cost of the part to either be shipped to the repair facility and to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously statedIt is the customer's decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicleAny supplied parts we provide are tested and known to be in good working conditionNowhere in our contract does it state that we must provide the customer with a new part when replacing a failed componentThe Service Contract states under Labor: "The authorized time for a repair shall be based on the Mitchell OnDemand labor guideThe hourly labor rate will be the repair facility’s rate up to $per hourShould your repair facility's rate exceed this amount, you are responsible for the difference.” On the estimate faxed to CARS on April 28, (attached) the repair facility lists the cost of labor as $per hourAs stated above, Mitchell’s OnDemand Labor Guide states the repair to the customer's vehicle should have taken hours to repair and his Service Contract will pay $per hour for the labor charges; therefore, CARS is able to pay $if the customer chooses to use the repair facilities parts and $if the customer chooses to use our supplied partsPursuant the customer's Service Contract, the customer is responsible for the differenceIt states in bold at Paragraph (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 damageYou are responsible for all charges relating to the tear-down and diagnosis of the vehicle in excess of coverage outlined under Labor and Diagnostics.” We include teardown to the point of component failure in our diagnostics in order for CARS to determine if the failed component was coveredThis increases the probability that the vehicle will be repaired properly the first timeWe were not requiring unnecessary teardown and diagnosis; we were only trying to determine the cause of failureIt is stated at Paragraph (j): "PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: CARS will arrange for payment of the amount of the authorized repair, less related charges not covered by the Service Contract, less a $deductible per claim." The customer’s claim is subject to a $deductible as per his Service ContractCARS' service contracts are to be utilized to assist with the repair of customers’ vehicles and do not provide "all inclusive” coverageTherefore, pursuant to the customer's Service Contract, CARS is not required to pay the full cost of the repairsThe Service Contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components and is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverageVarious 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 deductibleWe would like to point out here that it took the repair facility twelve (12) days to get back to CARS with the cause of failure to the customer’s vehicleOnce the cause of failure was provided to us, CARS provided the amount we could assist with for the repair of the customer's vehicle the same dayFor all these reasons above, CARS is unable to provide any additional assistance with the repair of the customer's vehicleOnce the repair facility gives us the customer’s decision on which option for assistance he would like to use to repair his vehicle, CARS will provide an authorization number to the repair facility to begin the repairs to the customer's vehicleWhen a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claimWe 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 meSincerely, [redacted] General Counsel [redacted] Attachment
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 [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, we would like to know your view on the matter.] 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 I was told by Cars Protection Plus Representative that if I chose to have my car repaired I would be reimbursed for 50% of the Labor and % of approved parts I needed to get my vehicle out of the body shop so I would have a car to drive over the weekend since I was in a bind, therefore I paid the body shop thinking in good faith I would be able to use the warranty to recover part of my expenses I paid $towards the repairThe Cars Protection Plus Warranty is misleading and it was implied to me by both Cars Protection Plus Warranty and the dealer I would only be responsible for % of repairs and labor The way the warranty is written, Cars Protection Plus can easily get out of doing any repairs to the vehicle, it does not specifically state that OSensors is not a covered part, it list other parts that are covered and parts that are not and then gives them the opportunity to say any part not listed is not coveredI have decided to refer this to the [redacted] Attorney General Office of Consumer Protection to file a complaint ] Regards, [redacted]
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 vehicleOn that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract ( Months/Unlimited Miles] and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on January 26, (the attached "Service Contract”]On February 12, 2015, at 1:p.m., the repair facility telephoned CARS advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing encoder motor issuesWe advised the repair facility an encoder motor was not covered under the customer’s Service Contract; therefore, CARS was unable to assist with the claimOn February 16, 2015, at 11:a.m., the repair facility telephoned CARS advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing rear differential issuesAfter we went over our claim procedures with the repair facility, the repair facility advised CARS that the vehicle was equipped with aftermarket rimsOn February 16, 2015, at 4:p.m., the repair facility telephoned CARS advising that the customer's vehicle was equipped with 285/45/Rtires that appeared to be aftermarketThe repair facility further advised that the tire pressure sensors were not readingOn February 16, 2015, at 4:p.m., the customer advised CARS that he had made no changes to anything on the vehicle since he purchased itHe further advised that he heard a popping noise from the rear differential on February 14, On February 16, 2015, at 4: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 cancelledWe explained that we would refund the amount CARS received for the Service Contract with a signed General ReleaseCARS then closed the claimOn February 17, 2015, at 11:a.m., a CARS customer service representative reviewed the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract with himThe customer service representative then transferred the customer to a claims managerThe claims manager explained that CARS denied the rear differential claim and cancelled the customer’s service contract due to oversized tires on the vehicleOn February 24, CARS sent a General Release (see attached) to the customer for his notarized signature for the full amount that CARS received from the selling dealerWe 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 dealerTo date, we have not yet received the notarized General ReleaseCARS believed that the customer's vehicle met our eligibility requirements when the vehicle was approved by CARS on January 26, It was not until the processing of the February 16, claim that CARS became aware of the alterations/modifications to the customer's vehicleThe alterations/modifications (i.eoversize tires) of the customer's vehicle are not according to the manufacturer's specificationsEven though options may have been offered for larger wheels, the manufacturer's specifications for the customer’s vehicle are 265/65R/(See attached [redacted] standard tire sizes for [redacted] )In addition, the alterations/modifications can affect the way the vehicle performs and also can cause undue mechanical problems with the vehicleBy the customer’s signature on his service contract, he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the terms and conditions contained thereinIt 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, claim that CARS became aware of the alterations/modifications to the vehicleAs 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 vehicleCARS 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 usOnce notified of a modified/altered vehicle, CARS has the right to cancel the service contract immediatelyThe customer's service contract is void and the customer does not have service coverage under any of CARS’ service contractsHowever, 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 ReleaseThe refund will be made through the selling dealerWhen a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claimWe 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 have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.SINCE THIS COMPLAINT WAS FILED THE SELLING DEALER SPOKE WITH C.A.R.SAND EXPLAINED THAT THIS WAS A CONDITION FOR THIS CAR WHICH THEY REFUSED TO BELIEVE, SO THEY (CARS ) WAS REFERRED TO AN ELECTRICAL SHOP TO WHICH THEY SPOKE AND TOLD THE SELLING DEALER TO RETURN THE PAPER WORK TO THEMWHICH YOU BELIEVE THAT THEY WERE GOING TO ACCEPT THE CONTRACT.WELL SUPRISE THEY SENT A LETTER BACK (INCLOSED) STATING NOW IT WAS PAST THE DAYS SINCE THE CAR WAS PURCHASED SO THEY WERE NOT GOING TO HONOR THE CONTRACT UNLESS THE CAR WAS INSPECTED,WHICH I HAVE NO PROPLEM WITH AS LONG AS THEY PAY THE BILL.I AM NOT GOING TO SPEND MY MONEY TO HAVE A CAR INSPECTED THAT IS IN PERFECT WORKING ORDERTHEY SHOULD HAVE PEOPLE ON THERE STAFF WHO HAVE A WORKING KNOWLEDGE OF AUTOMOBILES,AFTER ALL THEY ARE A AUTOMOTIVE WARRANTY COMPANYSHOULD THIS HAVE BEEN THE CASE THEY WOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT THIS CAR HAS AN ALTERNATOR WITH THE ELECTRIC POWER MANAGEMENT( PAGE 3-OF THE OWNERS MANUAL) DO YOU NEED A COPY OF THAT TO PROVE MY POINT THAT THE CAR DOES NOT NEED AN INSPECTION.THIS IS JUST ANOTHER TACTIC THEY USE IN HOPING THAT THE CUSTOMER WILL GO AWAY INSTEAD OF HELPING THE CUSTOMER