Grrrrrrrr AA Gold Warranty

The_AA_Company_Representative

del76 wrote: »

Afternoon all,
Apologies for the long post, but looking for some advice, Mods please feel free to move this to consumer rights if you believe it is better suited there. I’m aware that AA Warranty monitors these forums for their negative feedback so everything written here is correct.

20 Months ago I purchased a Nissan Xtrail from a main Dealer, I paid extra for an 2 year AA Gold warranty with additional cover for turbo chargers and other things. Anyway 20 Months of trouble free motoring bar wear and tear items such as brakes, tyres etc and the engine management light popped on. Took the vehicle to my local garage who stuck it on the diagnostic equipment and said it was a faulty EGR valve.

Now when I took the policy out I was told it was a main dealer only warranty so I took it to my Nissan Dealer who has done all the services and told them the independent garage have already read the fault code as EGR valve. They said they would need to do their own diagnostic test first and that it was £70.

I asked them before they did that to confirm with AA warranty that the EGR valve was a covered part, which they did. They then read the diagnostic code as EGR Valve Seized and reported to AA Warranty who immediately turned round and said no not covered it’s down to a build up of carbon and not a sudden failure, its wear and tear. I asked them how they could be so definitive given the part hadn’t even been removed yet, and they said it always was.

I told them I didn’t agree and asked for their company details and FCA registration number, which they were very reluctant to give. Eventually they did and I found out they aren’t the AA but are Motorway Direct PLC. They said that they would re look at the complaint once the part was removed.

Anyway I authorised Nissan to remove the part and repair the vehicle and I would foot the bill if the AA warranty wouldn’t. The part was removed, The Garage tested the EGR Valve which wasn’t seized, and they suspected it was the electronics either the transformer or solenoid. With this information the garage went back to AA warranty and they asked for pictures, a video was even sent showing the technician being able to manually operate the EGR Valve.

I have paid for the work, the garage gave me a bit of a discount and have been nothing but helpful in trying to deal with AA warranty. I have the old part in my possession and have taken it to another garage who will also examine it for me, but their initial examination states the Valve is not seized and opening and closing when operated manually, there is carbon build up consistent with it coming off of a car that has been used, but that this wouldn’t cause the failure.

AA warranty say that it is still down to wear and tear and a build up of carbon and won’t reimburse me. I’ve asked them for a deadlock letter stating we cannot reach agreement, which they are going to send.

So the question is where do I go from here, I am tired of dealing with the terrible customer service at AA warranty and believe they are just hoping I go away, I’m quite happy to take them to small claims court with the evidence I already have, but as they are covered by the FCA would this be a better avenue?

Hello del76, if there is anything you would like us to address, please email the details to [EMAIL="chat@theaa.com"]chat@theaa.com[/EMAIL] including your full name, address and policy number with Reference FOR64469. Kind Regards, The AA

jumperjohn

AdrianC wrote: »

I was sceptical about the claim that WD would cover perfectly predictable and common carbon build-up, too - but a quick look at their website says that they make a sales point of covering wear-and-tear on a wide range of components, paying a mileage- and age-based %age of cost - 100% parts and labour for <60k mile cars... Sounds like the policyholder can't possibly lose, right?

Yeh, right. My mild scepticism turns to full-blown alarm bells. No business can survive if they regularly pay out more than they take in. Basic economics, right? So they MUST pay out, on average, less than the cost of the policy. A chunk less, because they also have to pay for admin/marketing/etc.

Which leaves only one option to stay in business... Find any grounds possible to deny a big chunk of the inevitable claims...

The Telegraph sell Warranty Direct policies, What Car sell Warranty Direct policies, Honest John gives Warranty Direct his "Hats approved trader" award.

If you have nevery used them then you can't comment. I have used them for years and they have always paid for warranty work. The complaints arise from people trying to claim for items not covered or for pre existing conditions.
My succesful claims have been:
Head gasket failure, replaced and head skimmed - Omega
Airmatic suspension, replaced unit, MB E500
ECU - Lexus GS

The above items were covered. I went to the garage, diagnosis made, repair done and claims paid. My current car, a BMW 325i has WD cover.

This is my real experience.

AdrianC

jumperjohn wrote: »

The Telegraph sell Warranty Direct policies, What Car sell Warranty Direct policies, Honest John gives Warranty Direct his "Hats approved trader" award.

So we can include some lucrative commission in the premiums minus (payouts plus costs) = profit equation, then...?

My succesful claims have been:
Head gasket failure, replaced and head skimmed - Omega
Airmatic suspension, replaced unit, MB E500
ECU - Lexus GS

Care to guess the payouts on those? How about the premiums for the policies?

So that either puts you _way_ ahead of the game, or it makes used car warranty providers one of the major unsung philanthropists of our time. I know where my guess lies.

jumperjohn

AdrianC wrote: »

So we can include some lucrative commission in the premiums minus (payouts plus costs) = profit equation, then...?



Care to guess the payouts on those? How about the premiums for the policies?

So that either puts you _way_ ahead of the game, or it makes used car warranty providers one of the major unsung philanthropists of our time. I know where my guess lies.

Of course you are very welcome to guess away.

Not all car warranty providers are the same, which I gather is the point of this post. Please continue to be a sceptic and I’m sure after reading your post that you would never buy a car warranty but if you do decide to take the plunge then please be well informed that, for me at least, there is a provider that has worked very well in my time of need.

Claims were approximately: £1200, £2200 and £3200. I don't remember premiums but they obviously were worth the cost.

I did ask the question to Warranty Direct at how they make money. The chap suggested that from 100% of revenue 75% is paid out.

Imagine that, buying a product and it working?

AdrianC

jumperjohn wrote: »

Not all car warranty providers are the same

The basic maths is, however.

Claims were approximately: £1200, £2200 and £3200. I don't remember premiums but they obviously were worth the cost.

I did ask the question to Warranty Direct at how they make money. The chap suggested that from 100% of revenue 75% is paid out.

So for your three claims alone, they would have taken in nearly £9,000 in premiums.

With IPT (I don't recall if that's applicable to these products - anybody know?) and VAT, the bottom line cost to the purchaser would have been in the region of £11k.

If you'd been asked to pay one tenth of that in premiums, you would - I'm sure - have balked.

Thank you for proving my point so eloquently. You are most definitely atypical, and are ahead of the game by a VERY long way. You have my genuinely heartfelt congratulations.

del76

Just a quick update,

The AA are back in contact, which is strange as last time I spoke to them they were denying the claim and I had requested the deadlock letter so I could take further action, maybe they have noticed this thread? and seem to be vaguely open to the idea that they may of been too hasty to deny the claim.

Had a chat with one of their technical people as opposed to the computer says no person I spoke to last time. Who has gone away to look into the video and speak to the garage I had asked to give a second independant opinion.

There's a message on the phone asking me to call them back I shall let you know.

Although even if they have now deceided to pay out it shouldn't be this difficult to claim, if I hadn't paid for the work myself the vehicle would still be in the garage.

del76

Right all sorted,
After getting a second garage to confirm to the AA that the part had not failed due to a carbon build up and that carbon on an exhaust part was a natural occurrence of combustion the AA have paid up in full.

The only thing that concerns me is how many legitimate claims they wriggle out of with the wear and tear or gradual failure get out clause.
To require 5 phone conversations, 2 garage reports and the threat of small claims action to get it resolved is not good customer service in my opinion.