Extended Warranty Rip Off Companies
Discussion
Feel for you OP - ended up having to shell out over £2k within a few weeks on a BM once that had a BMW warranty due to wear and tear!
I use Warranty Direct - have always paid out for me on covered items with no hastle at all.
At the other end of the market (low cover levels) - AA breakdown repair cover is fantastic, paid for itself 10x over last year (costs me £50 of quid on an 03 CLK55 and pays out up to £500 on any breakdown repair).
I use Warranty Direct - have always paid out for me on covered items with no hastle at all.
At the other end of the market (low cover levels) - AA breakdown repair cover is fantastic, paid for itself 10x over last year (costs me £50 of quid on an 03 CLK55 and pays out up to £500 on any breakdown repair).
AudiRS6 said:
Iv'e seen your link and only wish I'd gone with that company instead of the one I was sold by the salesman, as they identify that ANY part could be described when broken as 'wear and tear'.....damn crooks!
I thought you'd said originally it was WD. If not, then please delete reference to them from my posts that you quoted. Thanks.My experience and beef on warranty complies. Yonks ago ( you will see how long ago by the Ford model), I bought a Sierra estate ,with warranty. Months later I had a massive coolant leak . I tried one garage and they wanted cash to investigate. Then I went to a Ford place. "No problem ,sir, it's a heater matrix" .Would be done under warranty. Month later, I went in for a service to find that warranty company would pay for all costs but not for anti freeze. Customer service were not amused. Months later , the heater matrix failed again. Back to dealer ,and this time, it was decided that anti freeze would be included in bill to warranty co . At this time, they found a head gasket problem , leaking oil . Not covered, but head gasket loosing coolant was. My garage had had enough of this lot of shysters, and car was declared as loosing water as well as oil, so covered. Next water pump problems. Anti freeze covered in garage charges to warranty company . Their attitude was that anti freeze was not needed ,but lost as part of the repair, so should be covered in the bill to warranty co .
Manufacturer warranties arent perfect either. My jag has one but they sub it out to a warranty company . After a few expensive repairs im finding they no longer want to fix any more problems.
I have a fault at the moment identified by my local mot garage, confirmed by the jag dealer but warranty co say its not faulty enough yet. This was 3 months ago took it back to be checked at dealer last week fault has apparently fixed itself no work required. Seems my suspension bushes have managed to un split themselves and become like new all on their own ....
I have a fault at the moment identified by my local mot garage, confirmed by the jag dealer but warranty co say its not faulty enough yet. This was 3 months ago took it back to be checked at dealer last week fault has apparently fixed itself no work required. Seems my suspension bushes have managed to un split themselves and become like new all on their own ....
calibrax said:
Ok, hold on, forget the warranty issue for just a second. A failed driveshaft seal requires the engine to be taken out, and the cost of sorting this out is north of £6,000?
Seriously, WTF?
Remind me never to buy an Audi!
On that note....have you seen the engine block on a 2009 RS6?Seriously, WTF?
Remind me never to buy an Audi!
V10 twin turbo lump, shoehorned into a A6 shell.
I have also suffered a similar fate as OP, my seal was an oil pump O ring...50pence seal!!!
However although expensive I paid no where near 6.5k and my engine was removed too!!!
Interestingly from the same dealer the OP mentioned!!!
rottie102 said:
£6000+ for changing the seal? £600 for changing the lightbulb?
And you paid both out of your own pocket after finding out that the warranty company won't cover either?
I'm sorry but
How do people get to being able to spend £50k on a car being so...let's call it naive with money.
It's not naive it's a choice. I'm sure some sweatshop worker in India would think it mad that you spend more than £100 on a mode of transport.And you paid both out of your own pocket after finding out that the warranty company won't cover either?
I'm sorry but
How do people get to being able to spend £50k on a car being so...let's call it naive with money.
I guy on R8 Talk posted this today.It proves that with a bit of determination these companies can sometimes be made to payout if they are acting unfairly:
Well, the court day had finally arrived re my claim on an oil cooler replacement. My warranty company had been refusing to pay a claim, £678.
I was getting an oil leak from between the oil cooler and the base plate, faulty seal. Now seals are not covered under my policy and neither are fluid or oil leaks, but that didn't deter me. For starters, the seal cannot be purchased separately from the oil cooler, so therefore as far as I was concerned, that meant it was an oil cooler failure, and not a seal failure.
It wasn't this that caught the judges eye. On my policy it states that all manufacturers mechanical and electrical parts are covered except for specific exclusions, but further in the document it states that fluid and oil leaks are not covered. Now the judge said that the oil cooler is a mechanical part and it's designed to cool oil. So as a mechanical part it is covered by the policy and the only way this part can fail is through a leak of some description. As it says that oil and fluid leaks are not covered, then this means that the oil cooler can never be covered under the policy if it fails. As this is a contradiction, to the statement that all mechanical parts are covered then the policy is at fault and my claim stands, hence I won the court case.
So, if anyone has a policy that covers all mechanical parts and excludes oil and fluid leaks then make sure you challenge it.
Never noticed the fluid and oil leak exclusion, but when the warranty company pointed it out to me I was shocked. It felt like the majority of my policy was worthless as when something goes wrong with a car it usually ends up with a leak of some description. The judge has addresses this and it looks like all mechanical parts are covered, leak or no leak.
SUCCESS
Well, the court day had finally arrived re my claim on an oil cooler replacement. My warranty company had been refusing to pay a claim, £678.
I was getting an oil leak from between the oil cooler and the base plate, faulty seal. Now seals are not covered under my policy and neither are fluid or oil leaks, but that didn't deter me. For starters, the seal cannot be purchased separately from the oil cooler, so therefore as far as I was concerned, that meant it was an oil cooler failure, and not a seal failure.
It wasn't this that caught the judges eye. On my policy it states that all manufacturers mechanical and electrical parts are covered except for specific exclusions, but further in the document it states that fluid and oil leaks are not covered. Now the judge said that the oil cooler is a mechanical part and it's designed to cool oil. So as a mechanical part it is covered by the policy and the only way this part can fail is through a leak of some description. As it says that oil and fluid leaks are not covered, then this means that the oil cooler can never be covered under the policy if it fails. As this is a contradiction, to the statement that all mechanical parts are covered then the policy is at fault and my claim stands, hence I won the court case.
So, if anyone has a policy that covers all mechanical parts and excludes oil and fluid leaks then make sure you challenge it.
Never noticed the fluid and oil leak exclusion, but when the warranty company pointed it out to me I was shocked. It felt like the majority of my policy was worthless as when something goes wrong with a car it usually ends up with a leak of some description. The judge has addresses this and it looks like all mechanical parts are covered, leak or no leak.
SUCCESS
Little Lofty said:
I guy on R8 Talk posted this today.It proves that with a bit of determination these companies can sometimes be made to payout if they are acting unfairly:
Well, the court day had finally arrived re my claim on an oil cooler replacement. My warranty company had been refusing to pay a claim, £678.
I was getting an oil leak from between the oil cooler and the base plate, faulty seal. Now seals are not covered under my policy and neither are fluid or oil leaks, but that didn't deter me. For starters, the seal cannot be purchased separately from the oil cooler, so therefore as far as I was concerned, that meant it was an oil cooler failure, and not a seal failure.
It wasn't this that caught the judges eye. On my policy it states that all manufacturers mechanical and electrical parts are covered except for specific exclusions, but further in the document it states that fluid and oil leaks are not covered. Now the judge said that the oil cooler is a mechanical part and it's designed to cool oil. So as a mechanical part it is covered by the policy and the only way this part can fail is through a leak of some description. As it says that oil and fluid leaks are not covered, then this means that the oil cooler can never be covered under the policy if it fails. As this is a contradiction, to the statement that all mechanical parts are covered then the policy is at fault and my claim stands, hence I won the court case.
So, if anyone has a policy that covers all mechanical parts and excludes oil and fluid leaks then make sure you challenge it.
Never noticed the fluid and oil leak exclusion, but when the warranty company pointed it out to me I was shocked. It felt like the majority of my policy was worthless as when something goes wrong with a car it usually ends up with a leak of some description. The judge has addresses this and it looks like all mechanical parts are covered, leak or no leak.
SUCCESS
Wonder which Warranty company?Well, the court day had finally arrived re my claim on an oil cooler replacement. My warranty company had been refusing to pay a claim, £678.
I was getting an oil leak from between the oil cooler and the base plate, faulty seal. Now seals are not covered under my policy and neither are fluid or oil leaks, but that didn't deter me. For starters, the seal cannot be purchased separately from the oil cooler, so therefore as far as I was concerned, that meant it was an oil cooler failure, and not a seal failure.
It wasn't this that caught the judges eye. On my policy it states that all manufacturers mechanical and electrical parts are covered except for specific exclusions, but further in the document it states that fluid and oil leaks are not covered. Now the judge said that the oil cooler is a mechanical part and it's designed to cool oil. So as a mechanical part it is covered by the policy and the only way this part can fail is through a leak of some description. As it says that oil and fluid leaks are not covered, then this means that the oil cooler can never be covered under the policy if it fails. As this is a contradiction, to the statement that all mechanical parts are covered then the policy is at fault and my claim stands, hence I won the court case.
So, if anyone has a policy that covers all mechanical parts and excludes oil and fluid leaks then make sure you challenge it.
Never noticed the fluid and oil leak exclusion, but when the warranty company pointed it out to me I was shocked. It felt like the majority of my policy was worthless as when something goes wrong with a car it usually ends up with a leak of some description. The judge has addresses this and it looks like all mechanical parts are covered, leak or no leak.
SUCCESS
POORCARDEALER said:
Little Lofty said:
...I won the court case.
So, if anyone has a policy that covers all mechanical parts and excludes oil and fluid leaks then make sure you challenge it.
Wonder which Warranty company?So, if anyone has a policy that covers all mechanical parts and excludes oil and fluid leaks then make sure you challenge it.
Courts are supposed to take a dim view of people who don't exhaust existing compliants procedures, and small claims outcomes can be very random - indeed the case quoted was won on a different basis to the one the owner was pursuing.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff