Protection Direct

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: The "customer ID" is [redacted] - I guess that is the marketing number you are referring to. The pushy spam was sent from your Sauget company.  Again, I want to know how you got my personal information so that I can follow up with the respective authority or unauthorized seller of my data.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

Revdex.com St. Louis Office 211 N. Broadway St. Louis, MO 63102     Re: [redacted] – [redacted]                     We have received your correspondence in regards to Mr. [redacted]’ complaint with...

your office. Please understand that Protection Direct is merely a third party selling entity of vehicle service contracts and holds no bearing on the outcome of submitted claims. As such we have reached out to the contract administrator for information regarding the referenced matter.                   In reaching out to the contract administrator, it was determined that [redacted] Mazda contacted the administrator on 5/31/2016, to submit a claim on Mr. [redacted]’ vehicle service contract. Per the repair facility, Mr. [redacted]’ vehicle needed an oil pan gasket and timing chain gasket. The shop also requested the replacement of the vehicle’s turbo, due to an oil leak resulting from a failed gasket. Seals and gaskets are non-covered components under Mr. [redacted]’ vehicle service contract. As such the repairs to Mr. [redacted]’ vehicle were denied in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract language.                   In light of the customer’s complaint, we have reached out to Mr. [redacted] to further discuss this matter. In our discussing this matter with Mr. [redacted], we subsequently decided to issue a full refund of all monies paid into the contract as a resolution of said complaint. Mr. [redacted] indicated that this resolution would satisfy his request with your office. A refund check, #[redacted], for $2,987.17 has been processed and sent to Mr. [redacted]. In consideration of this resolution, we would respectfully request that your office considers this matter to be, closed as resolved.   Sincerely,   [redacted] Protection Direct

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: I have not received this amount he claims to have sent. noe was I ever told when I purchased this insurance that I would have to provide maintenance logs. I informed them that the decrepancies were due to a clerical earer on the part of my oil change company and that a letter was given to also state that.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

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.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

Revdex.com St. Louis Office 211 N. Broadway St. Louis, MO 63102   Re: [redacted] – [redacted]s   This response is in reference to complaint case #[redacted], made by Ms. [redacted]s against Protection Direct. Upon receipt of said correspondence, we initiated a thorough review of...

Ms. [redacted]s’ account.   Our records indicated that Ms. [redacted]s purchased the referenced service contract on June 6, 2017. Per the terms of the purchase Ms. [redacted]s agreed to pay and initial down payment of $195.00, followed by eighteen (18) monthly installments of $169.72. In accordance with the terms of the contract, Ms. [redacted]s has thirty (30) days to review the coverage, during which time she would be eligible for a full refund should she decide to cancel. Our records indicated that our office received no communication from Ms. [redacted]s subsequent to the sale of the contract. However, per her request made with your office, we have subsequently cancelled Ms. [redacted]s’ contract and refunded her down payment in the amount of $195.00 back to her credit card ending in 0269. We have provided a receipt for this transaction for your review. Accordingly, we would respectfully request that your office considers this matter to be closed as resolved.    Sincerely,   [redacted] Protection Direct

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 7, 2016/02/05) */
Mr. [redacted] purchased the vehicle service contract November 30, 2015 and cancelled it January 4, 2016.
As a sign of good faith, the down payment of $175 has been refunded to the consumer. Mr. [redacted] should see the refund post to his...

credit/debit card within 24-72 hours.
We will consider this case closed as resolved.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (2000, 9, 2016/02/08) */
(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2016/01/19) */
In reference to this complaint, please be advised that Protection Direct is merely a selling agent of vehicle service contracts and plays no role in the outcome of submitted claims on said service contracts. In light of said complaint, our...

office has performed a full refund of the referenced account as well as reaching out the contract administrator for a claim denial explanation.
In reviewing our records, it was determined that Mr. [redacted] purchased a service contract through our office for his 2009 Jaguar XF on 5/14/2015. At the time of purchase, the consumer reported the vehicle's mileage as 103,464 miles. In reviewing our records we were unable to locate any other contracts for Mr. [redacted]'s vehicle through Protection Direct. In reaching out to the contract administrator, it was determined that [redacted] with Jaguar of Elmhurst called in to submit a claim for Mr. [redacted]'s vehicle on 12/28/2015. [redacted] advised the claim representative that Mr. [redacted]'s vehicle was leaking fluid from the rear differential and needed to be replaced. In accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract language, Mr. [redacted] was required to submit his past maintenance records for the covered vehicle. Upon obtaining Mr. [redacted]'s maintenance records, it was determined that the covered vehicle was in the same repair facility at the time the contract was purchased. The maintenance records further showed that the same repairs were recommended to the customer at that time, but Mr. [redacted] declined said repairs. We have attached a copy of this record for your review. Mr. [redacted]'s claim was subsequently denied in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract language, explicitly exclusion #2;
2. Repair or replacement of a covered component/part to correct conditions that may reasonably be assumed to have existed at the inception date of the coverage provided by this CONTRACT (Pre-existing conditions).
In communicating with the contract administrator, it was discovered that Mr. [redacted] had a prior contract through another selling agent. The administrator reviewed the prior contract and determined that the coverage had expired due to mileage prior to the purchase of coverage with Protection Direct. Due to the lapse in contract coverage, Mr. [redacted]'s vehicle was required to endure a new validation period. Furthermore, the maintenance records clearly showed that the failures to Mr. [redacted]'s vehicle were pre-existing to the purchase of the customer's contract with our company. As such we feel this complaint against our company to be unwarranted and would respectfully request that your office consider this matter to be closed as INVALID.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 7, 2015/10/05) */
Revdex.com
St. Louis Office
211 N. Broadway
St. Louis, MO XXXXX
Re: [redacted] - [redacted]
Please be advised that Protection Direct is merely a third Party Selling entity of Vehicle Service Contracts. Protection Direct...

plays no role in the approval or denial of any submitted claims. In light of Mr. [redacted]'s complaint our office has reached out to the policy administrator for a claim denial explanation.
According to our records, Mr. [redacted] purchased a vehicle service contract for his 2003 Toyota Tundra on 7/27/2015. At the time that the policy was set up the mileage reported on the vehicle was 133,349 miles. On 9/3/2015, [redacted] from [redacted] Toyota called the administrator to submit a claim on Mr. [redacted]'s vehicle. [redacted] advised the claims representative that the engine has failed and needs to be replaced. In accordance with claim procedure, a third party inspector was sent out to verify the failures to Mr. [redacted]'s vehicle. According to the inspection report, the number three and number four rod bearings were spun and damaged the crankshaft journals. The report indicated that the rod bearings were severely discolored and showing signs of lack of lubrication. The inspector verified that there was also damage to the number one and number eight rob bearings due to metal debris contamination and continued operation. The inspector determined the cause of failure to be a failure of the number three and number four rod bearings due to lack of lubrication, with subsequent damage to the crankshaft and others bearings due to continued operation. The inspector furthermore determined the failure to be long term and pre-existing. Mr. [redacted]'s claim was subsequently denied in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract language.
Mr. [redacted] subsequently contacted the administrator to discuss the denial of said claim. During said communication, the administrator and Mr. [redacted] were successful in agreeing to a resolution of the referenced matter. In the spirit of good customer relations the contract administrator has offered to pay half of the cost to repair Mr. [redacted]'s vehicle in the amount of $2,434.30. As part of the agreed resolution, Mr. [redacted]'s coverage will subsequently be cancelled, releasing both Protection Direct and the contract administrator from any further obligations to Mr. [redacted] or said vehicle. In consideration of this resolution we would ask that you consider this complaint against Protection Direct, closed as resolved.
[redacted]

Re: [redacted] – [redacted]                 This response is in reference to complaint case #[redacted], made by Mr. [redacted] against Protection Direct. Please understand that Protection Direct is an independent...

third party selling agent of vehicle service contracts and vehicle warranties. Protection Direct carries no affiliation with any vehicle manufacturer and has furthermore never advertised any such affiliation in its marketing campaign. All advertisements distributed on behalf of our office clearly advise Protection Direct’s lack of affiliation with any vehicle manufacturer.                  Furthermore, Protection Direct does not participate in the placement of unsolicited telephone calls for the marketing or sale of contracts. All sales are solely generated via mail advertisements or online lead generators. As such, any unsolicited telephone marketing communications received by Mr. [redacted] would not have been placed by Protection Direct. Moreover, in reviewing our marketing records, we were unable to locate any advertisement file for Mr. [redacted]. Our records indicated that Mr. [redacted]’s information was obtained via an online lead generator. As such an electronic lead was subsequently generated and forwarded to our sales staff for processing.                  Upon reviewing the initial sales communication, we were unable to locate any insinuation made on the behalf of Protection Direct that would lead Mr. [redacted] into believing that we were affiliated with any particular vehicle manufacturer. During the communication Mr. [redacted] was clearly advised that the coverage being offered was the Protector 5/100 Product Warranty. Moreover, Mr. [redacted] was provided with a mandatory 30 day review period, during which time he could cancel said coverage and receive a full refund. Yet, in the spirit of consumer satisfaction, we have opted to authorize the return of all monies paid into said coverage by Mr. [redacted]. A refund check is currently being processed and will be sent to Mr. [redacted]’s home address. With this resolution we would respectfully request that your office considers this matter to be closed as resolved.  Sincerely, [redacted]Protection Direct Tell us why here...

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 10, 2015/07/10) */
This letter is in response to Complaint Case #XXXXXXX, made by [redacted], against Protection Direct. Please be advised that Protection Direct is merely a selling agent of vehicle service contracts and has no bearing on the outcome of...

submitted claims. As the Administrator of Ms. [redacted]'s contract, Marathon Group determines the outcome of any submitted claim. In light of Ms. [redacted]'s complaint, our office has reached out to Marathon Group to review the details regarding Ms. [redacted]'s denied claim. In reviewing Ms. [redacted]'s account, it was determined that the customer purchased a policy on her 2006 Chevrolet Silverado 1500, on 4/14/2015. At the time of purchase Ms. [redacted]'s vehicle had 131,053 miles. On 6/11/2015, Auto Nation Chevrolet Arrowhead, submitted a claim for an engine failure on Ms. [redacted]'s vehicle. The mileage at the time of submission was 132,203 miles and the vehicle was only 150 miles out of the validation period mileage. In accordance with the contract language, Marathon Group sent out a third party inspector to verify the failures to Ms. [redacted]'s vehicle. The inspectors report verified that there was an excessive amount of metal and bearing debris in the oil pan. The report verified that the #1, #2, #3, #4, #5 and #6 rod caps were all black due to severe heat discoloration. The inspector verified that the #3 rod bearing had spun and completely disintegrated. The inspection verified that the engine failure was a long term progressive due to the lack of proper lubrication. He verified that the failure was pre-existing to the contract inception date and was present during the validation period. In accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract language explicitly Exclusions #2 & #13
2. Repair or replacement of a covered component/part to correct conditions that may reasonably be assumed to have existed at the inception date of the coverage provided by this CONTRACT (Pre-existing conditions).
13. For any BREAKDOWN caused by overheating (regardless of the cause), freezing, inadequate coolant, lubricants or fluids, or any BREAKDOWN to a listed part resulting from contamination of fluids, rust, corrosion, foreign material, sludge or carbon deposits and coolant intermix.
In conclusion, after fully reviewing Ms. [redacted]'s account, it is our stance that the denial of Ms. [redacted]'s claims was a legitimate claim denial in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract language. In the best interest of customer satisfaction, we would be willing to issue Ms. [redacted] a Full Refund of all monies paid in her coverage. We would ask that with this resolution we can consider this case closed as resolved.
Regards,
[redacted]
Protection Direct

Revdex.com St. Louis Office 211 N. Broadway St. Louis, MO 63102   Re: [redacted] – [redacted]                   We have received correspondence from your office regarding complaint #[redacted], made by Mr....

[redacted] against Protection Direct. It is important to note that Protection Direct is merely a third party selling agent of vehicle service contracts. Protection Direct does not participate in the processing of claims submitted under said service contract. All claims are processed by the service contract administrator. In light of Mr. [redacted]’s complaint, we have conducted a detailed review of the referenced account.                   Per our records, Mr. [redacted] contacted our office on February 18, 2014 to purchase the referenced vehicle service contract.  During the sales communication, Mr. [redacted] was clearly advised as to the coverage of the contract, as well as his rights and obligations to the purchase of said service contract. Moreover, before Mr. [redacted] gave his final authorization for the purchase of the coverage, a representative performed a complete recap of the terms of purchase for the service contract. Mr. [redacted] was informed that a contract booklet would be sent the address provided. During the recap, Mr. [redacted] advised to thoroughly read through the contract booklet to ensure that the coverage adheres to his needs and expectations. Mr. [redacted] was clearly advised that he had thirty days to review the coverage, during which time he could cancel and receive a full refund of all monies paid. Per our records, Mr. [redacted]’s service contract booklet was printed on February 20, 2014 and mailed to the address on file. Our office had no further communication with Mr. [redacted] until July 20, 2016, when the customer contacted our office requesting information for submitting a claim.   Mr. [redacted] subsequently contacted our office on July 22, 2016 requesting the cancellation and refund of his coverage due to a non-covered claim. Our representative offered to look into the Mr. [redacted]’s claim in an attempt to offer assistance for the repair of the covered vehicle. Mr. [redacted] subsequently refused said offer and requested the cancellation of his service contract. As such, Mr. [redacted] was given the information necessary for the cancellation and refund of his service contract. To date our office has not received Mr. [redacted]’s cancellation information.   As part of our review we also reached out to the contract administrator to obtain information regarding Mr. [redacted]’s submitted claim. Per the administrator, an initial claim was called in for a water pump and potential issue with the timing belt. The repair facility was subsequently advised to perform further diagnosis to determine the extent of the damage as well as an estimate for the repair of Mr. [redacted]’s vehicle. To date no further calls or information has been received from the repair facility and the submitted claim remains idle.   Upon our receipt of said complaint, we attempted to contact Mr. [redacted] to further discuss this matter. In our numerous attempts, we have been unsuccessful in communicating with Mr. [redacted]. At the current time Mr. [redacted]’s contract has been noted for cancellation, pending our receipt of the required cancellation paperwork. Upon our receipt of said paperwork, a pro-rata refund will be processed and issued in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract language. If Mr. [redacted] wishes to further discuss this matter with us, he can contact our office at [redacted]. We would respectfully request that you consider this matter to be closed as resolved.   Sincerely,   [redacted] Protection Direct

Ms. [redacted] purchased the vehicle service contract July 9, 2015 and it is still active.
At the time of purchase, the consumer was notified of the validation period. During the validation period, no claims can be filed. Per the contract, the validation period is 30 days from the initial purchase...

date AND 1000 miles from the initial mileage submitted at the time of purchase.
The consumer filed a claim August 17, 2015. She was outside of the 30 day portion of the validation period, but was still within the 1000 mile portion of the validation period. Per the information submitted by the repair facility, Ms. [redacted] had only driven 922 miles from the mileage submitted at contract inception. Contractually, the claim was denied.
The consumer called the Customer Service department August 27, 2015 per her claim denial. Her September payment was deferred as a courtesy to help offset her out of pocket costs for the repair.
We will consider this case closed as resolved.

We have received your correspondence in regards to complaint #[redacted] made by Mrs. [redacted] against Protection Direct. It is important to understand that Protection Direct is merely an independent third party selling agent of vehicle warranty contracts. As the obligor, the Product...

Manufacturer and contract administrator are responsible for setting the terms and conditions contained within the contract language, as well as determining the outcome of any submitted claims. In an effort to effectively address Mrs. [redacted]’s concerns, we have conducted a thorough review of the referenced matter. Our records indicated that Mrs. [redacted] purchased the referenced warranty contract for her 2007 Volvo XC90 on September 9, 2013. According to the report provided by Mrs. [redacted]’s insurance company, the covered vehicle was deemed a total loss on September 15, 2016. Per the cancellation procedure of the contract language it states;9. CANCELLATION PROCEDURE: If You are not satisfied with the performance of the Protector 5/100 product, the paid purchase price of the Protector 5/100 product will be fully refunded, and this limited product warranty will terminate, upon your written request postmarked within forty-five (45) days of the date of sale, and sent via regular mail to Your selling agent listed on the Declarations Page. After forty-five (45) days, Your cancellation refund shall be calculated on a pro-rata basis based on the number of unused scheduled applications.Per the contract language, the annual installment date directly coincides with the sale date specified on the contract declaration page. Accordingly, Mrs. [redacted] had initiated her fourth year of coverage at the time the vehicle was declared a total loss by her insurance company. As such, the amount refunded to Mrs. [redacted] is correct per the terms and conditions set forth in the contract booklet. However, we have subsequently reached out to the contract administrator to further discuss Mrs. [redacted]’s account. In the spirit of good consumer relations, the administrator has ultimately decided to authorize a refund of the fourth year of coverage due to the total loss circumstances and brief amount of time the contract was active into the fourth installment year. Accordingly, we have processed a refund check in the amount of $775.40 and mailed to Mrs. [redacted]’s home address on file. We have provided a copy of said check for your review. With this resolution, we would respectfully request that your office considers this matter to be closed as resolved.  Regards, [redacted]Customer Service ManagerProtection Direct

Re: Rebuttal [redacted] – [redacted]                   This response is in reference to a customer rebuttal on complaint case #[redacted], made by Mr. [redacted] against Protection Direct. We have reviewed the customer’s rebuttal and elected to provide your office with further information regarding Mr. [redacted]’s maintenance records. Per Mr. [redacted]’s contract language:   Vehicles with under 150,000 miles must change engine oil and oil filter at the manufacturer’s recommended interval. Vehicles with over 150,000 miles must ensure that the engine oil and engine oil filter be changed every four (4) months or four thousand (4,000) miles, whichever occurs first (within a window of 1 month or 1,500 miles). Transmission service including fluid, flushes, and filter change must be performed every 12 months or 12,000 miles, on vehicles (6) six years or older. Transmissions in vehicles that are less than six (6) years old should service in accordance with the manufacturer requirements. Non-serviceable transmissions are excluded from this requirement. Proper documented and verifiable receipts for oil and engine oil filter changes will be required in the event of a claim.                   Mr. [redacted]’s claim was initiated on August 31, 2016 by [redacted] with [redacted]. Upon the admistrator’s request for maintenance records, Mr. [redacted] provided [redacted] with a handwritten maintenance log (Exhibit A). Said log was forwarded to the administrator on September 2, 2016. According to the log, Mr. [redacted]’s vehicle maintenance was ironically done at exactly four thousand (4,000) mile increments. The administrator subsequently determined that the handwritten log would not suffice for verifiable maintenance records.   Mr. [redacted] subsequently provided our office with generic records from [redacted] Oil Change (Exhibit B). The records indicated that the vehicle’s maintenance was performed on the same day, but the mileage no longer correlated with the original log provided by Mr. [redacted]. When asked about the mileage difference, Mr. [redacted] indicated that is what he was provided, but they were incorrect due to a clerical error.   Subsequently, on September 12, 2016 [redacted] forwarded similar generic records from a [redacted]’s Oil Change (Exhibit C). The dates and mileages on the records correlated with the original handwritten maintenance log provided by Mr. [redacted]. Upon close examination of the [redacted] Oil Change records, the administrator noticed clear resemblances to the [redacted] records. Both the [redacted] Oil Change and the [redacted] Oil Change records had almost identical record layouts. Furthermore, the signatures on the [redacted] records appeared to be the same as the signatures on the [redacted] records.   On September 15, 2016 another set of records from [redacted] Oil Change was provided to the administrator by Mr. [redacted] (Exhibit D). The records appeared to be identical to the previous [redacted] records provided by Mr. [redacted], but the signatures were removed and replaced with electronic style signatures. Furthermore, one of the service provider’s name on the new record was changed from [redacted] to [redacted].   Due to their conflicting nature, the administrator has determined that the provided records would not suffice for verifiable maintenance records in accordance with the contract language. Moreover, the clear alteration made to the records, only furthermore indicates the lack of authenticity. As such, the administrator had decided to halt the processing of Mr. [redacted]’s claim until verifiable maintenance records could be provided in accordance with the contract language. Mr. [redacted]’s claim subsequently remained idle, until his request for cancellation made on September 19, 2016. In consideration of this information we would respectfully request that your office considers this matter to be closed as resolved.   Sincerely, [redacted] Protection Direct