AA Breakdown Cover Complaint. Can Anyone Help?

AdrianC

---lee--- wrote: »

For balance, my last experience of the AA:

Breakdown recovery, not mechanical warranty.

The_AA_Company_Representative

kyle6432 wrote: »

How does my post not make sense? They advertise breakdown and repair cover - I purchased it, not just roadside assistance. The cover states that if and when I break down the AA will attend to fix the vehicle by the roadside, if it can't be fixed they will tow me to a garage and cover the parts and labour cost up to £500 (minus £35 excess).

There are certain exclusions to the policy such as they do cover the clutch but not the mechanical plates or if the car hasn't been serviced regular it will void cover.

My point was my car was serviced and maintained properly and the mechanical component failed, hence if it fails then the AA are to cover me those costs. It's a misleading service in the fact that generally anything on a car that stops functioning can be determined as wear and tear. The AA state that they cover the repair of a turbo failure, the agent advised that 90% of turbo failures are wear and tear, so technically they cover 10% of turbo failures. Very shrewd service.

Hi kyle6432, if there is anything you would like us to look into for you, please email the details to chat@theaa.com including your full name, address and membership number with Reference FOR64564. Kind Regards, The AA

kyle6432

AdrianC wrote: »

<shrug> It's exactly what they're doing - diagnosing a fault and (where it's relevant) the cause of it.



Really?

What age and mileage? Turbo diesel, I presume? Full service history? Original turbo or replacement? So far all you've told us is that it's a £1400 Megane. A quick look on Autotrader confirms that we're probably talking 10yo/100k miles. Exactly what sort of life expectancy would you predict for a turbo?



Not at all. I'm a realist when it comes to persuading a used-car warranty to pay for an expensive part on a cheap old car, especially a part that - assuming it doesn't fail almost immediately - is almost certain to live until it dies of old age and wear.

The reality is that older turbos DO die of wear and tear. Frequently, and very rarely because of anything else.



So what, in their expert opinion, caused it to fail? Foreign object damage? Lubrication failure? Cracked housing? Turbos are very simple - if precisely built - things.

I find myself at a loss on here with your replies to my post, although I see your point on a few things I find it difficult on others.

The way "you" describe my experience from your prospective is that I was foolish to take this sort of cover out, which I can't agree with because I wanted peace of mind. However if what you suggest is correct it makes me feel worse towards the AA and service I received because they took my money effectively knowing what you have stated in this post;

i.e the car is old with high miles and likely to break down for which they will not cover.

Feel somewhat more cheated now.

I can't doubt that old turbo's and any part for that matter will die, but when two separate mechanics with a lot of experience between "diagnose" the fault as not being wear and tear why should I not believe them?

Also I wouldn't judge a turbo to be very simplistic, unless you are a mechanic or work in the auto trade yourself I highly doubt you would be able diagnose/fix the problem yourself. Turbo's are expensive to replace and fit, if the were simple they wouldn't be that much of a hassle.

kyle6432

The_AA_Company_Representative wrote: »

Hi kyle6432, if there is anything you would like us to look into for you, please email the details to [EMAIL="chat&#64;theaa.com"]chat@theaa.com[/EMAIL] including your full name, address and membership number with Reference FOR64564. Kind Regards, The AA

I would rather not speak about my issues with you on here whilst I'm waiting for a reply from your company representatives.

AdrianC

kyle6432 wrote: »

The way "you" describe my experience from your prospective is that I was foolish to take this sort of cover out

Not what I'm saying at all.

Always remember that the warranty is no more or less than an insurance policy. You pay a premium, you hope that you never need to claim. If you do, you hope they pay out. It's a simple financial gamble. Do I expect to benefit by more than I've paid? There's also the scale-of-payout issue. Do I expect to have a bill paid that I couldn't possibly fund by myself? (House buildings insurance, or the third-party injury element of car insurance are the best examples of that).

which I can't agree with because I wanted peace of mind.

If you mean "peace of mind" in a "It won't ever break down" way, then - no - that's not what it's intended to cover. The warranty company can't influence that. If you want that, buy a new car, not a 10yo, £1500 one. But even that's no promise...

If you mean "peace of mind" in a "If it does break down, I should get some of the cost of repairs back" way, then - yes - that's precisely what it gives. Some people will finish the policy way ahead. Are they the lucky ones? Depends on your definition, since they've inevitably had substantial problems with the car during the warranty period. I don't call that lucky.

It all comes back to realistic expectations.
Can you realistically expect a 10yo, £1500 car to be mechanically perfect and not suffer any wear and tear problems? No, of course you can't. You can realistically expect it to be near the end of its life, and be facing large bills as it gets closer to that end of life.
Can you expect the warranty to insure you against all those age/wear-and-tear related issues and bills? No, of course you can't. Not for any realistic premium.
Can you expect the warranty to insure you against failures that aren't age/wear-and-tear related? Yes, that's precisely what it's for - and it's priced to reflect the risk they assume.

Yes, a very few warranties claim to cover wear-and-tear related claims, albeit with a "betterment" sliding scale of %age coverage. It's only basic common sense to see that that is either going to be considerably more expensive or have significant restrictions. Remember, these warranties are on the market for one reason only - to make the provider a profit. Do you think that a bad thing? In another thread, somebody gives figures from one provider of 75% of premiums are paid out in claims on average. That means that the average punter is financially 25% "down" (more, if you include VAT etc) on the deal.

However if what you suggest is correct it makes me feel worse towards the AA and service I received because they took my money effectively knowing what you have stated in this post;

i.e the car is old with high miles and likely to break down for which they will not cover.

TBF to them - and to all other such providers, because to my mind this is more a problem of your expectations than their coverage - it's clearly stated in the Ts & Cs for the policy you purchased. All that's being argued over is the detail of your specific claim, and where it lies against those exclusions. The Ts & Cs also give a payout cap of the car's purchase price. How quickly do you think they would get to that cap by paying out to replace every single worn and age-dilapidated item on a 10yo, £1500 car? And what would the premium be if they expected to do that regularly, whilst still retaining 25% of premiums for marketing and administration?

I can't doubt that old turbo's and any part for that matter will die, but when two separate mechanics with a lot of experience between "diagnose" the fault as not being wear and tear why should I not believe them?

I've asked you what they diagnosed the fault as. All you've said is "mechanical malfunction", which says precisely nothing. If that's all they've given the claim assessor, then it's no wonder the claim was rejected, because the claim assessor is then down to balance of probabilities. And that'll factor in the other things I asked you - the service history of the car, the mileage and whether the turbo was original. This is all very relevant to understanding the likely cause, and the probability of you getting paid. IF it truly is a part fault, then they should pay. How likely is that in a 10yo, 100k turbo on a £1500 car, compared to the likelihood of simple wear and tear? Massively unlikely. So they (and you) are going to have to prove that yours is that exception. Simply shrugging and saying "Mechanical malfunction, innit?" - well, would YOU go with that if the shoe was on the other foot?

Also I wouldn't judge a turbo to be very simplistic, unless you are a mechanic or work in the auto trade yourself I highly doubt you would be able diagnose/fix the problem yourself. Turbo's are expensive to replace and fit, if the were simple they wouldn't be that much of a hassle.

I'm not a professional mechanic, no, so I don't have a horse in this race at all. I'm merely a tolerably competent DIYer. My main cars were turbocharged for over a decade, and I did damn near all work on them myself - including replacing the turbo on one, and diagnosing and resolving boost issues on another, thanks. Trust me, the turbo itself is simple. All they really are is a pair of fans on a joint shaft, with a few fairly straightforward bits around the edge to manage the amount of boost and how it's delivered. Even variable-vane turbos don't involve anything particularly complex, although they are more trouble-prone, especially on diesels, primarily due to carbon clogging the mechanism. Nothing brain-surgery at all, and very very little to go wrong.

Simple doesn't mean cheap, of course, because they are very precise - they spin fifty or more times faster than the engine, and need to be very robust - since they get incredibly hot, to the point that it's not unusual to see them glowing red or even white.

kyle6432

AdrianC wrote: »

Not what I'm saying at all.

Always remember that the warranty is no more or less than an insurance policy. You pay a premium, you hope that you never need to claim. If you do, you hope they pay out. It's a simple financial gamble.

Reading your reply I couldn't agree more. I'm still a little bummed out by the situation but I can't deny that the company runs these products to make money, they are a business after all.

I won't be renewing the policy itself, the cons definatley outweigh the pros.

If I was in a position to buy a new car believe me I would, unfortunatley I can't.

I will still pursue the matter with the AA however as I do feel I have a genuine complaint, I'm not expecting a great outcome but at least I have tried to get my point across.

I can't put these issues down to my expectations totally, although I do fell I was easily led into the policy without thoroughly looking into it.

I only wish I had your advice before I took out this cover, lesson learned.

Nodding_Donkey

byronwells wrote: »

Alright guys


I am wondering if anyone can help me here... I took out AA breakdown cover on Tuesday morning gone on the believe that they would be able to fix my car which broke down the night before. I paid for the whole year up front of £95 instead of the £9.99 per month option (because we thought it would be cheaper to do it that way and all the problems would be sorted) I didn't contact AA customer service until Thursday gone and said that the car broke down that very same morning..


That's not the issue at all. When the AA guy came out to fix my car they advise that it would need a new clutch and also the battery was faulty. There was no point in fixing the battery until the clutch was fixed. The AA guys say he could take the car home or to a garage but only to one


I called my local garage and they quoted me £256 for a new clutch which was a bit steep. So I told the AA guy to take it home because I thought I was going to scrap it. Could of hours latter after ringing around a lot of garages I found somewhere that could do the whole lot including battery and recovery cost for £247..


So now I am out of pocket big time. AA could not fixed my car at all. So I have wasted £95 pounds on a service that I don't need.


Is there anyway that I can get the money back?

QFT
Hopefully not. But hopefully they will read this, realise you tried to defraud them and cancel your membership with no refund.

kyle6432

Update.

After various back and forth emails/letters/phone calls with the AA I asked them to review the recordings of when I first took out the policy.

AA have admitted mis selling this cover (product) to me and gave me a full refund for the costs I incurred.

As I explained before the wording used by the agent to sell me the policy was not in line with regulations. So I win this one.