50+ phone calls offering to extend my vehicle warranty
Complaint
bill smith
Country: United States
caller fails to identify the company before asking for credit card information on an extended warranty. I went through five levels of "approval" before reaching the closer -- but he failed. When asked to be removed from the call list, the caller (representing Consumer Direct Warranty Services) refused to acknowledge my removal request and proceed to verbally abused me -- finally, he hung up on me. Fortunately, I have an email from the rude individual, and have access to their network. I've filed a complaint on the company via the do-not-call list.
Comments
I am seeking a refund from the seller, but so far it is a complete run around. Might be different if I was a lawyer,ha-ha. Hummmmm , my friend is?
They are SCUM more than a SCAM. I am surprized that they are still in business ripping people off, but what can I say, They Got Me.
Please be aware, they are BAD, and deceitful.
sometimes when u work with companies that dont have a clue u need to draw them a picture, so they understand the problem. My next step is to file small claims for the entire amount I have Paid, plus interest paid, and punitive damages, they have a F rating, also being saught by Insurance department of Ca, for operating without a licencse
Don't know what action to take now but wish I'd have known about this sooner.
Oh well.
bj
Absolute Auto Protection sold me a warranty for $2500 with a $160 down and 18 monthly payments with Consumer Direct Warranty (CDW). When I needed to use the coverage, they declined my claim saying I did not maintain my vehicle. All my records were up to date and sent to them with all the correct maintenance. My service agent at Folsom Ford here in CA said he has had nothing but problems with CDW, and said they were hard to work with and very rarely pay out. He said they only pay out it seems when the repair is under $200, so they can still continue to collect your money!
I had been making payments for 10 months, only had driven 5000 miles, had two oil changes and one regular maintenance service. Ford said this company is a scam and committing fraud.
pleas help
In order to save the effort of retyping everything, here's a copy of the demand letter I recently sent to them explaining everything:
To Whom It May Concern:
Please be advised that I am hereby rescinding my Vehicle Product Warranty, Agreement #XXXXX purchased on XXXXXX through Consumer Direct Warranty Services (CDWS) as the agent for First Choice Warranty Corporation (FCWC) on the grounds of fraud in the inducement. Specifically, at the time I was solicited to purchase the warranty, the salesman made numerous false statements to me about the terms of the warranty, and further expressly represented to me that the warranty covered (among other things) the replacement of catalytic converters and CV joints.
Relying on his statements, I paid a deposit of $XXXX on XXXXX and another two payments of $XXXXX for June and July. Today I took my vehicle in for repair, and an itemization of the repairs needed were submitted to your claims department. My claim for coverage for each and every single item needing repair was denied, leaving me with a repair bill of over $4000 that should have been covered by the warranty. According to your claims department:
• The leak in the valve gasket is not covered because it is not “an internal component of the engine that requires lubrication for operation.” Yet, in reading coverage for “Seals & Gaskets”, these are covered if they are seals for “covered components”. As the name implies, a “valve cover” is a cover for the valves. Valves are internal components of the engine that require lubrication, and are “Covered Components”. Thus, the valve cover seal is a failed seal of a Covered Component. Under CDWS’s overly restrictive reading of the contract, a gasket or seal would never be covered since a gasket or seal, by itself, is not an internal component that requires lubrication for operation. Coverage is further narrowed by additional language excluding any incidental, consequential, or subsequent damage to any component of the vehicle, covered or not covered, making the warranty completely illusory. The placement of this exclusion in the “Covered Components” section instead of where it should be, e.g. the “Exclusions” section is particularly deceptive and misleading to the consumer.
• My claim for replacement of the suppressor wires was denied on the grounds that it was not listed as a Covered Component under the “Electrical” definition. Yet, in reading what items are covered under “Electrical”, none of the electrical components would really be covered in light of FCWC’s sweeping exclusion for “electrical equipment, including, but not limited to . . . wiring or wiring harness . . .” By removing coverage for electrical wiring, I cannot think of one component of any vehicle that would really be covered by the warranty. This is especially true since the claims representatives are given unlimited authority to make it up as they go with the “including, but not limited to” exclusion verbiage deceptively placed on page 7, not on page 4 under “Exclusions” where the average consumer would expect to find it.
• With respect to the catalytic converter, the salesman expressly stated to me that this was a covered component. The reason I remember this was because I already had to have one of the converters replaced, and given the mileage on my car at the time, I expected that I would need to replace the other one in the not too distant future.
Based on the above, I am placing FCWC and CDWS on notice that they have 30 days from the date of receipt of this letter in which to refund me the entire amount of premiums paid ($XXXX) or otherwise repair my vehicle as indicated in the claim dated xxxxx.
MEPCO is directed to immediately cease and desist all further contact with me under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, as I dispute any amount owed to FCWC or CDWS and am not going to pay any further amounts.
scottashley@juno.com