MPP Co. Inc.

Tell us why here...
September 15, 2016
 
 
 
 
Revdex.com of Greater Kansas City
8080 Ward Parkway, Suite 401
Kansas City, MO. 64114
 
 
RE:          [redacted]...

[redacted]
                GAP Coverage # [redacted]
                2012 Dodge Challenger ([redacted])
                Revdex.com ID # [redacted]
 
To Whom It May Concern:
 
We are in receipt of your complaint dated 9/15/16.  We have reviewed our files and offer the following response concerning the customer’s request for a cancellation refund check of the GAP Coverage on the Vehicle referenced above.
 
We have reached out to the selling dealership (Grapevine Dodge/Chrysler/Jeep) who issues the cancellation refund checks and talked with [redacted].  She has issued a refund check (# [redacted]) in the amount of $191.34 and will be mailing it to the customer today.  We have also called the customer to let him know a refund check was issued and will be mailed directly to him.  A copy of that check was emailed to the customer today as well.
 
MPP always tries to be fair and just when it comes to our customers and we hope we have satisfactorily addressed Mr. [redacted]’s complaint. Please contact our office if we can be of any further assistance.
 
Sincerely,
 
[redacted]
Customer Service & Operations Manager
MPP Co. Inc.
###-###-####, Ext. [redacted]

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed as Assumed Answered]
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: I supplied a video of my vehicle making the timing chain rattle at startup. My understanding on the newest version of the TSB in no longer requires the code just the fact it is making the noise.
Regards,
[redacted]

May 27, 2015
 
 
 
 
Revdex.com
8080 Ward Parkway, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO. 64114
 
 
RE:          [redacted]...

[redacted]
                Contract # [redacted]
                ID [redacted]
 
 
To Whom It May Concern:
 
We are in receipt of Mr. [redacted]’s complaint regarding his cancellation refunds on his MPP Service Agreement (Club Plus) Coverage, OnGard Coverage and offer the following response.
 
We received a written request to cancel “all warranties purchased” from Mr. [redacted] on 5/1/2015.  The request was processed and in accordance with our contract with Mr. [redacted], the refund was forwarded to his lienholder of record.  Mr. [redacted] contacted our office on 5/11/2015 and advised us that Capital One was no longer his lienholder of record as he had refinanced the loan so the refund should have been forwarded directly to him.  We advised him if he could forward a copy of his lien release then we could place a stop payment on the refunds sent and re-direct them to him.  After further research, we located a lien release previously received from Mr. [redacted] when he cancelled his GAP Debt Waiver Addendum at the time of refinancing the loan.  We placed a stop payment on the refunds previously sent to Capital One and overnighted the refunds directly to Mr. [redacted] on 5/19/2015.
 
We hope we have satisfactorily addressed Mr. [redacted]’s complaint and please feel free to contact our office if we can be of any further assistance.
 
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Customer Service & Operations Manager
MPP Co. Inc.
###-###-#### Direct
[redacted]@mpp.com

May 25, 2016
 
To Whom It May Concern:
 
We are in receipt of your complaint dated 5/16/16.  We have reviewed our files and offer the following response concerning the customer’s request for cancellation refunds on her Mechanical Service Agreement and GAP Coverages.
 
We...

have made contact with Ms. [redacted] to confirm that she has received her refund checks on her coverages, check # [redacted] for $475.61 for the GAP Coverage and check # 705101 for $33.39 for the Mechanical Service Agreement.  We have apologized to her for the delay and any inconvenience that we may have caused. We also offered to reimburse her for next oil change that is performed on the 2007 Infiniti M35 that was just purchased on 4/1/16.
 
MPP always tries to be fair and just when it comes to our customers and we hope we have satisfactorily addressed Ms. [redacted]’s complaint.  Please contact our office if we can be of any further assistance.
 
Sincerely,
 
[redacted]
Customer Service & Operations Manager
MPP Co. Inc.
###-###-####, ext. [redacted]

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response.  If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]
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.
As previously indicated by MPP, they have reached out to me via phone and emailed me a copy of the check that was issued by Grapevine Dodge. I appreciate the prompt and kind response from MPP in regard to this matter. Also, I appreciate that MPP recognized the frustration that customers may have regarding their internal procedures and hope they will change the practice so future customers do not have to experience the same frustrations I have experienced, from their business clients, such as, Grapevine Dodge. 
Respectfully 
[redacted]

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response.  If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
Regards,
[redacted] & [redacted]

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed as Assumed Answered]
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:This is absolutely an unacceptable response.  Once again, please read carefully, no where does it state that bolts, nuts, screws (of covered items) are not covered in any documentation I was provided (or that I was able to located on your website).  We have requested documentation from your office that specifies this but MPP was unable to provide.  Please provide the resource as to where this is stated.  Why would anyone purchase a warranty where these items are not covered?  In case you are unaware, cars are put together with bolts and nuts.  How this would not be considered fraudulent is beyond me.  I will continue to take steps to rectify this issue.  At this time, because of the terrible customer service and shady policies, I would be willing to accept a full refund in lieu of repairs.  If this is not met I will continue with the attorney general.  I look forward to your response.
Regards,
Donald [redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:Again, this coverage was never actually utilized. The vehicle was hit by another party and totaled prior to this coverage kicking in so nothing was used from this coverage.
Regards,
[redacted]

Dear Mr. [redacted]: We are in receipt of your letter regarding the above referenced customer and ID.  In reviewing our records, we find that Mr. [redacted] purchased a 2008 Lexus on or about September 30, 2014.  At the time of purchase, he also opted to purchase a vehicle service agreement...

from our company.  On August 7, 2017, we received a call from Bell Lexus advising that Mr. [redacted]’s vehicle was in their repair facility and complaining of rattle or valve tick when starting the vehicle.  The repair facility advised that a repair was needed in accordance with a bulletin issued by Lexus.  Actually, the bulletin advises that such a noise is a common occurrence.  There is no danger of any failure, or lack of performance, no check engine light or engine codes, just a possible noise.  The recommended repair could eliminate such a noise.  We elected to send an independent inspector to listen and verify such noise.  Upon arrival of the inspector, he started the vehicle and could not duplicate the problem.  The inspector looked the vehicle over and saw no failures.  The repair facility representative concurred that they could not duplicate the problem.  The inspector reported his findings to our office and we determined that there was no failure at this time.  We relayed our findings to the repair facility and to Mr. [redacted].  Mr. [redacted] contacted our office regarding the denial of his claim.  He advised that he has an audio recording of the noise and would forward it for our listening.  We listened to the audio recording and other than a very slight tick noise that lasted about a second, the engine sounded very normal, especially for a vehicle with 102,000 miles on it.  Based on this, we advised Mr. [redacted] that our decision remains unchanged and we do not see or hear of any covered failure at this time.  In Mr. [redacted]’s letter, he states he feels he is being discriminated against.  Unfortunately, we can not alter how someone may feel, but nothing could be farther from the truth as we have authorized multiple covered repairs on his vehicle in the past. We hope our response satisfies your and Mr. [redacted]’s concerns.  Please let us know if you should have any other questions. Sincerely, Gerald [redacted]MPP Co., Inc.###-###-####

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed as Assumed Answered]
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: 1. The factory warrant was in effect and none of extended warranty was ever used. 2. The warrant was sold without fully explained details of refunds or time of effected in service time.  3. This company uses fraudulent scam to make people think this warranty will protect them after the  manufactory warranty. 4. I want to file complaint with FTC to expose there  practice. 
Regards,
[redacted] & [redacted]

We are in receipt of your letter dated February 24, 2015 regarding the
above referenced customer and ID#.  In
reviewing our records we find the following information.  On or about October 3, 2012, Ms. [redacted]
purchased a 2011 Chevrolet Impala.  At
the time of purchase, she also...

opted to purchase a preowned vehicle service
agreement from our company.  On February
16, 2015, our office was contacted by a repair facility stating the vehicle was
hard to start and the starter was not working properly.   The repair facility also advised that the
battery cables appear to have been modified from their original factory
specifications and that they are drawing a high resistance and need to be
replaced.  Unfortunately, the battery
cables are not covered under the vehicle service agreement but appears to possibly
be the true cause of the no-start problem. 
We assigned an independent inspector to inspect the cause and extent of
the reported failure.  Upon inspection of
the vehicle, the inspector verified that the battery cable ends were cut off
and replaced with aftermarket connections. 
The inspector started the vehicle 24 times while there and without any
noted starter problems.  It was
determined and agreed with the repair facility that the customer would need to
replace the battery cables before they could adequately verify if the starter
had any additional issues.  The customer
refused to replace the battery cables and continued to insist that the starter
was the only problem and wanted it replaced. 
After multiple times explaining that the battery cables needed to be replaced
before anything else could be determined, she became upset and requested
another inspector be assigned to review the failure.  While it didn’t seem necessary for another inspector
to be assigned, we reluctantly did so for customer satisfaction.  Another inspector was assigned to review the
cause and extent of the failure.  When
the inspector arrived, Ms. [redacted] was there and wanted to record the entire
inspection process.  The inspector
performed an electrical draw test and found the starter to be within
specifications per the manufacturer and started the vehicle successfully
multiple times.  The customer then
attempted to start the vehicle and was successful over 20 times without any
failures.  Regardless of what the
inspector saw, demonstrated and documented, the customer continues to insist
that she has a bad starter and wants it replaced.  Having found no failure of the covered part,
we advised the customer that there is no covered repair at this time.
 
While we have documented on multiple occasions that the starter has
not failed, after receiving your letter we re-contacted the customer and
advised her that we would pay to replace it at this time.   However, we do not believe it will correct
her starting problems that she may have experienced and that she will continue
to have problems due to the aftermarket battery cable connectors.  She advised that she has pulled her vehicle
from the repair facility and does not know if she will have the replacement
performed.  At this time we are waiting
on further response from the customer.
 
We hope that our response satisfies your and the customer’s
concerns.  Please let us know if you
should have any questions.
 
Sincerely,
[redacted]
MPP Co., Inc.

Mr. [redacted] Revdex.com 8080 Ward Parkway, Suite 401 Kansas City, Mo 64114   Re:      [redacted]             Complaint [redacted]   Dear Mr. [redacted], We are in receipt of your letter regarding the above referenced customer and ID.  As previously indicated, we sent an independent inspector to verify the cause and extent of the noise Mr. [redacted] complained about.  With the repair facility service advisor present, our inspector could not duplicate any such abnormal noise.  This was concurred by the facility service advisor.  In regards to a video of his vehicle making the timing chain rattle at start-up, no such video was shared with our adjuster.  At the time of the claim, we offered to Mr. [redacted], if he wanted to take the vehicle into the Ford dealer where it was purchased for a second opinion, we would be glad to review and possibly send another inspector at that time.  Mr. [redacted] chose not to seek the second opinion.  Upon receipt of your second letter, we contacted Mr. [redacted] by telephone and offered to review a second opinion again.  Mr. [redacted] advised he would make arrangements to take his vehicle into Joe Myers Ford and have them contact us upon arrival. While we certainly sympathize with Mr. [redacted] and his complaint, the noise he is complaining about only seems to be apparent upon first start-up when the engine is cold and is not duplicated once the engine warms up.  This is not untypical of an engine with 100,000 miles on it.  As a matter of fact, it is not that uncommon on fairly new vehicles and is no indication of any engine failure or possible failure. Once Mr. [redacted] returns to Joe Myers Ford for a second opinion and another inspection, we will advise of any ongoing or final results. Please let us know if you should have any questions. Sincerely, Gerald [redacted] MPP Co., Inc.

September 15, 2016...

                                        ...⇄   Revdex.com Serving Greater Kansas City Attn: [redacted] Complaint Department 8080 Ward Parkway, Suite 401 Kansas City, MO     64114   Re:       [redacted]             Your Case ID. [redacted]                                         ...⇄ Dear Mr. [redacted],   We received notification on September 15, 2016 regarding Ms. [redacted]’ lease wear coverage and offer the following response.   We made contact with Ms. [redacted] on September 15, 2016. Through speaking with Ms. [redacted], we were able to discern her concerns and address them to her satisfaction. After speaking with us we understand that Ms. [redacted] responded back to the Revdex.com updating her complaint. See inserted below.   From: "[redacted]" <[redacted]> Date: Sep 15, 2016 12:07 PM Subject: Re: Revdex.com Complaint Submission To: <[redacted]> Cc: Hi,  I want to let you know that I recieved a follow-up from this company and they have assured me that they are handling my concerns. Thank you,  [redacted] Additionally, MPP Co, Inc. has thanked Ms. [redacted] for sharing her concerns with us and has taken this as an opportunity to evaluate our processes in an effort to further evolve the service we provide and make it even better.   Please let us know if there are additional concerns or any questions.   Sincerely,   [redacted] Lease Wear Claims Manager MPP Co, Inc.

March 28, 2017   Mr. [redacted] Revdex.com 8080 Ward Parkway, Suite 401 Kansas City, Missouri 64114   Re:         [redacted]              ...

ID#        [redacted]   Dear Mr. [redacted],   We are in receipt of your letter dated March 28, 2017 regarding the above referenced customer.  In reviewing our records, we find that on or around January 13, 2017, Mr. [redacted] purchased a 2014 Ford Explorer.  At the time of vehicle sale, he also purchased a 12 Month/12,000 Mile Preowned Vehicle Service Agreement with our company.  The application was processed and on January 27, 2017, we forwarded a plan provision booklet to Mr. [redacted]’s address of record.  On or around February 24, 2017, Mr. [redacted] contacted our office requesting to cancel his Vehicle Service Agreement.  He advised that he is unhappy with his lienholder and wants to pay off his loan so he can no longer do business with them.  We advised him that he could retain his coverage but still pay off his loan, that way he would continue to be protected.  However, he advised he still wanted to cancel and forwarded a written request to do so.   In Mr. [redacted]’s letter, he states that our company does not seem to want to refund his money.  Our records show that the dealership had to re-contract Mr. [redacted]’s paperwork and had sent in another Vehicle Service Agreement Application for processing and also a request to cancel the original Vehicle Service Contract.  The duplicate documents caused a little confusion in our cancellation department to make sure that we were cancelling the correct contract and refunding the correct party.  While this did cause a slight delay in processing, it was certainly not intended as an avoidance to cancel, or to ensure proper processing.  We contacted Mr. [redacted] and advised him that our check in the amount of $1219.00 was overnighted to his lienholder, Capital One.   Also, in Mr. [redacted]’s letter, he states that the dealership sold him a “fake car warranty”.  We want to ensure Mr. [redacted] that the Vehicle Service Agreement he purchased was very real indeed and had he been in need of a covered repair under that Agreement period, we would have gladly taken care of that for him.  Additionally, the reason Mr. [redacted] received another plan provision booklet in the mail is because of the duplicate Application sent in by the dealership.   We hope our response satisfies the Bureau and Mr. [redacted].  Please let us know if you should have any questions regarding the matter.   Sincerely, Gerald [redacted] MPP Co., Inc.

June 9, 2015
 
[redacted]
[redacted]
RevDex.com
 
Re:         [redacted] ([redacted]) [redacted]
               ID#        ...

[redacted]
 
Dear [redacted],
 
We are in
receipt of your letter dated June 5, 2015 regarding the above referenced
customer.  In researching our records we
find the following information.  On or
about September 6, 2014, Ms. [redacted] purchased a 2013 Hyundai.  At the time of vehicle purchase, she also
opted to purchase a Preowned Gold Vehicle Service Agreement from our
company.  The Vehicle Service Agreement
agrees to repair or replace specific listed components and also has 24/7/365
Emergency Roadside Assistance.  The
Emergency Roadside Assistance requires all services must go through the service
provider and is not a reimbursement benefit.
 
On or about
April 6, 2015, customer contacted our office and advised she had locked herself
out of her car and incurred expenses for service.  We advised her to send in for review and
possible reimbursement.  The claim was
reviewed and even though Emergency Roadside Assistance is not covered outside
of the service provider, reimbursement was allowed for customer service.  A check in the amount of $54.95 was issued to
the customer at her address of record.  On
May 8, 2015 customer called and advised that she had not received reimbursement
check yet.  We advised her that we would
check with our bank to see if the check had or had not yet cleared.  When verified, it was noted that the check
was sent to the address of record but it has since changed.  A stop-payment was placed on the check and it
was re-issued to the current address on May 13, 2015.  On May 27, 2015, the customer called in and
again advised that she had not yet received the reimbursement check.  We verified her new mailing address and found
it to be the addressed used.  However,
when viewing a copy of the check, our system did not completely include her apartment
number.  Again we verified with our bank
if the check had or had not cleared and placed a stop-payment on the
check.  A replacement check was issued on
May 28, 2015 and overnighted to Ms. [redacted] at her correct address.  We verified that the check was received.  When Ms. [redacted] attempted to cash the check at
a bank, we understand she had difficulty originally because of improper
identification but did manage eventually.
 
We regret
that Ms. [redacted] ([redacted]) had difficulty in receiving her reimbursement check and
for that we certainly apologize.  It was
an unfortunate chain of circumstances surrounding our efforts to reimburse her
for a non-covered event.  Ms. [redacted]
([redacted]) has since cancelled her vehicle service contract and a pro-rated
refund was sent to her lienholder.  Please
let us know if you should have any additional questions.
 
Sincerely,
Gerald L[redacted]
MPP Co.,
Inc.