Fox Concrete

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 feel as though Cars Protection Inc's is misleading and doesn't account for unusual circumstances.  I purchased the plan for a peace of mind when puchasing a used vehicle.  I would not recommend anyone purchase their plans.  I purchased one of their value plus plans.  When my engine in my car went out 3 months after I purchased the plan, the wanted me to pay fee to have my engine torn down.  This is written in the contract that I signed but I do not feel as though it is fair for me to pay over $1500 to have my engine taken apart without them being able to guarantee me that they would cover the cost of the repair once the cause of engine failure  was determine.  They want me to pay to have my engine taken apart without being able to promise that they would cover the repair even after two place told me that I needed a new engine.  The customer service reps and supervisors were rude and all they kept saying was you signed the contract. No customer service skills and we're unwilling to refund any of my plan.  I would recommend keeping the money you pay for this extended warranty and doing paying for your own repairs.
Regards,
[redacted]

June 5, 2017VIA: Revdex.com WEBSITE[redacted]RE: COMPLAINT ID# [redacted]2006 FORD MUSTANG GT VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]I am in receipt of your letter dated May 30, 2017, enclosing the...

above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows:According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on December 31, 2014. On that same date the customer also applied for a CARS Ultimate Value Service Contract (48 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was received with payment and approved by CARS on January 5, 2015. (See attached "Service Contract")On May 30, 2017 at 1:19 p.m., the customer contacted CARS advising that the control arms and ball joints had been replaced in her vehicle. The customer advised that she had unsuccessfully attempted to contact CARS for a review of our claim procedures and was submitting a claim for the completed repairs. The customer then requested to speak to a supervisor.On May 30, 2017 at 1:27 p.m., the customer advised CARS customer service manager that she had both control arms and ball joints replaced at a repair facility over the Memorial Day weekend. The customer service manager reviewed our claim procedures with the customer. The customer service manager advised that we could not assist with the repair of the customer's vehicle since the proper claim procedures were not followed. The customer service manager then reviewed the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract with her.On May 31, 2017, CARS mailed a CARS’ Service Contract I.D. card to the customer.By the customer's signature on her Ultimate Value Service Contract, she acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of her Service Contract. It is stated in the customer's Service Contract under the Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 3(b): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURES: The repair facility MUST call CARS at ###-###-#### to open a claim BEFORE any repairs have begun."The Service Contract further states at 3(e] and at 3(g]: "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURES: The repair facility MUST provide CARS with an estimate and obtain an authorization number BEFORE any repairs are begun.” and “If it is determined a covered component has failed and an estimate for the repairs is approved by CARS, an authorization number will be issued for the repair. The authorization number is valid for 180 days from the date issued. After 180 days the authorization number and claim are void. No invoice will be processed without a valid authorization number, Your signature, repair facility's warranty on the repairs (if applicable) and repair facility's identifying information."Here, the customer did not follow the claim procedures outlined in her Service Contract by having a claim opened prior to having her vehicle repaired. Therefore, CARS was unable to provide the repair facility with an authorization number to begin the repairs because the customer did not follow the claim procedures outlined in her Service Contract.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, CARS was not given the opportunity to determine if the repairs (control arms and ball joints) would be covered and give authorization for the repair, prior to the repairs being performed. The repair facility chosen by the customer to repair her vehicle never provided CARS with its findings or an estimate prior to the repair of her vehicle. Here, CARS' claim procedures were not followed; therefore, pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract, CARS was unable to pay for any repairs performed by the repair facility.For all the reasons stated above, CARS was correct in advising the customer that we were unable to assist with the repair of her vehicle since the repair to her vehicle was done prior to having a claim opened on behalf of her vehicle and CARS providing an authorization number for the repair of her vehicle.However, in a goodwill gesture, if the customer provides CARS with an invoice for the repair of her vehicle, CARS is willing to assist with the repair of the customer's vehicle as follows: If the claim procedures outlined in the customer's Service Contract werefollowed, CARS could have supplied the ball joints for $40.00. ProDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 1.6 hours to complete, and the customer's Service Contract pays $100.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor is $160.00. The claim would also be subject to a $100.00 deductible; however, CARS will waive the deductible for the customer. Therefore, CARS can assist with repair of the customer's vehicle in the amount of $200.00.Regardless of when the claim would have been opened, CARS is unable to assist with the repair/replacement of the control arms because the control arms are not listed for coverage under the customer's Service Contract.If the customer is willing to accept our goodwill offer in the amount of $200.00 and provides us with the invoice for the repair of her vehicle, CARS will issue a check to the customer.The customer's Service Contract expires on January 5, 2019. Should the customer's vehicle incur future mechanical problems, CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under the service contract. If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the Terms and Conditions of her Service Contract.When a claim is presented, CARS promptly investigates all circumstances surrounding the claim. CARS honors every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100% to ultimately provide quality service at an affordable price to offset the cost of a covered repair.Sincerely,Jason ** M[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. Cars protection has not returned my refund check nor has [redacted] auto group return my refund check. I have contacted [redacted] auto group questioning about my refund check and they have not returned any of my calls nor answered my concerns.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]

August 18, 2017VIA: SUBMITTED TO Revdex.com WEBSITE[redacted]Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220Pittsburgh, PA 15220RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted]2007 HONDA ACCORD VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]:I am in receipt of your letter dated August 11, 2017, enclosing...

the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On November 23, 2016, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (36 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on November 30, 2016 (the attached “Service Contract").On July 27, 2017 at 3:04 p.m., a repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was experiencing air conditioner, window regulator and wiper linkage bushing issues. CARS then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.On July 28, 2017 at 1:11 p.m., CARS again reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facility and then went over the amount we could authorize for the repair of the customer's vehicle as follows: We could supply an air conditioner compressor for $246.72. ProDemand labor guide stated the repair should take 2.4 hours to complete, and the customer's Service Contract pays up to $70.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $168.00. The claim was also subject to $100.00 deductible. We explained to the repair facility that the total value of the authorized claim after the deductible was applied was $314.72. CARS further explained that the customer had two (2) choices for assistance with the approved claim: CARS could either supply the part as stated above or the customer could take a cash allowance totaling $314.72 to be used towards the specifically-authorized repair. If the customer chose for CARS to ship our supplied part, CARS would assist with the labor in the amount of $68.00. We also advised the repair facility that the window regulator and wiper linkage bushing were non-covered components under the customer's Service Contract; therefore, the window regulator and wiper linkage bushing repairs would be the customer's sole responsibility to repair. The repair facility advised that they would contact CARS with the customer's decision.On August 1, 2017 at 1:13 p.m., CARS returned a telephone call to the customer and spoke with the customer's mother. The customer's mother was unhappy with the claim allowance and requested cancellation of the Service Contract and was then transferred to the cancellation department, who advised that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract, the customer was not entitled to any refund.On August 1, 2017 at 2:31 p.m., CARS returned a telephone call from the customer's mother requesting specific information regarding the claim; however, since this individual was not the customer, CARS advised that we would need permission from the customer to speak with her regarding the claim.This was the last communication CARS had regarding the July 27, 2017 mechanical claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle.By the customer's signature on his Value Plus Service Contract under the Acceptance to Terms, he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the Covered Components and Terms and Conditions contained therein. The customer's Service Contract states at: ‘COVERED COMPONENTS: COVERAGE LIMITED TO ABOVE COMPONENTS." Also, at Paragraph 1 (a): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: COMPONENTS NOT LISTED REGARDLESS OF FAILURE." Here, the repair facility that the customer chose to repair his vehicle advised that the window regulator and the wiper linkage bushing were failed; however, they are not listed for coverage under the customer's Service Contract. Therefore, those repairs would be the sole responsibility of the customer to repair.It is also stated in the customer's Service Contract at Paragraph 3 (f): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: CARS has the option to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs." When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement 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 stated. It is the customer's decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicle. Here, as stated above, neither the repair facility nor the customer contacted CARS with the customer's decision on how to proceed with the claim.Additionally, the customer's Service Contract states at Paragraphs 5 (a) & (b): "CANCELLATION PROVISIONS: You have the right to cancel Your 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. This Service Contract will not be reinstated after a cancellation is requested. After 20 days, there is no refund for early termination except in the case of a total loss, as determined by the insurance carrier, or repossession by the lienholder as stated..." Here, since it was over 20 days from the effective date of the customer's Service Contract, he is not entitled to any refund of his Service Contract.The customer also states in his complaint that he purchased “bumper to bumper" coverage for his vehicle. To the contrary, the Service Contract that the customer purchased 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 his financial responsibility for the tear-down, diagnosis charges, non-covered components, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates, labor time and the $100.00 deductible. Therefore, pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract, CARS is not required to pay the full cost of the repairs or pay for the repair of non-covered components.As you can see from the above information, CARS was willing to authorize the air conditioner compressor repair of the customer's vehicle in the amount of $314.72 pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Value Plus Service Contract. If the repairs to the customer's vehicle are not yet completed, please have the repair facility contact CARS to advise of the customer's decision in order to proceed with the July 27, 2017 claim.The customer has vehicle coverage on his vehicle until November 30, 2019; therefore, if his vehicle incurs any further mechanical issues and it is determined that the failed components are covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim pursuant to the Covered Components and Terms and Conditions of the customer's Value Plus Service Contract.When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell, and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact my office.Sincerely, Jason *. M[redacted]General Counsel

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.  Of course I accept a $775 check from Cars Protection Plus which is   more than what I expected in settlement from them. I realize that the threat of a class action lawsuit tends to change one's perspective in certain matters. I will say however that I will not be accepting this as hush money and I intend to reach out to many of thedissatisfacted customers that I run into and describe my dealings with this company and the actions that they took in an attempt to quiet my concerns. Unfortunately for cars Protection Plus the snowball has already started rolling down the hill with the 10 letters that I fired off to the various consumer agencies and state representatives affiliated with businessl icensure.In accepting this check as final settlement on my case I would say that I am not satisfied with cars Protection Plus and their explanation  for presenting me with this settlement. There is no acknowledgement of wrongdoing, there is no acknowledgement of incompetence on the part of their adjuster nor is there any recognition of their poor business practices which in my opinion need to changeI thank the Revdex.com for their efforts in this matter and highly grade you in your support of the General Public battling the tyranny of high-pressure attorneys and large corporations who feel they can push around consumers
Regards,
[redacted]

January 10, 2017VIA: EMAIL/WEBSITE200833 CADILLAC ESCALADE VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]:I am in receipt of your letter dated January 3, 2017, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on August 2, 2016. On that same date the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (36 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was received with payment and approved by CARS on August 8, 2016 (See attached Service Contract).On January 10, 2017, pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract, CARS paid the repair facility via check in the amount of $692.00 towards the cost of fluids, ABS pump, and labor. Here, CARS waived the $100.00 deductible.Upon receipt of invoices from our suppliers, CARS will pay our suppliers in the amount of $827.14 for a front differential and a speed sensor pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract.CARS now considers the customer's complaint resolved.The customer's vehicle has Service Contract coverage through August 8, 2019. If the customer's vehicle incurs future mechanical issues during the coverage term, CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under his Service Contract. If the failed component is covered, CARS will process, authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract.When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell, and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact my office.Sincerely,Jason P. M[redacted] General Counsel

July 25, 2016 VIA:    SUBMITTED TO Revdex.com WEBSITE [redacted] Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania 400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220 RE:       COMPLAINT ID #[redacted] 2007 NISSAN MAXIMA VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted] Dear Ms. [redacted] 1 am...

in receipt of your letter dated July 25, 2016 enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On July 15, 2016 the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Limited Service Contract (12 Months/15,000 Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on July 19, 2016 (the attached "Service Contract”). On July 20, 2016 at 4:06 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing alternator issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility. On July 20, 2016 at 4:20 p.m., CARS went over the amount we could authorize for the claim with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the alternator for $144.49. ProDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 2.0 hours to complete, and the customer's Service Contract pays up to $60.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $120.00. 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 $164.49, and we could supply the alternator as stated above and pay $20.00 towards labor or pay $164.49 towards the repair of the customer's choice. The repair facility stated that they would advise CARS of the customer’s decision. On July 20, 2016 at 4:54 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer had found an alternator for $115.00. CARS advised that after the customer properly submitted an invoice for the customer supplied alternator and labor, CARS would issue a check to the customer for $135.00. On July 20, 2016 at 4:59 p.m., the repair facility advised that the customer would like CARS to ship the alternator to the repair facility. CARS then advised that the part would have to be ordered on July 21, 2016 since the deadline to place an order on July 20, 2016 had past. On July 21, 2016 at 8:49 a.m., CARS gave an authorization number to the repair facility to begin the repairs to the customer's vehicle. On July 21, 2016 at 4:15 p.m., CARS advised the customer that the part was ordered in the morning and it would take two business days for the supplied alternator to arrive at the repair facility.   The supplied alternator arrived at the repair facility on July 25, 2016 at 10:05 a.m. Please see the attached FedEx tracking sheet By the customer's signature on his Value Limited Service Contract he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract. It is stated in the Service Contract at Paragraph 3 (f): “SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: CARS has the right to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs." When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement parts we use the cost of the parts to either be shipped to the repair facility and to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. It is the customer's decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicle. It was the customer's decision to have CARS ship the alternator to the repair facility. The rental benefits of the customer's service contract states: "The Service Contract Holder will be reimbursed $25.00 for each eight hours of ProDemand labor guide time to repair or replace the covered component with a maximum benefit of $300.00 per claim, if proof of rental is provided with an authorized claim. Down time, regardless of reason, is not included." Also the service contract states at Paragraph 2(m): "PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: C.A.R.S. will not be responsible for any time lost, any inconvenience caused by the loss of use of Your vehicle, the quality of the repair by the repair facility or for any other incidental or consequential damages You may have." Here, as stated above the time to repair the covered component (alternator) was 2.0 hours based on ProDemand Labor Guide; which would not entitle the customer to any rental reimbursement since the repair to his vehicle should take less than 8.0 hours. As CARS stated to the repair facility the alternator took two business days for delivery of the alternator. The customer's Service Contract states: "TOWING We will reimburse up to a maximum of $50.00, if proof of towing is provided with an authorize claim." Here, the customer is entitled to a reimbursement of $50.00 for the towing of his vehicle to a repair facility since his claim has been authorized by CARS. The customer must submit his towing receipt to CARS from the towing company and submit to CARS with his contact identification number for reimbursement. The customer has Service Contract coverage through July 19, 2017 or when the odometer registers 140,820 miles, whichever occurs first. If a claim is opened CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under the customer’s Service Contract. If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract.When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

April 14, 2017VIA: Revdex.com WEBSITE[redacted]Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220Pittsburgh, PA 15220RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted]2006 PONTIAC SOLSTICEVIN (Last 8): [redacted]OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]:I am in receipt of your letter dated April 11, 2017, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: On August 27, 2016, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Limited Service Contract (6 Months/7,500 Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on September 6, 2017 (the attached "Service Contract").By the customer's signature on her Service Contract, she stated that she read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions contained therein. It states under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 5 (a through d): “CANCELLATION PROVISIONS: You have the right to cancel Your 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 bv CARS, less any claims paid."The customer Service Contract also states: “CANCELLATION & REFUNDPROVISIONS: OKLAHOMA Paragraphs 5 (a) and (b) are amended to include the following: You may cancel this contract at any time by notifying CARS in writing of Your intent to cancel. In the event the warranty is cancelled by the warranty holder, return of the premium shall be based upon 90% of the unearned pro rata premium less the actual cost of any service provided under the service warranty..."After a management review of the customer's consumer complaint, CARS determined that the customer was entitled to full refund of the amount CARS received for her Service Contract.We would like to point out here that the amount that the customer states in her consumer complaint that she paid for her Service Contract is not the amount listed on the Service Contract as the Service Contract Purchase Price. Here, the amount listed on the attached Service Contract is the amount that CARS received for the customer's Service Contract and the amount CARS will refund to the customer.When a claim is presented, CARS promptly investigates all circumstances surrounding the claim. CARS honors every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100% to ultimately provide quality service at an affordable price to offset the cost of a covered repair.We hope this information provided is helpful to your claim. If you have any further questions, please contact CARS to assist you in efficiently resolving any outstanding concerns you may have.Sincerely,Jason *. M[redacted]General Counsel

The response from Cars Protection Plus is so similar to the 147 other responses that their legal team puts out, it looks as if it's a form letter from the government. The bottom line is this company has failed to cover the appropriate repairs in that they use a timeline as an example or an excuse to not pay for a covered repair which is absolutely ridiculous. It takes time for the mechanic to get the part back from the diagnostic team and then report back to the warranty company as to what the main problem was or the root cause of the problem. Just because there was a delay does not negate the obligation of the warranty company to cover the breakdown. Cars protection is trying to use a delay in hearing from the mechanic as  provocation 2 not cover the breakdown. That does not negate their obligation I still am expecting a settlement in the area of $600 for the covered repairs which are in writing and should be adhered to it regardless of all the legal mumbo-jumbo that they try to throw into this process. It is my intention to pursue legal remedies in this situation by reaching out to the hundred and forty-seven additional complaints in hopes that we can start a class action lawsuit against this company because they need to be stopped

February 20, 2018   VIA: Revdex.com WEBSITE Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania 400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220   RE:                                      �...⇄ 2005 JEEP GRAND CHEROKEE VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]                                         ...⇄ Revdex.com COMPLAINT NO.: [redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   I am in receipt of your letter dated February 14, 2018, enclosing the customer's additional concerns regarding the above-referenced vehicle. I would like to respond as follows:  During the processing of the January 23, 2018 mechanical claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle, CARS was advised by the repair facility that the transfer case had failed.  On January 26, 2018 at 8:48 a.m., after reviewing the repair facility's estimate, CARS then went over the amount we could assist with the repair of the customer's vehicle as follows: We could supply the transfer case for $400.00. We could assist with the fluids needed for the repair of the customer's vehicle in the amount of $26.00. ProDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 2.1 hours to complete, and the customer's Service Contract pays $70.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $147.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained to the repair facility that the total value of the authorized claim after the deductible was applied was $473.00. CARS further explained that the customer had two (2) choices for assistance with the approved claim: CARS could either supply the part as stated above or the customer could take a cash allowance totaling $473.00 to be used towards the specifically-authorized repair. Ifthe customer chose for CARS to ship our supplied part, CARS would be able to assist with the labor in the amount of $47.00 and the fluids in the amount of $26.00 after the deductible. The repair facility advised that the customer would like the cash allowance towards the repair of his vehicle. CARS then provided the repair facility with an authorization number to begin the repair of the customer's vehicle.   On January 26, 2018 at 9:13 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer would like CARS to ship the transfer case to the repair facility. CARS then provided an authorization number to the repair facility to begin the repairs to the customer's vehicle. On February 9, 2017, pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract, CARS paid $73.00 via credit card to the repair facility to assist with the labor costs to repair the customer's vehicle. Upon receipt of the customer's additional concerns from the Revdex.com on February 14, 2018, CARS Claims Director telephoned the repair facility to find out the status of the customer's vehicle. The repair facility advised CARS that the customer picked up the vehicle from the repair facility on February 9, 2018. The repair facility advised CARS that our supplied transfer case was put in the customer's vehicle and there were no problems with the transfer case. The repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle still had a front differential noise which was noted on the invoice (see attached). On February 20, 2017, pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract, CARS paid $400.00 via check to our supplier for the transfer case needed for the repair of the customer's vehicle. CARS would like to point out here that CARS was not made aware of any front differential issues with the customer's vehicle by the repair facility prior to February 14, 2018, until CARS telephoned the repair facility to get a status on the repair of the customer's vehicle. The customer states in her additional concerns that she has an appointment at the repair facility on February 27, 2018. CARS would ask that the customer have the repair facility open a claim on behalf of her vehicle. CARS will process the claim pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract. The customer has Service Contract coverage through April 5, 2018. 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. Ms. [redacted], 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, please contact my office. Sincerely,                              �...⇄ Jason ** M[redacted] General Counsel [redacted]

February 1, 2018 VIA:  Revdex.com WEBSITE Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania 400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA  15220              RE:      2002 CHRYSLER PT CRUISER...

                                    VIN (Last 8):  [redacted]                                     OUR FILE NO.:  [redacted]                                     Revdex.com COMPLAINT NO.:  [redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   I am in receipt of your letter dated January 24, 2018, enclosing the customer’s consumer complaint regarding the above-referenced vehicle.  I would like to respond as follows:  Our records indicate that on November 17, 2017, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle.  On that same day, the customer also applied for a Power Train Service Contract (3 Months/4,500 Miles).  CARS received with payment and approved the customer’s Power Train Service Contract on November 21, 2017.  Please see the attached Service Contract.   On December 11, 2017, the customer upgraded his Power Train Service Contract (3 Months/4,500 Miles) to a Value Limited Service Contract (3 Months/4,500 Miles). Please see the attached Service Contract.   On December 27, 2017 at 3:36 p.m., a repair facility advised CARS that the customer’s vehicle experienced overheating and stopped running. The repair facility advised CARS that the water pump may be the cause of failure to the customer’s vehicle.  CARS then reviewed our claims procedures with the repair facility.   CARS further advised the repair facility to obtain the customer’s permission to tear-down his vehicle to the point of failure to verify the cause of failure and extent of damage to his vehicle. CARS advised the repair facility to tear-down the customer’s vehicle to find the where the coolant was leaking. 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 and contact CARS with their findings.   On January 10, 2018 at 4:25 p.m., the customer advised CARS that the water pump had failed and caused head gasket issues.  CARS advised the customer that on December 27, 2017, we advised the repair facility to obtain his permission to perform tear-down and to contact us with the repair facility’s findings.  We then advised the customer that he was responsible to for the tear-down to his vehicle.  CARS advised the customer that the Service Contract is limited in its coverage for components, taxes, tear-down, etc. CARS further advised that our Service Contracts are not warranties.    On January 17, 2018 at 1:27 p.m., twenty-one days (21) after a mechanical claim was opened on behalf of the customer’s vehicle, the repair facility advised CARS that the head was warped against a straight edge and had returned from the machine shop.  The repair facility advised that the water pump failed causing low coolant which then caused an overheated condition.  The repair facility then gave a verbal estimate for the repair of the customer’s vehicle.   On January 17, 2018 at 3:29 p.m., CARS went over the amount we could authorize for the claim as follows:   We could supply the head set for $84.79, bolts for $20.79, shim gasket for $18.84 and water pump for $21.83.  CARS could assist with decking costs incurred at the machine shop in the amount of $75.00. The repair facility’s advised CARS that their labor rate was $50.00 per hour and ProDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 8.4 hours. Therefore, total labor was $420.00.  The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible.  We explained to the repair facility that the total value of the authorized claim after the deductible was applied was $541.25.  CARS further explained that the customer had two (2) choices for assistance with the approved claim:  CARS could either supply the parts as stated above or the customer could take a cash allowance totaling $541.25 to be used towards the specifically-authorized repair. If the customer chose for CARS to ship our supplied parts, CARS would assist with the labor in the amount of $320.00.    On that same day, January 17, 2018, the repair facility advised CARS that the customer would like the cash allowance for the repair of the customer’s vehicle.   On January 17, 2018 at 3:59 p.m., CARS provided an authorization number to the repair facility to begin the repairs to the customer’s vehicle.   On January 24, 2018, pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract, CARS paid the repair facility $541.25 to assist with the repair of the customer’s vehicle via credit card.  The claim was then closed.   By the customer’s signature on his original Power Train Service Contract and also his subsequent upgrade to the Value Limited Service Contract, he acknowledged that he read, understood, and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of the Service Contract. The customer’s Service Contract states under the Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 3(f): “SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURES:  CARS has the option to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs.”  When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement parts we use the cost of the parts to either be shipped to the repair facility and to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. It is the customer’s decision to either take the replacement parts offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicle. Any supplied parts we provide are tested and known to be in good working condition.  Nowhere in our contract does it state that we must provide the customer with a new part when replacing a failed component.               CARS would like to add clarity regarding the use of aftermarket parts.  Aftermarket parts are replacement parts built or remanufactured to replace original equipment manufacturer (“OEM”) parts as they become worn or damaged.  According to Consumer Automotive Research, these parts are manufactured to fit and perform as well as, and in some cases, better than the original that came in your vehicle. Aftermarket companies analyze why specific OEM parts tend to fail and then improve on the original design or materials.  Car makers are very interested in keeping the price of their cars competitive and may opt for less expensive materials in some parts. Therefore, some aftermarket parts may outperform the original.    CARS would also like to point out here that the parts we could have shipped for the repair of the customer’s vehicle were from an online automotive part supplier, who sells to the general public as well as repair facilities for the same price as CARS pays for our supplied parts.  CARS also used the same online automotive part supplier prices when we calculated the amounts of the cash allowance to assist with the repair of the customer’s vehicle.   It states at Paragraph 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 THESE CHARGES. The repair facility MUST provide CARS with an estimate for the covered repair to obtain and Authorization number BEFORE any repairs have begun.”   We include tear-down to the point of component failure in our diagnostics in order for CARS to determine if the failed component was covered.  This increases the probability that the vehicle will be repaired properly the first time.  We were not requiring unnecessary tear-down and diagnosis; we were only trying to determine the cause of failure.   It is stated in the service contract: “LABOR:  The authorized time for a repair will be based on the ProDemand labor guide. The hourly labor rate will be the repair facility’s rate up to $60.00 per hour. Should your repair facility’s rate exceed this amount, You are responsible for the difference.” When the mechanical claim was opened, the repair facility advised CARS that their labor rate was $50.00 per hour. ProDemand advised that the repair of customer’s vehicle would take 8.4 hours; therefore, any labor time over 8.4 hours is the responsibility of the customer.   CARS would also like to point out here that on December 27, 2017, CARS advised the repair facility to obtain the customer’s permission to tear-down his vehicle to the point of component failure to find where the coolant was leaking.  During that telephone call, CARS advised the repair facility to telephone us with their findings. The repair facility did not get back to CARS until January 17, 2018, with the cause of failure and extent of damage to the customer’s vehicle.  CARS was unable to move forward with the mechanical claim without the cause of failure and extent of damage.   Under the customer’s Service Contract, we were not required to cover the full cost of the repair.  The Service Contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage.  Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what components are specifically covered and his financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, and taxes.    The customer’s vehicle has Service Contract coverage through February 21, 2018.  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.    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.   Sincerely, Jason *. M[redacted]                                         ...⇄ General Counsel   [redacted]

December 7, 2016VIA: EMAIL/WEBSITE[redacted]Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania 400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted]2008 DODGE AVENGER VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]:I am in receipt of your letter dated December 5, 2016, enclosing the...

above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on November 14, 2016. On that same date the customer also applied for a CARS Value Limited Service Contract (3 Months/4,500 Miles] and the same was received with payment and approved by CARS on November 21, 2016 (See attached Service Contract].On November 30, 2016 at 2:47 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility stating that the customer's vehicle was experiencing mechanical issues, specifically for the catalytic convertor, intake manifold & runner and seat. On that same date, at 3:04 p.m., the repair facility advised that the check engine light (“CEL"] and the air bag light were on. During that telephone call, CARS went over the claim procedures with the repair facility and also advised the repair facility to obtain the customer's permission to tear-down the vehicle to the point of component failure and to contact CARS with the cause of failure and estimate prior to having any repairs performed.On November 30, 2016 at 4:07 p.m., the repair facility contacted CARS to advise that he could feel that the flaps were stuck and not moving on the intake manifold. During that telephone call CARS advised the repair facility to obtain permission from the customer to further tear-down the intake manifold and advise CARS of the findings.On November 30, 2016 at 4:22 p.m., in a recorded call, the repair facility advised CARS that they removed the intake manifold and that the flappers were seized from carbon buildup and metal shavings. CARS advised the repair facility that the claim would be reviewed and we would advise the repair facility of CARS' decision.On November 30, 2016 at 4:33 p.m., in a recorded call, the repair facility also advised CARS that the small metal flakes were not a cause of failure for the flaps sticking on the intake manifold, just carbon buildupAfter review of the claim and the recorded calls, CARS contacted the repair facility on November 30, 2016 at 4:37 p.m., and advised in a recorded call that CARS would not be able to assist with the claim due to the carbon build up, which is not a covered component pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract. During that telephone call, the repair facility requested to speak with a claims manager.On November 30, 2016 at 4:44 p.m., a CARS claims manager returned the repair facility's voicemail. During that recorded call, the repair facility inquired as to why the claim would not be covered by CARS. CARS claims manager advised the repair facility that carbon is not a failed covered component under the customer's Service Contract; therefore, CARS would not be able to assist with the repair.Thereafter on December 1, 2016 at 3:42 p.m., another CARS claims manager returned a telephone call to the customer's mother. In that recorded telephone call, CARS explained to the customer's mother that at no time did CARS provide the repair facility with any authorized amount or an authorization number for the repair of the vehicle. CARS also explained to the customer's mother that the failure was not caused by dirt. CARS additionally explained to the customer's mother that the failure was caused by carbon buildup, which is not a covered component under the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract. We further explained to the customer's mother that the carbon buildup was caused by a lack of maintenance, which could affect the catalytic convertor and also affect any required emission testing/inspection.By the customer's signature on his Value Limited Service Contract, it states under Covered Components: "Coverage limited to above components.” Also, under the Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 1(a) & (o) it states: "Components and Expenses Not Covered: Components not listed regardless of failure" and "Damage resulting from failure to maintain Your vehicle according to Your manufacturer's maintenance requirements. Here, the repair facility chosen by the customer to repair his vehicle advised CARS that the failure to the intake manifold was caused by carbon buildup. As stated above, carbon is not a listed component and is not available for coverage under the customer's Service Contract. Additionally, carbon buildup is a result of the failure to maintain the vehicle. Furthermore, at no time during the processing of the claim did CARS provide the repair facility with an authorization number or any money allowance for the repair of the customer's vehicle.Therefore, for all the reasons stated above, CARS stands by its original decision as is not able to offer any assistance with the customer's mechanical claim of November 30, 2016.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.Sincerely,Jason [redacted] General CounselJPM/cllAttachment

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]

[redacted]Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania 400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted]2005 JEEP GR CHEROKEE VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]I am in receipt of your letter dated August 1, 2016 enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I...

would like to respond in the following manner: On September 15, 2015, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Limited Service Contract (24 Months/30,000 Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on September 21, 2015.First Claim: On March 11, 2016 at 2:30 p.m., a repair facility advised CARS that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing engine issues. CARS then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.On March 11, 2016 at 3:23 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that they do not perform internal engine repairs. CARS then advised that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the Service Contract, the customer must move her vehicle. The claim was then closed.Second Claim: On March 29, 2016 at 1:31 p.m., a repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was experiencing engine issues. CARS then reviewed our claim procedures.On March 29, 2016 at 1:44 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle had codes for the catalytic converter and had used ten (10) quarts of oil in 3,000 miles. CARS then reviewed our claim procedures.CARS then 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.On April 1, 2016 at 10:41 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that they cleaned the PVC system and advised the customer to drive her vehicle to see if the issues were still present. CARS advised the repair facility to open a new claim if the customer returned her vehicle. The claim was then closed.Third Claim: On July 29, 2016 at 4:16 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS thecustomer's vehicle was experiencing engine issues. CARS reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facility.On July 29, 2016 at 4:30 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the engine is using three (3) quarts of oil in 6,500 miles. The repair facility further advised that the engine was smoking and the catalytic converter code was displayed. CARS then reviewed our claim procedures.CARS then 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.At this time CARS is waiting for the repair facility to let us know the cause of failure and the extent of damage so that we may move forward with the engine claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle.By the customer's signature on the Service Contract, she acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions contained therein. The Service Contract states under Terms and Conditions 3(c): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIMPROCEDURES: 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 and extent of damage to the customer's vehicle.The Service Contract states under Terms and 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 CARS with an estimate and obtain an authorization number BEFORE any repairs are begun.” and "If it is determined a covered component has failed and an estimate for the repairs is approved by CARS, an authorization number will be issued for the repair..." 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. The repair facility chosen by the customer to repair her vehicle never provided CARS with its findings or an estimate prior to the repair of the customer's vehicle. Here, in the customer's Revdex.com complaint, she is requesting a refund for repairs; however, CARS’ claim procedures were not followed; therefore, CARS is unable to refund the customer for any repairs performed by the repair facility.Under the customer's Service Contract, we are not required to cover the full cost of the repair. The Service Contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the Service Contract inform Mr. [redacted] what components are specifically covered and his financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, and taxes.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 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 us with the cause of failure to the engine and extent of damages to the customer’s vehicle. As it currently stands, the engine claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle is neither approved nor denied by CARS.The customer has Service Contract coverage through September 21, 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 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 question, please contact my office.Jason P. [redacted] General CounselJPM/jmmAttachment

June 20, 2016VIA: SUBMITTED TO Revdex.com WEBSITERE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted]2007 CHRYSLER ASPEN VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]I am in receipt of your letter dated June 17, 2016, enclosing the above-referenced consumer additional concerns. I would like to respond in the following manner:As stated in our June 8, 2016 letter to you, on June 3, 2016 at 11:32 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer gave her permission to the repair facility to do diagnostics on her vehicle when the vehicle was brought to the repair facility.By the customer's signature on her Service Contract, she acknowledged that she 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. Here, the customer is responsible for all charges related to teardown/diagnostics. Any teardown/diagnostic costs are between the customer and the repair facility.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 question, please contract my office.Jason [redacted] General CounselJPM/jmm

August 28, 2017VIA: SUBMITTED TO Revdex.com WEBSITE[redacted]Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220Pittsburgh, PA 15220RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted]2007 MAZDA CX-7 VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]:I am in receipt of your letter dated August 28, 2017, enclosing the additional concerns regarding the above-referenced consumer complaint.The additional concerns of the customer and the documentation provided by the customer's repair facility were thoroughly reviewed by our Claims Director, who has extensive knowledge in vehicle mechanical repairs. Pursuant to the Claims Director, the multiple severe oil leaks and other mechanical issues are relevant to the proper function of the timing chain on the customer's vehicle. Specifically, the timing chain tensioner is an integral part of the performance of the timing chain. The timing chain tensioner is operated by oil pressure. If the vehicle is low on oil pressure, then the timing chain tensioner will not function properly and will cause the timing chain to have slack. As a result of the oil leaks and low oil pressure in the customer's vehicle, when the vehicle is started it would take time for oil pressure in the vehicle to build in order for the timing chain tensioner to operate, which would create a noise from the timing chain. Once the oil pressure is sufficient, the noise to the timing chain would diminish. Additionally, due to the multiple severe oil leaks and failed non-covered components, the customer's vehicle is throwing multiple failure codes as evidenced by the “CEL" being displayed, which are relevant to the current mechanical issues with the customer's vehicle.As stated previously, the repair facility found that when the customer's vehicle was started, it rattled like a loose chain, but the noise went away after about 30 seconds, which confirms that low oil pressure due to severe multiple oil leaks in the customer's vehicle do affect the customer's vehicle and any pending timing chain issues.If the oil leaks and the other non-covered components are not addressed and repaired, the customer's vehicle will continue to incur mechanical issues, not only with the timing chain, but with other components in the customer's vehicle.Before CARS can move forward with any possible assistance with any remaining issues with the timing chain on the customer's vehicle, all the oil leaks and the non-covered components must be repaired, the "CEL" light must be cleared and the vehicle retested.Once the above-referenced repairs are completed and the vehicle is then torn-down to the point of any component failure, CARS is willing to have an independent inspection performed on the customer's vehicle to determine if CARS can offer any assistance with any covered repaired, pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Power Train Service Contract.To reiterate, CARS is not requesting any undue repairs or tear-down, CARS is just trying to determine the actual failed components of the vehicle to ensure that it is properly repaired the first time.Ms. [redacted], I hope this information is helpful in explaining CARS position regarding this customer's current pending mechanical claim with CARS. If you have any further questions, please contact my office.Sincerely,Jason * M[redacted]General Counsel

July 3,2017VIA: 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 22, 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

On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 12:16 PM, T[redacted]> wrote:Dear Cars Protection Plus Legal, I have enclosed the BMW of [redacted] Vehicle Care Package and Multi Point Inspection Form (Quote for repair) dated 5DEC16.  Request that Cars Protection Plus open a claim and pay for repairs in the amount of $14,560.95.   1. I understand that originally the battery was not fully covered with the warranty; however the result of this dead battery was vehicle in storage status for the past year as per my original letter.  2. Also request that the funds be sent expeditiously to the BMW of [redacted] so that they may begin repair work and order the necessary parts.  Click here to view your Vehicle Care Package  Revdex.com Complaint #[redacted]   -----Original Message-----From[redacted]Sent: Mon, Dec 5, 2016 3:41 pmSubject: A note concerning your vehicle: 2006 BMW 7 SeriesClick here to view your Vehicle Care PackageThis includes your vehicle inspection report, service plan, and information about any caution or failed items found during the inspection.Your service advisor will review this information with you.

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 do understand the wording of the contract and it does state that the repairs have to be approved prior to any work being completed.  My concern is with the companies handling of the request.  Now tell me as a company you care about your customer and the answer is only those that are paying in.  What would it of hurt for you to contact the repair facility and have your adjuster ask his questions.  Before or after the repair the answers will be the same.  Maybe the repair would have met the "prior notice" part of the contract and you could of helped a customer out.  That is taking care of your customer.  Even if the result would have come back as rejected or partial value that would have been acceptable.  As soon as that "prior authorization" was not met your reps shut me down and it isn't them its you as a company.  You just made money and that is what matters right.  They didn't even ask why I didn't get prior approval they just said "No we will not cover the repair".  Thanks for listening
Regards,
[redacted]