Claim against well known Warranty Provider UPHELD
Discussion
Just found the blog, excellent news - with the amount at stake it’s clearly been worth the effort to get to this stage but it really shouldn’t be a war of attrition and it’s shocking that entities like this can simply get away with it in the majority of cases. I inherited an aftermarket warranty on a secondhand purchase and was always a bit nervous about it, this certainly confirms my suspicions!
I wonder if any of these companies have been ‘exposed’ on watchdog type programmes? As much as I dislike them they would certainly provide an adequate platform. Any business who works to these tactics has no place in the world imo.
I wonder if any of these companies have been ‘exposed’ on watchdog type programmes? As much as I dislike them they would certainly provide an adequate platform. Any business who works to these tactics has no place in the world imo.
Just found the blog, shocking stuff. Hats off to you sir for your persistence and refusal to let the company get away with it.
Does make me wonder how many other poor sods are out there whose claims were unfairly rejected. Nice little scandal for the DM or beeb to latch onto methinks
Does make me wonder how many other poor sods are out there whose claims were unfairly rejected. Nice little scandal for the DM or beeb to latch onto methinks
Brilliant news ! I thought the original pulling of the thread was a bit draconian.
For all the proposed censorship on the net, I'm so happy to see the power of t'web being used to shine a light on these dodgy companies and practices.
As everyone has said, they get away with it as people can't be without a car for months on end. I'm glad they're exposed and also that now lots of people know what they are like and will avoid. It's going to cost them WAY more than just this claim, but in loss of future business. Idiots
For all the proposed censorship on the net, I'm so happy to see the power of t'web being used to shine a light on these dodgy companies and practices.
As everyone has said, they get away with it as people can't be without a car for months on end. I'm glad they're exposed and also that now lots of people know what they are like and will avoid. It's going to cost them WAY more than just this claim, but in loss of future business. Idiots
vrtrooper said:
Justice at last. Think they shot themselves in the foot big style. I and many others will never buy a warranty.
Would a Daily paper print this case or would they not upset an advertiser? What about the BBC?
Shame the original post was pulled on PH
doubtful.Would a Daily paper print this case or would they not upset an advertiser? What about the BBC?
Shame the original post was pulled on PH
The market is saturated with firms that give terrible customer service and aftersales as a standard policy, and rely on heavy marketing to a constant stream of unwitting or even more sadly already eff'd over customers who can't help themselves.
Shonky customer service seems the expected baseline today.
vrtrooper said:
Justice at last. Think they shot themselves in the foot big style. I and many others will never buy a warranty.
Would a Daily paper print this case or would they not upset an advertiser? What about the BBC?
Shame the original post was pulled on PH
I wrote to the BBC again yesterday. no interest in my story first time around, but now there's a decision then it carries a litle more weight. i imagine the been get a load of reports, the bulk of which will be nonsenseWould a Daily paper print this case or would they not upset an advertiser? What about the BBC?
Shame the original post was pulled on PH
one thing i also did was record a load of conversations with myself and sales aganets so that i could prove that they're advertising one thing and selling another
Call 1
08/03/2019
Agent 1 - As long as its listed in our book and its not excluded then we're going cover it for you
Agent 1 - As long as it states it [the part] in our document then we cant, obviously, get out of that claim
Me: if something snaps in the gearbox or the engine….nothing snaps of its own accord…..that’s still considered a mechanical failure, is it? even if its due to something else? As long as its not because I've caused it?
Agent 1: that’s correct, yeah. Even if its due to something else, so lets say a hose pipe fails you, the hose pipe wouldn’t be covered as that would be classed as a consumable, and lets say the hose pipe caused damage to your engine, we would still cover you for the engine but not the pipe
Me: in the event a hose stopped feeding oil to the engine and the parts broke down because they weren't lubricated, then that would be covered presumably?
Agent 1: yes.....the engine is an insured part under the policy so the engine would be covered
Me: So if I’m not putting oil to the engine and its not my fault and its the fault of the pipe....its still covered because its an insured part
Agent 1: that’s correct, yes
Call 2
08/03/2019
Agent 2 - you're essentially covered for any mechanical faults. Even sudden failures or overheating to the engine you're covered
Me: if there was a part that overheated or was, for whatever reason, the incorrect heat, and that caused the failure then that would be covered?
Agent 2: if it was anything I listed there, any of them components there [i.e. the engine], which would be [failed] due to the overheating, yes it would be covered
Call 3
08/03/2019
Claims Engineer 1 - with engine and gearbox claims, most things from those two parts would be a breakdown. You don’t get many consumable items on them.
Me: if its an internal fault…..as long as I haven’t contributed to the failure, I assume everything’s covered is it?
Claims Engineer 1: yes. I mean the main things we look at when assessing the claim is ""is the part covered"" [i.e the engine].
Me: parts don’t fail on their own, there's always something that contributes to the part failing, but presumably if it’s a mechanical failure and its in the sealed part of the engine, that would be covered would it?
Claims Engineer 1: yes, yeah
Me: what constitutes wear & tear…...if it’s a consumable…then that’s wear and tear? If it’s a crank then that’s not wear and tear unless its been caused by a consumable failure?
Claims Engineer 1: say your oil pump went, or it was leaking, and your oil level dropped, and as a result of that your crank broke, we would still cover it on that basis. things like that.
Me: So its not like that would be considered a failure of lubrication, that would be still a crank failure, that’s still a mechanical failure?
Claims Engineer 1: yes, yeah.
Claims Engineer 1: If the crank just snaps, and there's a little bit of scorching or burning, then we would still cover that.
Call 4
08/03/2019
Me: If there’s a fault that you don’t know the reason of, it would still be covered as long its one of the parts listed [i.e. the engine]?
Sales Agent 3: Yes, that’s right
Call 5
20/03/2019
Me - what constitutes mechanical failure?
Sales Agent 4 - [you are covered for] for insured parts that have been damaged by non-insured parts, so to give you an example if your engine fails due a hose or pipe failing we still cover the costs of the repairs to your engine, but obviously not the uninsured component. there are many ways, you know, a mechanical part can actually fail
me - fine, so if my oil pump goes, or something like that, then presumably the oil pump wouldn’t be covered, but any damage that was caused will be
Sales Agent 4- so, to covered components sir, if an uninsured part fails and then damages a covered item then we'll cover the covered item but obviously not the uninsured part itself.
Me - [what would happen if there was a bearing failure that caused consequential damage]?
Sales Agent 4 - if the bearing itself was an uninsured part then it goes on to, say, fail your pistons or your head gasket, then they are covered items so it would be covered under that
Sales Agent 4 - if there is an uninsured part and that goes on to fail a covered part in your engine, the covered item will be covered on a valid claim, just not the uninsured part
I sent the transcripts to the FOS and told them i have the recordings. However, legally i understand that you need the individuals consent to publish the recordings, unless its in the public interest, so i'd need the warranty provider to give me permission to give the recordings to the ombudsman. Though i'm not sure how it works if they're also recording the conversations, which they are.
....unless it was in the public interest, in which case i could post the videos all over youtube
Call 1
08/03/2019
Agent 1 - As long as its listed in our book and its not excluded then we're going cover it for you
Agent 1 - As long as it states it [the part] in our document then we cant, obviously, get out of that claim
Me: if something snaps in the gearbox or the engine….nothing snaps of its own accord…..that’s still considered a mechanical failure, is it? even if its due to something else? As long as its not because I've caused it?
Agent 1: that’s correct, yeah. Even if its due to something else, so lets say a hose pipe fails you, the hose pipe wouldn’t be covered as that would be classed as a consumable, and lets say the hose pipe caused damage to your engine, we would still cover you for the engine but not the pipe
Me: in the event a hose stopped feeding oil to the engine and the parts broke down because they weren't lubricated, then that would be covered presumably?
Agent 1: yes.....the engine is an insured part under the policy so the engine would be covered
Me: So if I’m not putting oil to the engine and its not my fault and its the fault of the pipe....its still covered because its an insured part
Agent 1: that’s correct, yes
Call 2
08/03/2019
Agent 2 - you're essentially covered for any mechanical faults. Even sudden failures or overheating to the engine you're covered
Me: if there was a part that overheated or was, for whatever reason, the incorrect heat, and that caused the failure then that would be covered?
Agent 2: if it was anything I listed there, any of them components there [i.e. the engine], which would be [failed] due to the overheating, yes it would be covered
Call 3
08/03/2019
Claims Engineer 1 - with engine and gearbox claims, most things from those two parts would be a breakdown. You don’t get many consumable items on them.
Me: if its an internal fault…..as long as I haven’t contributed to the failure, I assume everything’s covered is it?
Claims Engineer 1: yes. I mean the main things we look at when assessing the claim is ""is the part covered"" [i.e the engine].
Me: parts don’t fail on their own, there's always something that contributes to the part failing, but presumably if it’s a mechanical failure and its in the sealed part of the engine, that would be covered would it?
Claims Engineer 1: yes, yeah
Me: what constitutes wear & tear…...if it’s a consumable…then that’s wear and tear? If it’s a crank then that’s not wear and tear unless its been caused by a consumable failure?
Claims Engineer 1: say your oil pump went, or it was leaking, and your oil level dropped, and as a result of that your crank broke, we would still cover it on that basis. things like that.
Me: So its not like that would be considered a failure of lubrication, that would be still a crank failure, that’s still a mechanical failure?
Claims Engineer 1: yes, yeah.
Claims Engineer 1: If the crank just snaps, and there's a little bit of scorching or burning, then we would still cover that.
Call 4
08/03/2019
Me: If there’s a fault that you don’t know the reason of, it would still be covered as long its one of the parts listed [i.e. the engine]?
Sales Agent 3: Yes, that’s right
Call 5
20/03/2019
Me - what constitutes mechanical failure?
Sales Agent 4 - [you are covered for] for insured parts that have been damaged by non-insured parts, so to give you an example if your engine fails due a hose or pipe failing we still cover the costs of the repairs to your engine, but obviously not the uninsured component. there are many ways, you know, a mechanical part can actually fail
me - fine, so if my oil pump goes, or something like that, then presumably the oil pump wouldn’t be covered, but any damage that was caused will be
Sales Agent 4- so, to covered components sir, if an uninsured part fails and then damages a covered item then we'll cover the covered item but obviously not the uninsured part itself.
Me - [what would happen if there was a bearing failure that caused consequential damage]?
Sales Agent 4 - if the bearing itself was an uninsured part then it goes on to, say, fail your pistons or your head gasket, then they are covered items so it would be covered under that
Sales Agent 4 - if there is an uninsured part and that goes on to fail a covered part in your engine, the covered item will be covered on a valid claim, just not the uninsured part
I sent the transcripts to the FOS and told them i have the recordings. However, legally i understand that you need the individuals consent to publish the recordings, unless its in the public interest, so i'd need the warranty provider to give me permission to give the recordings to the ombudsman. Though i'm not sure how it works if they're also recording the conversations, which they are.
....unless it was in the public interest, in which case i could post the videos all over youtube
If they are recording conversations (which they will be) you can also do so.
The line of call recording is a tricky one, no reason for it to be.
Basically as long as you are not using the call for personal data reasons (IE recording someone talking about their dream holiday and then selling their call to a sales agency specialising in holidays) you are OK
The line of call recording is a tricky one, no reason for it to be.
Basically as long as you are not using the call for personal data reasons (IE recording someone talking about their dream holiday and then selling their call to a sales agency specialising in holidays) you are OK
Lord Flasheart said:
one thing i also did was record a load of conversations with myself and sales aganets so that i could prove that they're advertising one thing and selling another
Call 1
08/03/2019
Agent 1 - As long as its listed in our book and its not excluded then we're going cover it for you
Agent 1 - As long as it states it [the part] in our document then we cant, obviously, get out of that claim
Me: if something snaps in the gearbox or the engine….nothing snaps of its own accord…..that’s still considered a mechanical failure, is it? even if its due to something else? As long as its not because I've caused it?
Agent 1: that’s correct, yeah. Even if its due to something else, so lets say a hose pipe fails you, the hose pipe wouldn’t be covered as that would be classed as a consumable, and lets say the hose pipe caused damage to your engine, we would still cover you for the engine but not the pipe
Me: in the event a hose stopped feeding oil to the engine and the parts broke down because they weren't lubricated, then that would be covered presumably?
Agent 1: yes.....the engine is an insured part under the policy so the engine would be covered
Me: So if I’m not putting oil to the engine and its not my fault and its the fault of the pipe....its still covered because its an insured part
Agent 1: that’s correct, yes
Call 2
08/03/2019
Agent 2 - you're essentially covered for any mechanical faults. Even sudden failures or overheating to the engine you're covered
Me: if there was a part that overheated or was, for whatever reason, the incorrect heat, and that caused the failure then that would be covered?
Agent 2: if it was anything I listed there, any of them components there [i.e. the engine], which would be [failed] due to the overheating, yes it would be covered
Call 3
08/03/2019
Claims Engineer 1 - with engine and gearbox claims, most things from those two parts would be a breakdown. You don’t get many consumable items on them.
Me: if its an internal fault…..as long as I haven’t contributed to the failure, I assume everything’s covered is it?
Claims Engineer 1: yes. I mean the main things we look at when assessing the claim is ""is the part covered"" [i.e the engine].
Me: parts don’t fail on their own, there's always something that contributes to the part failing, but presumably if it’s a mechanical failure and its in the sealed part of the engine, that would be covered would it?
Claims Engineer 1: yes, yeah
Me: what constitutes wear & tear…...if it’s a consumable…then that’s wear and tear? If it’s a crank then that’s not wear and tear unless its been caused by a consumable failure?
Claims Engineer 1: say your oil pump went, or it was leaking, and your oil level dropped, and as a result of that your crank broke, we would still cover it on that basis. things like that.
Me: So its not like that would be considered a failure of lubrication, that would be still a crank failure, that’s still a mechanical failure?
Claims Engineer 1: yes, yeah.
Claims Engineer 1: If the crank just snaps, and there's a little bit of scorching or burning, then we would still cover that.
Call 4
08/03/2019
Me: If there’s a fault that you don’t know the reason of, it would still be covered as long its one of the parts listed [i.e. the engine]?
Sales Agent 3: Yes, that’s right
Call 5
20/03/2019
Me - what constitutes mechanical failure?
Sales Agent 4 - [you are covered for] for insured parts that have been damaged by non-insured parts, so to give you an example if your engine fails due a hose or pipe failing we still cover the costs of the repairs to your engine, but obviously not the uninsured component. there are many ways, you know, a mechanical part can actually fail
me - fine, so if my oil pump goes, or something like that, then presumably the oil pump wouldn’t be covered, but any damage that was caused will be
Sales Agent 4- so, to covered components sir, if an uninsured part fails and then damages a covered item then we'll cover the covered item but obviously not the uninsured part itself.
Me - [what would happen if there was a bearing failure that caused consequential damage]?
Sales Agent 4 - if the bearing itself was an uninsured part then it goes on to, say, fail your pistons or your head gasket, then they are covered items so it would be covered under that
Sales Agent 4 - if there is an uninsured part and that goes on to fail a covered part in your engine, the covered item will be covered on a valid claim, just not the uninsured part
I sent the transcripts to the FOS and told them i have the recordings. However, legally i understand that you need the individuals consent to publish the recordings, unless its in the public interest, so i'd need the warranty provider to give me permission to give the recordings to the ombudsman. Though i'm not sure how it works if they're also recording the conversations, which they are.
....unless it was in the public interest, in which case i could post the videos all over youtube
Excellent transcripts!Call 1
08/03/2019
Agent 1 - As long as its listed in our book and its not excluded then we're going cover it for you
Agent 1 - As long as it states it [the part] in our document then we cant, obviously, get out of that claim
Me: if something snaps in the gearbox or the engine….nothing snaps of its own accord…..that’s still considered a mechanical failure, is it? even if its due to something else? As long as its not because I've caused it?
Agent 1: that’s correct, yeah. Even if its due to something else, so lets say a hose pipe fails you, the hose pipe wouldn’t be covered as that would be classed as a consumable, and lets say the hose pipe caused damage to your engine, we would still cover you for the engine but not the pipe
Me: in the event a hose stopped feeding oil to the engine and the parts broke down because they weren't lubricated, then that would be covered presumably?
Agent 1: yes.....the engine is an insured part under the policy so the engine would be covered
Me: So if I’m not putting oil to the engine and its not my fault and its the fault of the pipe....its still covered because its an insured part
Agent 1: that’s correct, yes
Call 2
08/03/2019
Agent 2 - you're essentially covered for any mechanical faults. Even sudden failures or overheating to the engine you're covered
Me: if there was a part that overheated or was, for whatever reason, the incorrect heat, and that caused the failure then that would be covered?
Agent 2: if it was anything I listed there, any of them components there [i.e. the engine], which would be [failed] due to the overheating, yes it would be covered
Call 3
08/03/2019
Claims Engineer 1 - with engine and gearbox claims, most things from those two parts would be a breakdown. You don’t get many consumable items on them.
Me: if its an internal fault…..as long as I haven’t contributed to the failure, I assume everything’s covered is it?
Claims Engineer 1: yes. I mean the main things we look at when assessing the claim is ""is the part covered"" [i.e the engine].
Me: parts don’t fail on their own, there's always something that contributes to the part failing, but presumably if it’s a mechanical failure and its in the sealed part of the engine, that would be covered would it?
Claims Engineer 1: yes, yeah
Me: what constitutes wear & tear…...if it’s a consumable…then that’s wear and tear? If it’s a crank then that’s not wear and tear unless its been caused by a consumable failure?
Claims Engineer 1: say your oil pump went, or it was leaking, and your oil level dropped, and as a result of that your crank broke, we would still cover it on that basis. things like that.
Me: So its not like that would be considered a failure of lubrication, that would be still a crank failure, that’s still a mechanical failure?
Claims Engineer 1: yes, yeah.
Claims Engineer 1: If the crank just snaps, and there's a little bit of scorching or burning, then we would still cover that.
Call 4
08/03/2019
Me: If there’s a fault that you don’t know the reason of, it would still be covered as long its one of the parts listed [i.e. the engine]?
Sales Agent 3: Yes, that’s right
Call 5
20/03/2019
Me - what constitutes mechanical failure?
Sales Agent 4 - [you are covered for] for insured parts that have been damaged by non-insured parts, so to give you an example if your engine fails due a hose or pipe failing we still cover the costs of the repairs to your engine, but obviously not the uninsured component. there are many ways, you know, a mechanical part can actually fail
me - fine, so if my oil pump goes, or something like that, then presumably the oil pump wouldn’t be covered, but any damage that was caused will be
Sales Agent 4- so, to covered components sir, if an uninsured part fails and then damages a covered item then we'll cover the covered item but obviously not the uninsured part itself.
Me - [what would happen if there was a bearing failure that caused consequential damage]?
Sales Agent 4 - if the bearing itself was an uninsured part then it goes on to, say, fail your pistons or your head gasket, then they are covered items so it would be covered under that
Sales Agent 4 - if there is an uninsured part and that goes on to fail a covered part in your engine, the covered item will be covered on a valid claim, just not the uninsured part
I sent the transcripts to the FOS and told them i have the recordings. However, legally i understand that you need the individuals consent to publish the recordings, unless its in the public interest, so i'd need the warranty provider to give me permission to give the recordings to the ombudsman. Though i'm not sure how it works if they're also recording the conversations, which they are.
....unless it was in the public interest, in which case i could post the videos all over youtube
Although, I do wonder whether the (often automated) warning at the start of the call might give you permission?
If it is worded "Calls may be recorded for training and quality purposes" (as they frequently seem to be), that implies they've granted you permission, no?
After all, if I say things like "You may borrow my hammer" or "You may eat this food", that's surely permission? And especially since your concern is quality, I'd say that's surely the end of it?
Of course if their wording is more direct ("we may monitor this call for..", "we will record this conversation", etc) then you're possibly out of luck.
Edit: I'm not a lawyer. What I've written might be horrifyingly incorrect.
Also, while I'm here editing, good on you for your perseverence. I really value knowing which companies to not consider doing business with! Here's hoping this warranty company does finally provide you with the service you need & before long you're back behind the wheel of your M5 again!
Edited by blueacid on Friday 5th April 12:21
I would treat the statement "calls may be recorded................." as an "invitation to record". Provided the purposes were the same as those stated. "quality & training". In this case "quality" would be prevalent as you want an accurate representation of all disclosed information.
Some Guy said:
I would treat the statement "calls may be recorded................." as an "invitation to record". Provided the purposes were the same as those stated. "quality & training". In this case "quality" would be prevalent as you want an accurate representation of all disclosed information.
I just rang a very popular warranty provider's main number to see what the message was."This and subsequent calls may be recorded for our joint protection"
I mean, come on, that's pretty much inviting you to record it surely?!
Its not illegal to record private conversations, its what you do with the recording which is likely to find you in trouble.
Recording a conversation like that, without telling the other person, and then requesting permission for it to be used in court (if it ever came to that) is perfectly fine.
Recording a conversation like that, without telling the other person, and then requesting permission for it to be used in court (if it ever came to that) is perfectly fine.
From my law degree days i would say that you would need to look at the spirit of a clause not just the literaly definition. Therefroe "calls may be recorded" would, by definition, give me the right to record but the spirit is probably that they are only referring to themselves.
that said, well known warranty company have intereted their own terms narrowly, and against the spirit of what would reasonably be interpreted, so i dont see why i should do them a favour on this point.
that said, well known warranty company have intereted their own terms narrowly, and against the spirit of what would reasonably be interpreted, so i dont see why i should do them a favour on this point.
I'd have to assume, legally, that if you advise someone that you might be recording their calls for training and quality purposes then it follows that they also have the right to record the calls for training and quality purposes.....or to make the public aware what is or isnt covered
I may be wrong, but don’t have time to check, but I’m sure I remember reading a post from a mod in either the original thread or one of many that were started in the forum feedback section which stated that once things were found to be fact rather than speculation, then the thread could stay
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff